Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.
First, your instance above is an example of a distribution, not a selection. It establishes properties within a population, but does not serve to select some based on those properties above others.
And the location of an object is not one of its properties? Location has a lot to do with biological natural selection. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, location may make all the difference to survival.PatKelley said:
Population 1
| _
| / \
|__/ \__
Population 2
| _
| / \
|__/ \__Population 1
| _
| / \
|__/ \__
Population 2
|
|_/\______Okay, I'm happy to go with this. We won't consider an accidental attribute of objects to be something that is subject to selection pressure. However, this means that when we speak of the processes behind evolution, we have to list mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, ..., and the luck of location.PatKelley said:
Population 1 might not just become a simple subset, but two disjoint subsets 1a and 1b. By choice, but also possibly by luck, the distribution of properties might not be uniform between the two subsets. Imagine, for example, that the mating practices of the creatures are such that the two populations end up each with one primary founder. Then the gene pools can go their separate ways. Would we not call this selection?
Mmmmmkay...but those other ways do not come under the definition of the term "natural selection". It may well be that selection of some sort is happening naturally...but the term "natural selection" is narrowly defined, and does not include these others.
So what would you call these selections made by nature? Non-artificial selection?
There is a change in the distribution because of the selection pressures.
But there is no selection pressure defined in this example. No properties of the population are distinguished as being selected; it's a description of what happens to the entire population. A population as a whole has a rate of death. This is not a selection pressure; it is an observation of the entire population, and does not refer to any sub-set or other properties. It is not representative of selection pressure because, like the disaster example. it does not establish some property in the population that is selected for or against; it is a description of the population as a whole changing over time. Rocks get rounder. People die. Objects fall. These are not examples of selection pressure.
For the record, I never meant to imply anyone was full of anything, and I'd like to say these conversations helped me to get clear the concept in my own mind, and how it could be applied in a nonbiological situation. So, thanks in general
I did not take your statements as a commentary on my crapological status. Nevertheless, I was misusing terminology and now I, too, am clear. Not in the Scientological sense, of course.Pat said:
Now if you just understood what you read. From the Big Bang through all cosmology - novas, supernovas, black holes; planet formation, geology, weather - through and including The Theory itself all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.
Got some data to back up that wrong assertion?
Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes. There are still more against than for it.
It's the states that are being selected, not the rocks themselves.
Since you don't have a definition for "micro-ev vs. macro-ev", "significant event", or "catastrophic", this statement is entirely meaningless.
Okay, so let's take a look at the example and what states exist.
I'll start with the population diagram again, with population as the x-axis and roundness as the y.
[FONT=Courier New]
| _
| / \
|_/ \__
|________
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]
| _
| / \
|__/ \_
|________
[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]
|
| _
|____/ \_
|________
[/FONT]Now, one vote for Cashman and ninety for all of the others... well, I'd say that's either selection pressure or God's will...
Home schooling. I blame home schooling.
Should I now infer that mutation and selection is not 'slow'? What part of The Theory suggests otherwise? Obviously the fossils do.
To you, apparently. Hopefully a brighter bulb grasps the import and responds to it.chipmunk_stew said:
You mean, hopefully someone agrees with you that you said something important. This dim bulb responded:
Of course I can, even though I agree with you that nobody here understands what I said.
Or is that meaningless for y'all too?
There are at least a couple possible answers to the question "Why doesn't anyone understand me?"
K YOU MEAN in language that can't readily be misinterpreted.K YOU MEAN.
Yup, that would be meaningless to me. Now, if you'd mentioned quantum mechanics ...Hammegk said:
Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?
You forgot 4. I have a different set of understandings (and mis-understandings) than someone else does.chipmunk_stew said:
Why? It seems straight-forward to me.Paul said:
Okay:
I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.Hammegk said:
My question addresses this:
from which I inferred that you consider relatively major ("macro-ev") biological changes "significant events", but not relatively minor ("micro-ev") ones. What makes one "significant" and the other not?hammegk said:
HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?
I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts.