Dover Penn ID trial

[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?

I also note you did not address the remainder of my post. Is this what you were referring to in the second portion of your post?

 

[rwguinn]

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.

and just to throw more confusion into the mix, the round pebbles in a streambed are not "Selected", they are CREATED.
Erosion does tat sort of thing. The pebbles are not positioned by being round. They are round by virtue of their position.

 

[BillHoyt]

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

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

 

[BillHoyt]

Who said anything about mate selection?

You did, and I quoted you back. I've read enough of your nonsense now to conclude you're having fun at JREF expense. I will ignore you from now on. Go find a kiddie site, please; this is for mature people to discuss issues, not for pimply faced adolescents who've broken their video game players and need to find another way to kill time.

 

[PatKelley]

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

 

[BillHoyt]

Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

 

[BillHoyt]

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?

No, mercutio, I'm afraid our friend is just blowin' smoke up our collective rear end. When other scientists use the term "evolution" for stars, for example, they mean it in the same way that engineers speak of the "evolution" of the automobile over the past century-plus. That is all. Deliberately twisting the meaning as is being done here, is equivocation at best.

 

[PatKelley]

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

Okay. Now I get it.

 

[BillHoyt]

Okay. Now I get it.

Kewl.

 

[delphi_ote]

Except on page 15 of this thread.

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

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging.

 

[Mercutio]

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging.

Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

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

 

[delphi_ote]

Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Yea, but he's certainly been getting nasty about this argument as the thread has gone on.

Read the posts, fool.

You've completely missed the point, fool.

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care.

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

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

 

[chipmunk stew]

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

Ah, yes. Quite remarkable. And in some cases, quite ironic.

 

[Melendwyr]

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying. We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

 

[Melendwyr]

Except on page 15 of this thread.

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

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

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

 

[Melendwyr]

You did, and I quoted you back.

Wrong. You're talking about certain forms of sexual selection. I'm talking about the random allotment of mating partners, which by itself can lead to a change in the distribution of traits.

It's impossible to argue with people too desperate to score points (or too stupid) to understand the opponent's statements properly. This explains a lot of the protracted arguments I've seen you get into.

 

[Mercutio]

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

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

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically. This is what you say in your last sentence, and this was my point.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct. Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection. Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply...your comment notwithstanding.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong.

 

[Melendwyr]

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically.

But this is wrong.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct.

Correct.

Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.

No, it's not.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection.

Correct.

Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply...

Also correct.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong.

No.

 

[Mercutio]

But this is wrong.

...because...

 

[Melendwyr]

...because...

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes. It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population. The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance. If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.