Dover Penn ID trial

[Melendwyr]

But it is. Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection. A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator.

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

That is my point. You spoke of rocks in a streambed. It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection."

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

 

[Melendwyr]

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?

Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.

 

[Mercutio]

I must be misunderstanding something you say here...

Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon). You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve". So now...the context does call for the word "evolve", your argument was that natural selection does apply, and I asked Hoyt whether his clarification might somehow reconcile your view with mine.

Of course not.

 

[Melendwyr]

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.

Natural selection is a process. Evolution is a result. Asking whether a result is a subset of a group of processes is inane.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon).

Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve".

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.

 

[BillHoyt]

In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'? Did you even read my previous posts?

"Natural selection" is a term within biology. Its narrowing within biology, therefore, is a narrowing overall. Yes, you've confused terms. Yes, I've read your posts, and stand by everything I've written thus far.

 

[BillHoyt]

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

 

[PatKelley]

Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

Technically, that's genetic drift. Natural Selection is operating on a current population. Iterations of that cause a subset of the population to be selected for the next generation. There is no change, just alteration in proportions of the population. Genetic drift allows mutations within a population, and is the second contributing factor besides iterative selection pressure or Natural Selection.

 

[Melendwyr]

Technically, that's genetic drift.

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

 

[PatKelley]

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

 

[PatKelley]

Double-Post. Sorry. Nothing to see.

 

[PatKelley]

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

 

[BillHoyt]

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

Mutation pressure is mutation pressure. It is not random drift. It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

 

[BillHoyt]

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

 

[Melendwyr]

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.

Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

 

[Mercutio]

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.

Except on page 15 of this thread.

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

 

[PatKelley]

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure."
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation. In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection

 

[PatKelley]

Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve. A reduction in the reproduction rate of some cannot be described in an infinite series, as all end up with an infinite number of offspring, and it is difficult to parse infinities as greater or lesser.

And to clarify:

infinite
     adj 1: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or
            magnitude;

You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

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.

Change in the entire population shifts the bell-curve. It does not select against a population, as all individuals are still present. I have not accomplished selection pressure by crippling the right foreleg of every member of a herd, though over time the distribution of mobility will be shifted towards lameness. The distribution of lameness has changed; the population has not.

By the way, the jagged rocks in a streambed argument is very much Lamarckian in that it involves somatic organism change representing the population change over time. It does not, however, eliminate members of a population from contributing to the next iteration of sorting which is the selection pressure mechanism.

 

[Melendwyr]

It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

Who said anything about mate selection? Randomly choosing which organisms will mate will often result in a change in the gene distribution of the resulting population. No special selective pressures need to exist.

Read the posts, fool. Then take the time to actually grasp their meaning.

 

[Melendwyr]

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve.

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

 

[PatKelley]

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

Maybe you do not understand "Unlimited." Absent limits, there are no selection pressures that prevent one organism from contributing to the next generation. With an unlimited amount of sand to be sorted, have I changed the prevalence of large grains by putting more over here than over there?