Role of reproduction or survival in evolution

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'll answer with what is immediately below in your post:

The above quote is ugly, and not really how I'd look at evolution, but isn't incorrect.

As I said it is an ugly phrase, but again you aren't reading what is written. I did not say that reproduction is natural selection but that successful reproduction equates to success in natural selection. There is a (not very) subtle difference in meaning there.

So it is an eccentric use of the word "will" then... More like "may".

Being born will result in dying. Falling may result in injury. One will always happen, the other might happen.

Which is unfortunate, because otherwise that quote above would have almost been conventional, even if put backwards.

Barring any unnatural selection events (lightning, meteor), successful reproduction will be the result of success in selection, and so, reproductive success will be a good measure of the success in the selection process.

[Bill Thompson 75]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "survives the process of natural selection". If you don't mean reproduction.

"Survives the process of natural selection" will result in opportunities to reproduce.


You say that an organism could "survive the process of natural selection" yet fail to reproduce because it is unlucky. I say that this organism has failed to reproduce, so if you want to look at it in an odd fashion, it wasn't naturally selected. It didn't "survive the process of natural selection".

Imagine two male organisms surviving the elements of nature right up the moment of reproductive maturity and then dying in the next moment, however there was only one female to mate with and only one of the males had the opportunity to do so. Both can be said to have survived the processes of natural selection but that did not necessarily entail reproductive success for both.


If survival was the key factor, then whenever a trait caused a tradeoff between evolving towards reproductive success or towards improved survivability, then the trait would evolve towards improved survivability at the expense of reproductive success. This is opposite to what is observed, where many traits have evolved that are detrimental to the organism's survivability but improve reproductive success. For example the peacock's tail.

As I have repeated, survival is a necessary factor in reproduction, but not necessarily the key factor. For exception, the peacock's tail.


As to "luck selection" - that doesn't exist. Most organisms are fairly similar to their siblings, and yet only a small fraction reproduce. Those that do so are both lucky and adequately adapted. This is natural selection, which is a "percentage game" and probabilistic in nature.

I think you are over-analyzing the "luck" aspect, e.g., by saying that "luck selection" does not exist but it is a percentage of natural selection.


If survival was the key, then why are cod so bad at it? Any individual cod fry has less than a one in a million chance of surviving to reproduce. The reproductive strategy has evolved that means that more fry spawn, whereas if individual survival was the driver, fewer fry would spawn, but with more "investment" of parental resources that would improve the odds of survival.

Again, this would be a good rebuttal if I had ever claimed that survival was the key. And again, if an organism dies before reproductive maturity, how will that organism reproduce?


No, this is your interpretation of the theory of evolution. Where did you get this from? Because I suspect you have misunderstood what someone has told you, or you have misunderstood what you have read.

It seems that you are trying top present enough counterexamples to disprove the concept of selection in evolution.

My interpretation is that variation and selection are key components of evolution. I haven't found anyone outside this forum who disagrees, except those who deny evolution altogether.


We are pointing out that evolution works in a different manner to the way that you think.

So, you are saying that evolution does not involve variation and selection?


It is valid to point out exceptions that your mechanism can't account for, but which the standard understanding can.

Again, the mechanisms that I have constantly claimed are the key mechanisms to evolution (not necessarily the only mechanisms) are variation and selection. How is this not standard?


We have given you examples where your proposed mechanism couldn't produce the results seen in nature. A lot of discussion in biology involves determining how certain traits can have reproductive benefit. For example, if* there is a genetic element, then homosexual behaviour seems to not have any evolutionary benefit. Several mechanisms have been proposed for a benefit, these usually invoke increased success with heterosexual relationships for people with this trait, or their kin.

*This is an example, I don't have much of an opinion either way in the nature-nurture debate, except that I understand hormones sometimes do seem to play a part, which could imply a genetic component. There are threads devoted to this I think.

No, I am not going to follow you off into a whole other side-tracking thread.

[Dancing David]

I do not recall ever posting 'natural selection as survival'. Did you make this up also?

Well Bill T. 75, I already posted many instances where you said that.
The environment tests candidate organisms to see if they have traits that will aid in survival. The test includes factors such as temperature, predation, humidity, and competition. The environment then passes the candidates which perform satisfactorily on the test and lets them reproduce, and fails the others by killing them. The test is the mechanism for this process called natural selection.




You will need a few more exceptions to disprove the Theory of Evolution.

So how does you view of natural selection explain them? They are not exception, in the plant kingdom there is a preponderance of angiosperms, so how does that work in your form of natural selection? "A few more exceptions'? 90% of plants is 'few more exceptions'?

Nice attempt to pretend that a critique of your version of natural seelction is the Theory of Evolution, you are a charmer.

I call Poe's law! :D

[Dancing David]

It seems that you are trying top present enough counterexamples to disprove the concept of selection in evolution.

My interpretation is that variation and selection are key components of evolution. I haven't found anyone outside this forum who disagrees, except those who deny evolution altogether.



So, you are saying that evolution does not involve variation and selection?



.

Nope, goal shifter, it is your version of 'natural selection' which is being critiqued, not the theory of evolution.

:P

[jimbob]

Barring any unnatural selection events (lightning, meteor), successful reproduction will be the result of success in selection, and so, reproductive success will be a good measure of the success in the selection process.

Most organisms are pretty similar to their parents yet the vast majority of them fail to reproduce. This isn't because most of them are poorly adapted; if they were, their parent's wouldn't have reproduced. Most organisms are unlucky.


In the case of the sunfish, one would have about ten times more chance of winning the jackpot in the UK national lottery with a single ticket than a single egg would have of reproducing.

Luck *is* important.

[jimbob]

You still haven't explained what you mean by "survives the process of natural selection". If you don't mean reproduction.

"Survives the process of natural selection" will result in opportunities to reproduce.


You say that an organism could "survive the process of natural selection" yet fail to reproduce because it is unlucky. I say that this organism has failed to reproduce, so if you want to look at it in an odd fashion, it wasn't naturally selected. It didn't "survive the process of natural selection".

Imagine two male organisms surviving the elements of nature right up the moment of reproductive maturity and then dying in the next moment, however there was only one female to mate with and only one of the males had the opportunity to do so. Both can be said to have survived the processes of natural selection but that did not necessarily entail reproductive success for both.



No - one reproduced, the other didn't. The one that did was "naturally selected" - to use the phrase in a slightly odd manner. The one that failed to reproduce was not naturally selected because it didn't pass its genes on.



If survival was the key factor, then whenever a trait caused a tradeoff between evolving towards reproductive success or towards improved survivability, then the trait would evolve towards improved survivability at the expense of reproductive success. This is opposite to what is observed, where many traits have evolved that are detrimental to the organism's survivability but improve reproductive success. For example the peacock's tail.

As I have repeated, survival is a necessary factor in reproduction, but not necessarily the key factor. For exception, the peacock's tail.


Not "for exception". For example.

If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival.




As to "luck selection" - that doesn't exist. Most organisms are fairly similar to their siblings, and yet only a small fraction reproduce. Those that do so are both lucky and adequately adapted. This is natural selection, which is a "percentage game" and probabilistic in nature.

I think you are over-analyzing the "luck" aspect, e.g., by saying that "luck selection" does not exist but it is a percentage of natural selection.

No. I am not saying that "natural selection is a percentage of natural selection". I am saying that natural selection is a "percentage game", i.e. is probabilistic in nature. Different traits increase or decrease the average reproductive success by altering the odds- "partly loading the dice" if you like.



If survival was the key, then why are cod so bad at it? Any individual cod fry has less than a one in a million chance of surviving to reproduce. The reproductive strategy has evolved that means that more fry spawn, whereas if individual survival was the driver, fewer fry would spawn, but with more "investment" of parental resources that would improve the odds of survival.

Again, this would be a good rebuttal if I had ever claimed that survival was the key. And again, if an organism dies before reproductive maturity, how will that organism reproduce?

So do organisms evolve towards "survival" or towards reproductive success?

You keep changing what you are saying.

ETA: I have highlighted the bits in the same post where you seem to say that natural selection equates to survival.





No, this is your interpretation of the theory of evolution. Where did you get this from? Because I suspect you have misunderstood what someone has told you, or you have misunderstood what you have read.

It seems that you are trying top present enough counterexamples to disprove the concept of selection in evolution.

My interpretation is that variation and selection are key components of evolution. I haven't found anyone outside this forum who disagrees, except those who deny evolution altogether.


No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.






We are pointing out that evolution works in a different manner to the way that you think.

So, you are saying that evolution does not involve variation and selection?


No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.





It is valid to point out exceptions that your mechanism can't account for, but which the standard understanding can.

Again, the mechanisms that I have constantly claimed are the key mechanisms to evolution (not necessarily the only mechanisms) are variation and selection. How is this not standard?


No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.


Dancing David's paraphrase seems an accurate summary of your position.


Organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce



Again, this would be a good rebuttal if I had ever claimed that survival was the key. And again, if an organism dies before reproductive maturity, how will that organism reproduce?

From earlier in this same post...

Imagine two male organisms surviving the elements of nature right up the moment of reproductive maturity and then dying in the next moment, however there was only one female to mate with and only one of the males had the opportunity to do so. Both can be said to have survived the processes of natural selection but that did not necessarily entail reproductive success for both.

"Survives the process of natural selection" will result in opportunities to reproduce.

[jimbob]

Again, this would be a good rebuttal if I had ever claimed that survival was the key. And again, if an organism dies before reproductive maturity, how will that organism reproduce?

Well, some organisms have evolved earlier reproduction.

Neoteny is interesting.

The classic example is the Axolotl, which is the most well-known of a group of salamanders that have evolved the ability to reproduce whilst still tadpoles.

Some related salamanders occasionally reproduce as tadpoles, when there is not enough iodide* available.


*wiki says iodine, but I guess this is a mistake, as the ionic form is what is needed for humans in iodised salt.

[Dancing David]

If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival.





Well stated.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well Bill T. 75, I already posted many instances where you said that.


Now you are claiming that something I never said, I said many times and you have a nonapplicable quote to prove it.

How many times can one person miss what is pointed out time after time.
As the quote shows:
Survival is necessary, natural selection is the mechanism, reproduction is the result.


So how does you view of natural selection explain them? They are not exception, in the plant kingdom there is a preponderance of angiosperms, so how does that work in your form of natural selection? "A few more exceptions'? 90% of plants is 'few more exceptions'?

So, are you saying that variation and selection are not mechanisms of evolution in the plant kingdom or that evolution does not occur in the plant kingdom?


Nice attempt to pretend that a critique of your version of natural seelction is the Theory of Evolution, you are a charmer.

I call Poe's law! :D

Good fall back, your other arguments aren't working.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Nope, goal shifter, it is your version of 'natural selection' which is being critiqued, not the theory of evolution.

:P

But you've become a shape-shifter by creating a strawman of my version of "natural selection as survival", which doesn't exist.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Most organisms are pretty similar to their parents yet the vast majority of them fail to reproduce. This isn't because most of them are poorly adapted; if they were, their parent's wouldn't have reproduced. Most organisms are unlucky.


In the case of the sunfish, one would have about ten times more chance of winning the jackpot in the UK national lottery with a single ticket than a single egg would have of reproducing.

Luck *is* important.

If luck selection doesn't exist, as you said, then how is it that luck prevents reproduction, as you said?

[Bill Thompson 75]

No - one reproduced, the other didn't. The one that did was "naturally selected" - to use the phrase in a slightly odd manner. The one that failed to reproduce was not naturally selected because it didn't pass its genes on.

What was the criteria that nature selected upon?


Not "for exception". For example.

If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival.

First, this would be well and good if I had claimed that "evolution optimised towards survival".
Second, is the theory that "evolution optimised towards survival" would fail yours or is it a common belief?


No. I am not saying that "natural selection is a percentage of natural selection". I am saying that natural selection is a "percentage game", i.e. is probabilistic in nature. Different traits increase or decrease the average reproductive success by altering the odds- "partly loading the dice" if you like.

This sounds exactly like luck is involved in selection, which you emphatically denied.


So do organisms evolve towards "survival" or towards reproductive success?

Organisms must survive so that they can reproduce so that the species/populations can evolve.


You keep changing what you are saying.

I keep correcting your misunderstanding of what I am repeatedly saying.


ETA: I have highlighted the bits in the same post where you seem to say that natural selection equates to survival.

That's part of your misunderstanding.


No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

Natural selection is the process by which traits are spread through a population over generations by reproducing.

Which part do you disagree with?


Dancing David's paraphrase seems an accurate summary of your position.

Organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce

From earlier in this same post...

Your confusion comes from equating successful reproduction with natural selection.

Reproductive success does not determine which organisms are naturally selected. Reproductive success shows which organisms have been naturally selected up to that moment.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well, some organisms have evolved earlier reproduction.

Neoteny is interesting.

The classic example is the Axolotl, which is the most well-known of a group of salamanders that have evolved the ability to reproduce whilst still tadpoles.

Some related salamanders occasionally reproduce as tadpoles, when there is not enough iodide* available.


*wiki says iodine, but I guess this is a mistake, as the ionic form is what is needed for humans in iodised salt.

A good example which clearly shows that survival is necessary for reproduction.

[Dancing David]

The environment tests candidate organisms to see if they have traits that will aid in survival. The test includes factors such as temperature, predation, humidity, and competition. The environment then passes the candidates which perform satisfactorily on the test and lets them reproduce, and fails the others by killing them. The test is the mechanism for this process called natural selection.

Bill Thompson 75, how is this quote non-applicable?

"The environment tests candidate organisms to see if they have traits that will aid in survival."
"The test is the mechanism for this process called natural selection."

So what were you trying to say?

It seems that if we interpret you meaning 'test' in the first sentence to be "traits that will aid in survival", the key is survival.

Then you state , seemingly that this 'test' is the mechanism for natural selection.

therefore it appears that you have stated that the mechanism for this process called natural selection is testing for traits that will aid in survival.

So how would you restate it now?

[Dancing David]

And you continued here so please explain to me what you meant in this post:
Becuase I apparently do not ken your meaning.
Can you please elaborate on the mechanism of this distinct process of selection?

It is generally the factors within an environment that affect the selection of the organisms that will reproduce.


Can you please elaborate?

You are separating out natural selection as a by product of two evolutionary factors, as if it is not involved.
Whereas, natural selection affects the appearance of factors which lead to variety in reproductive rates and it affects the rate of occurrence of heritable traits in a population.


"It is generally the factors within an environment that affect the selection of the organisms that will reproduce."

This again seems to iply that the 'selection' is something other than rates of differential reproduction, so how would you aplly this to angiosperms and the energy spent on flowers?

[Dancing David]

A good example which clearly shows that survival is necessary for reproduction.

Yes, yet which traits dominate in evolution, traits that effect rates of reproduction or traits that effect survival?

[Dancing David]

And again, so i can try to understand what you are saying:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6150303&postcount=199

Natural selection is the process by which some traits that improve the reproductive success tend to be inherited and spread through the population because carriers of these traits tend to have better reproductive success, which can be defined in terms of number of offspring per parent that reproduce

I find this equivalent to saying that reproductive success is a measure of the effectiveness of natural selection as a key mechanism for evolution. This has always been my primary point and I have not seen a strong counterpoint.


Taffer isn't saying what you think.

Some systems have relatively simple rules governing interactions between members of the system, but demonstrate complex behaviour as a result of the total effects of these simple interactions. The emergence of these complex behaviours from simple rules governing interactions is described as emergent phenomena.

Notice how there is nothing to do with life in this above statement.

"Life" is a property that is unique to living organisms. These are particular assemblages of chemicals that demonstrate certain behaviours, including respiration, excretion, reproduction, and response to stimuli.

In contrast to Taffer's position that life is not an emergent phenomenon, your description of emergent phenomenon, describes life exactly ("complex behaviours from simple rules governing interactions").


I do not find the equivalence there;
1. Traits leads to greater rates of reproduction.
2. Reproductive success is a measure of the effectiveness of natural selection.

I do not believe the two are equivalent statements and while yes, outright traits that lead to death are not selected, I beleive that traits which effect reproductive traits are the basis of natural selection.

Your statement seems to imply that somehow the natural selection happens then the reproduction occurs.

[jimbob]

Bill, for the umpteenth time: we are not saying that natural selection is unimportant. We are saying that the mechanism of natural selection is that each new generation's parents are (axiomatically) only those that have managed to reproduce.

You seem to want to introduce an extra and wrong additional selection mechanism "luck selection".




The process of "choosing" which organisms reproduce is the process of Natural Selection. Natural selection only acts to optimise reproductive success, this can sometimes be maximised by traits that improve an organism's survival. Sometimes reproductive success is better guaranteed by producing lots of offspring, with a low chance of individual survival, as opposed to a single offspring with a better chance of survival. Sometimes it is better to breed young, others to breed late.


I dislike argument from authority, but you might like to see how many articles agree with us:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=natural+selection+reproductive+success&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Meanwhile "luck selection" and evolution comes up with this thread as the first hit. Mmost of the other hits happen to have luck and selection next to each other, but separated by punctuation.

[jimbob]

My spoilers to keep context

No - one reproduced, the other didn't. The one that did was "naturally selected" - to use the phrase in a slightly odd manner. The one that failed to reproduce was not naturally selected because it didn't pass its genes on.

What was the criteria that nature selected upon?


Not "for exception". For example.

If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival.

First, this would be well and good if I had claimed that "evolution optimised towards survival".
Second, is the theory that "evolution optimised towards survival" would fail yours or is it a common belief?




No. I am not saying that "natural selection is a percentage of natural selection". I am saying that natural selection is a "percentage game", i.e. is probabilistic in nature. Different traits increase or decrease the average reproductive success by altering the odds- "partly loading the dice" if you like.

This sounds exactly like luck is involved in selection, which you emphatically denied.





So do organisms evolve towards "survival" or towards reproductive success?

Organisms must survive so that they can reproduce so that the species/populations can evolve.


You keep changing what you are saying.

I keep correcting your misunderstanding of what I am repeatedly saying.


ETA: I have highlighted the bits in the same post where you seem to say that natural selection equates to survival.

That's part of your misunderstanding.


No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

No, I am disagreeing with your understanding as to what natural selection actually is.

Natural selection is the process by which traits are spread through a population over generations by reproducing.

Which part do you disagree with?


Dancing David's paraphrase seems an accurate summary of your position.

Organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce

From earlier in this same post...

Your confusion comes from equating successful reproduction with natural selection.

Reproductive success does not determine which organisms are naturally selected. Reproductive success shows which organisms have been naturally selected up to that moment.


Survival is only one strategy for reproductive success.

There was actually a good example in the news this morning.

US scientists have started checking the quality of meat from bulls after slaughter, and then cloning the ones judged to have produced the best meat - after they have died.

Artificial selection is actually a subset of natural selection, and these bulls had no reproductive success whilst alive, but did after they were dead.

[jimbob]

What was the criteria that nature selected upon?


Whether they reproduced or not. Success in reproduction demonstrates success in reproduction, and these traits pass (with some variation) to the next generation



This sounds exactly like luck is involved in selection, which you emphatically denied.



If you look at what I wrote:

As to "luck selection" - that doesn't exist. Most organisms are fairly similar to their siblings, and yet only a small fraction reproduce. Those that do so are both lucky and adequately adapted. This is natural selection, which is a "percentage game" and probabilistic in nature
You see that I talk about natural selection being probabilistic in nature.

Luck is part of natural selection - it is not a separate mechanism, which is what you have posited.




Your confusion comes from equating successful reproduction with natural selection.

Reproductive success does not determine which organisms are naturally selected. Reproductive success shows which organisms have been naturally selected up to that moment.


Have you thought what the highlighted bit means?

I have earlier stated that reproductive success means the production or viable grandchildren (as that demonstrates the offspring have reproduced).

However, as soon as an organism has successfully reproduced, it has been naturally selected. It could continue to have more reproductive success, but it has already had some.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill Thompson 75, how is this quote non-applicable?

"The environment tests candidate organisms to see if they have traits that will aid in survival."
"The test is the mechanism for this process called natural selection."

So what were you trying to say?

It seems that if we interpret you meaning 'test' in the first sentence to be "traits that will aid in survival", the key is survival.

Then you state , seemingly that this 'test' is the mechanism for natural selection.

therefore it appears that you have stated that the mechanism for this process called natural selection is testing for traits that will aid in survival.

So how would you restate it now?

I'll pass on this post as it was covered long ago and your attempt to rehash it approaches trolling.

[Bill Thompson 75]

And you continued here so please explain to me what you meant in this post:
Becuase I apparently do not ken your meaning.



"It is generally the factors within an environment that affect the selection of the organisms that will reproduce."

This again seems to iply that the 'selection' is something other than rates of differential reproduction, so how would you aplly this to angiosperms and the energy spent on flowers?

Rates of differential reproduction are the result of natural selection processes.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yes, yet which traits dominate in evolution, traits that effect rates of reproduction or traits that effect survival?

Since survival is absolutely necessary traits that effect survival can be critical.
Traits that effect rates of reproduction affect the rate at which evolutionary processes occur. The dominant one depends upon what you mean by dominate.

[Bill Thompson 75]

And again, so i can try to understand what you are saying:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6150303&postcount=199



I do not find the equivalence there;
1. Traits leads to greater rates of reproduction.
2. Reproductive success is a measure of the effectiveness of natural selection.

I do not believe the two are equivalent statements and while yes, outright traits that lead to death are not selected, I beleive that traits which effect reproductive traits are the basis of natural selection.

Your statement seems to imply that somehow the natural selection happens then the reproduction occurs.

I have explicitly said that reproductive success is the end result of the process of natural selection.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, for the umpteenth time: we are not saying that natural selection is unimportant. We are saying that the mechanism of natural selection is that each new generation's parents are (axiomatically) only those that have managed to reproduce.

You seem to want to introduce an extra and wrong additional selection mechanism "luck selection".

You introduced luck as a factor in selection. I called it "luck selection."


I dislike argument from authority, but you might like to see how many articles agree with us:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=natural+selection+reproductive+success&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Meanwhile "luck selection" and evolution comes up with this thread as the first hit. Mmost of the other hits happen to have luck and selection next to each other, but separated by punctuation.

From your authority, Wikipedia:

"Natural selection is the process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution."

"As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass."

[Bill Thompson 75]

My spoilers to keep context

Survival is only one strategy for reproductive success.

A very, very, very good strategy.


There was actually a good example in the news this morning.

US scientists have started checking the quality of meat from bulls after slaughter, and then cloning the ones judged to have produced the best meat - after they have died.

Artificial selection is actually a subset of natural selection, and these bulls had no reproductive success whilst alive, but did after they were dead.

Even though seems to somewhat irrelevant to the basic issues, see my previous example from your authority.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Whether they reproduced or not. Success in reproduction demonstrates success in reproduction, and these traits pass (with some variation) to the next generation

If you look at what I wrote:

You see that I talk about natural selection being probabilistic in nature.

Luck is part of natural selection - it is not a separate mechanism, which is what you have posited.

Have you thought what the highlighted bit means?

I have earlier stated that reproductive success means the production or viable grandchildren (as that demonstrates the offspring have reproduced).

However, as soon as an organism has successfully reproduced, it has been naturally selected. It could continue to have more reproductive success, but it has already had some.

Here's is how I interpret your concept of natural selection.
Suppose a dog is born with a mutation that causes an absence of a brain and it dies. The trait of having no brain will not enter into the process of natural selection because this dog will not reproduce.

[Dancing David]

I have explicitly said that reproductive success is the end result of the process of natural selection.

Since survival is absolutely necessary traits that effect survival can be critical.
Traits that effect rates of reproduction affect the rate at which evolutionary processes occur. The dominant one depends upon what you mean by dominate.

Rates of differential reproduction are the result of natural selection processes.

I'll pass on this post as it was covered long ago and your attempt to rehash it approaches trolling.

Okay, I pass as you do not wish to clarify.

I will only note that rates of differential reproduction will dominate as the force of natural selection.

So what about flowers led to natural selection of angiosperms?

[jimbob]

My spoilers to keep context

Survival is only one strategy for reproductive success.

A very, very, very good strategy.


There was actually a good example in the news this morning.

US scientists have started checking the quality of meat from bulls after slaughter, and then cloning the ones judged to have produced the best meat - after they have died.

Artificial selection is actually a subset of natural selection, and these bulls had no reproductive success whilst alive, but did after they were dead.

Even though seems to somewhat irrelevant to the basic issues, see my previous example from your authority.

Obviously optimisation of reproductive success will often involve strategies that improve survival, however again there there are plenty of examples (one would be sufficient) where traits (behavioural or physiological) have evolved that could not have evolved if natural selection acted to select for "survival" as opposed to selecting for "reproductive success".

This is the point. Cloning of dead animals is admittedly an extreme example, but from the point of the genes that are evolving, they are still "in play".

Artificial selection is just a highly efficient subset* of natural selection, with a selective pressure near 100% for the desired traits, as opposed to the fraction of a percent more typical for non-artificial selective pressures. One would thus expect evolution due to artificial selection to be hundreds of times more efficient due to the greater selective pressure.



*Humans are part of the environment too.

[jimbob]

Bill, for the umpteenth time: we are not saying that natural selection is unimportant. We are saying that the mechanism of natural selection is that each new generation's parents are (axiomatically) only those that have managed to reproduce.

You seem to want to introduce an extra and wrong additional selection mechanism "luck selection".

You introduced luck as a factor in selection. I called it "luck selection."


I dislike argument from authority, but you might like to see how many articles agree with us:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=natural+selection+reproductive+success&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Meanwhile "luck selection" and evolution comes up with this thread as the first hit. Mmost of the other hits happen to have luck and selection next to each other, but separated by punctuation.

From your authority, Wikipedia:

"Natural selection is the process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution."

"As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass."

I have no issue with what wikipedia has said about this, (I never use it as an authority, sometimes as an example or an introductory link).

However, what you are missing is the fact that natural selection manifests itself via organisms reproducing or not; in other words natural selection selects for reproductive success.


Wikipedia is not my authority, I was just pointing out that the phrases "natural selection" and "reproductive success" are very common in the scholarly literature (about 35,600 articles on google scholar contain both phrases).

"luck selection" isn't a common phrase, because it is worse than useless, as it is actively misleading in attempting to describe the mechanisms behind evolution. It is covered within natural selection.

Life isn't a competition judged by natural selection, where the winners attempt to reproduce and some fail. Failure to reproduce means failure to reproduce, and that particular package of genes produces no offspring to participate in the next generation.

[jimbob]

Not "for exception". For example.

If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival.

First, this would be well and good if I had claimed that "evolution optimised towards survival".
Second, is the theory that "evolution optimised towards survival" would fail yours or is it a common belief?


It follows from the logic of the situations. If evolution optimises towards survival, then a trait that reduces the chance of survival (like the peacock's tail) couldn't evolve because the "direction" of evolution would be against it.

It is commonly accepted within the scientific community. Some of whom do post on here. Taffer, for example, I understand to be a geneticist.

I am only a layperson, a professional engineer, however as Taffer has said, I am more than qualified to answer these questions of yours because evolution is actually simple in concept - the difficulty is often in working out how a trait confers a reproductive advantage. (For example cystic fibrosis has a fairly high occurrance in European populations, does carrying this gene confer some reproductive success, and if not, why is the incidence so high?)

The concepts that you are questioning are very basic ones about the mechanism of evolution. I'd recommend Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution" as an accessible text. It was first published in the 1950's and republished (with a foreword by Richard Dawkins) in the 1990's, which also shows how the basic ideas are still valid.

[jimbob]

Bill would you agree with the statement that

"Some organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce"

If not, have you changed your position from:

"Survives the process of natural selection" will result in opportunities to reproduce.



Imagine two male organisms surviving the elements of nature right up the moment of reproductive maturity and then dying in the next moment, however there was only one female to mate with and only one of the males had the opportunity to do so. Both can be said to have survived the processes of natural selection but that did not necessarily entail reproductive success for both.


ETA: Or indeed from these two:




The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.




Success in the process of natural selection will result in reproductive success.



"Will" is not the same as "may". You need to realise that, because otherwise it is impossible to pin down what you say, because the meaning keeps changing.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Obviously optimisation of reproductive success will often involve strategies that improve survival, however again there there are plenty of examples (one would be sufficient) where traits (behavioural or physiological) have evolved that could not have evolved if natural selection acted to select for "survival" as opposed to selecting for "reproductive success".

This is the point. Cloning of dead animals is admittedly an extreme example, but from the point of the genes that are evolving, they are still "in play".

Artificial selection is just a highly efficient subset* of natural selection, with a selective pressure near 100% for the desired traits, as opposed to the fraction of a percent more typical for non-artificial selective pressures. One would thus expect evolution due to artificial selection to be hundreds of times more efficient due to the greater selective pressure.

*Humans are part of the environment too.


You don't seem to be disputing any of my points.

However, you do raise an interesting idea.
Artificial selection, with a selective pressure near 100%, could select for any desired trait, even death.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I have no issue with what wikipedia has said about this, (I never use it as an authority, sometimes as an example or an introductory link).

That is a common mistake, to point out some source that supposedly agrees with a point and then find that it actually disagrees with it.


However, what you are missing is the fact that natural selection manifests itself via organisms reproducing or not; in other words natural selection selects for reproductive success.

This sentence apprears to contradict itself: "natural selection manifests itself via organisms reproducing or not" vs "natural selection selects for reproductive success".


Wikipedia is not my authority, I was just pointing out that the phrases "natural selection" and "reproductive success" are very common in the scholarly literature (about 35,600 articles on google scholar contain both phrases).

"luck selection" isn't a common phrase, because it is worse than useless, as it is actively misleading in attempting to describe the mechanisms behind evolution. It is covered within natural selection.

Your last statement says that luck selection is a "subset of natural selection", not unlike artificial selection.


Life isn't a competition judged by natural selection, where the winners attempt to reproduce and some fail. Failure to reproduce means failure to reproduce, and that particular package of genes produces no offspring to participate in the next generation.

I would say that natural selection should have something to do with the failure to reproduce.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill would you agree with the statement that

"Some organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce"

If not, have you changed your position from:


ETA: Or indeed from these two:


I would stand by all my statements.|

I would say that the process of natural selection is not equivalent to success in reproduction. Therefore, there are aspects of natural selection that distinguish it from reproduction. These are the factors of the natural environment that may prevent an organism from reproducing.
Also, it is easy to imagine factors not of the natural environment which nevertheless may prevent reproduction from occurring.
And it would also be a stretch to claim a one time event affecting a single organism drives evolution.


"Will" is not the same as "may". You need to realise that, because otherwise it is impossible to pin down what you say, because the meaning keeps changing.

This was already addressed.

[Bill Thompson 75]

It follows from the logic of the situations. If evolution optimises towards survival, then a trait that reduces the chance of survival (like the peacock's tail) couldn't evolve because the "direction" of evolution would be against it.

I think you are saying that traits which appear to be in opposition cannot both evolve. I do not agree with this.


It is commonly accepted within the scientific community. Some of whom do post on here. Taffer, for example, I understand to be a geneticist.

I am only a layperson, a professional engineer, however as Taffer has said, I am more than qualified to answer these questions of yours because evolution is actually simple in concept - the difficulty is often in working out how a trait confers a reproductive advantage. (For example cystic fibrosis has a fairly high occurrance in European populations, does carrying this gene confer some reproductive success, and if not, why is the incidence so high?)

Isn't it natural selection which prevents some traits from conferring a reproductive advantage? And then aren't the two concepts distinct ideas?


The concepts that you are questioning are very basic ones about the mechanism of evolution. I'd recommend Maynard Smith's "The Theory of Evolution" as an accessible text. It was first published in the 1950's and republished (with a foreword by Richard Dawkins) in the 1990's, which also shows how the basic ideas are still valid.

I think the only basic concept I have questioned is your interpretation that reproductive success is the same thing as natural selection.

[jimbob]

Full quote for context, hidden for brevity:

Bill would you agree with the statement that

"Some organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce"

If not, have you changed your position from:

"Survives the process of natural selection" will result in opportunities to reproduce.



Imagine two male organisms surviving the elements of nature right up the moment of reproductive maturity and then dying in the next moment, however there was only one female to mate with and only one of the males had the opportunity to do so. Both can be said to have survived the processes of natural selection but that did not necessarily entail reproductive success for both.


ETA: Or indeed from these two:




The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.




Success in the process of natural selection will result in reproductive success.



"Will" is not the same as "may". You need to realise that, because otherwise it is impossible to pin down what you say, because the meaning keeps changing.


Bill would you agree with the statement that

"Some organisms survive natural selection then some of these reproduce"

If not, have you changed your position from:


ETA: Or indeed from these two:


I would stand by all my statements.|

I would say that the process of natural selection is not equivalent to success in reproduction. Therefore, there are aspects of natural selection that distinguish it from reproduction. These are the factors of the natural environment that may prevent an organism from reproducing.
Also, it is easy to imagine factors not of the natural environment which nevertheless may prevent reproduction from occurring.
And it would also be a stretch to claim a one time event affecting a single organism drives evolution.


"Will" is not the same as "may". You need to realise that, because otherwise it is impossible to pin down what you say, because the meaning keeps changing.

This was already addressed.

As far as I recall it was "addressed" by stating that




The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.




Success in the process of natural selection will result in reproductive success.



are not contradictory when read "in context".

I don't see what context could reconcile those two statements.


ETA:

Below:

The two posts are not contradictory when read in context.
At one point, on a side track, I noted that even if an organism survives the processes of natural selection it may not be lucky enough to reproduce.
As an example, the organism that may be the most valuable to its species in reproducing, but may get hit by a meteorite and fail to reproduce. This says nothing about survival, natural selection, or reproductive success.




The bit that I have coloured in red is the bit that is completely wrong. Actually so is the other bit.

[jimbob]

I think you are saying that traits which appear to be in opposition cannot both evolve. I do not agree with this.


No, but if there is a selective disadvantage to a trait it will not evolve in that situation.

In effect you have been claiming that natural selection selects for survival, which would mean that a trait that reduces survival would be selected against. The peacock's tail is such a trait. It has evolved, but couldn't have evolved if evolution worked how you think.



Isn't it natural selection which prevents some traits from conferring a reproductive advantage? And then aren't the two concepts distinct ideas?

That is very muddled. Some traits confer a reproductive advantage, these improve reproductive success. These traits will tend spread through the population. Other traits will confer a reproductive disadvantage, and will die out. Many beneficial traits will die out too due to bad luck.

This is called natural selection.




I think the only basic concept I have questioned is your interpretation that reproductive success is the same thing as natural selection.


No, natural selection is not the same as reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest via reproductive success or failure; if an organism fails to reproduce then it is "naturally deselected" to use an ugly phrase. If an organism successfully reproduces it has been "naturally selected" to reuse a similarly ugly phrase.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Full quote for context, hidden for brevity:




As far as I recall it was "addressed" by stating that

are not contradictory when read "in context".

I don't see what context could reconcile those two statements.

One was in the context of an individual and one was in the context of a species.


ETA:

Below:

The bit that I have coloured in red is the bit that is completely wrong.

Remember when Taffer said that you were "more than qualified to answer these questions of" mine "because evolution is actually simple in concept."

I think Taffer was pulling your leg when he led you to believe that coloring something red makes it completely wrong.

You should revisit the distinction between natural selection and reproductive success.


Actually so is the other bit.

The context was there, if you know how to read context.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, but if there is a selective disadvantage to a trait it will not evolve in that situation.

In effect you have been claiming that natural selection selects for survival, which would mean that a trait that reduces survival would be selected against. The peacock's tail is such a trait. It has evolved, but couldn't have evolved if evolution worked how you think.

In fact, I have repeatedly been explaining that that is not what I have ever claimed, despite your weak attempts to pull the debate there to make it easier for you to find fault.


That is very muddled. Some traits confer a reproductive advantage, these improve reproductive success. These traits will tend spread through the population. Other traits will confer a reproductive disadvantage, and will die out. Many beneficial traits will die out too due to bad luck.

This is called natural selection.

To summarize your points:
Some traits are advantageous, and they will lead to reproductive advantage but they die out.
And traits that die out can be called beneficial.
And dieing may be a matter of luck but luck does not select for dieing out because you said there is no luck selection.
You got the muddled part right.


No, natural selection is not the same as reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest via reproductive success or failure; if an organism fails to reproduce then it is "naturally deselected" to use an ugly phrase. If an organism successfully reproduces it has been "naturally selected" to reuse a similarly ugly phrase.

You explicitly describe natural selection as an event rather than a process.
You implicitly fail to recognize commonly noted factors as part of the process of natural selection, such as nutritional availability, climate, parasites and predators.
I disagree with your views completely.

[Dancing David]

You should revisit the distinction between natural selection and reproductive success.



Oh, whoops, there you go again, you are the only one making that distinction and now you just assert it. It is not a commonly held belief in the field by theose who study and teach it.

Reproductive success is the most powerfull mechanism in natural selection.

So why do 90% of plants have flowers, which do not confer any advantage other than reproductive success?

[Dancing David]

You explicitly describe natural selection as an event rather than a process.

Well duh, it is a series of events, nature happens that way. We refer to it as a process but it is discrete events in the aggregate events of a population.

You implicitly fail to recognize commonly noted factors as part of the process of natural selection, such as nutritional availability, climate, parasites and predators.

Common for who, you or the people who study and teach it?
Unsupported assertion.

I disagree with your views completely.

That still doesn't explain anything.

So why the peacock's tail, why flowers?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Oh, whoops, there you go again, you are the only one making that distinction and now you just assert it. It is not a commonly held belief in the field by theose who study and teach it.

I can find no one in online articles or books on evolution who claim that there is no distinction between natural selection and reproductive success. Could you provide one?


Reproductive success is the most powerfull mechanism in natural selection.

Reproductive success is the result of success in natural selection.


So why do 90% of plants have flowers, which do not confer any advantage other than reproductive success?

Let's stay on topic.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well duh, it is a series of events, nature happens that way. We refer to it as a process but it is discrete events in the aggregate events of a population.

This actually doesn't say anything.


Common for who, you or the people who study and teach it?
Unsupported assertion.

Common for everyone except you. You really have no clue about what natural selection is. Read the following excerpts.
(I picked a few of very many which were clear, concise and to the point.)

From the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at WWW.FAO.org

"Natural selection is the term used to describe all the environmental pressures acting on an individual which will result in it succeeding or failing to survive and to reproduce. Only successful individuals will pass their genes onto the next generation. Natural selection results in the survival and successful reproduction of animals genetically adapted to that environment. The principal aspects of natural selection are nutrient supply, climate, parasites and predators and competition within the species."

Pay close attention to the bold parts.

From Wikipedia:

"The modern evolutionary synthesis is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis. It is a union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution.

The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between both and palaeontologists. It states that:[3][4][5]

1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).
3. Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
4. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
5. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
6. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change."

Now do you get it?

[Dancing David]

I can find no one in online articles or books on evolution who claim that there is no distinction between natural selection and reproductive success. Could you provide one?

that is because only you make that distinction. :)

You should revisit the distinction between natural selection and reproductive success.


So where should we visit?




Reproductive success is the result of success in natural selection.

Uh huh, I know that is your mistaken belief.




Let's stay on topic.

It is on topics, you just don't want to answer it.
Which aspect of your version of natural selection led to plants having flowers.

Pretend it is not on topic. You know it is one of many aspects that your version of natural selection can not answer. It is exactly the topic!

90% of plants have flowers, why is that?

Who is going to pass on more genes to more progeny Bill Thompson 75:

a. members of population who have 1% better change of ‘survival’
b. members of population who have a 1% better chance of reproduction

[Dancing David]

This actually doesn't say anything.

Sure Bill, whatever.




Common for everyone except you. You really have no clue about what natural selection is. Read the following excerpts.
(I picked a few of very many which were clear, concise and to the point.)

From the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations at WWW.FAO.org

Oh, I see so they study and teach the ToE, sure Bill Thompson, I suppose I had to add "at university level institutions'?


"Natural selection is the term used to describe all the environmental pressures acting on an individual which will result in it succeeding or failing to survive and to reproduce. Only successful individuals will pass their genes onto the next generation. Natural selection results in the survival and successful reproduction of animals genetically adapted to that environment. The principal aspects of natural selection are nutrient supply, climate, parasites and predators and competition within the species."

Pay close attention to the bold parts.

Why is the UN supposed to meet the highest academic standard?


From Wikipedia:

that is your problem Bill Thompson 75, you haven't read even the intro literature in the academics of the ToE, which is why you go to Wikipedia. Why not try reading the sources.

You just got an 'F' on your high school paper.


If you think that the synthesis is some big deal, you are decades out of date.

1942, 1998: same general lay text (Ernst Meyr again), and 1982 Meyr

What you can't actually go to your library and actualy read up on the ToE yourself, why don't you cite your sources in context?



Which source gave the list? The wiki?

[jimbob]

Full quote for context, hidden for brevity:




As far as I recall it was "addressed" by stating that

are not contradictory when read "in context".

I don't see what context could reconcile those two statements.

One was in the context of an individual and one was in the context of a species.


So you didn't write what you meant, which did contradict itself.

The most charitable interpretation is that your concept of natural selection working in the context of a species would fall into the (now discredited) idea of group selection.

It still doesn't work.

In the context of our discussions natural selection works on the individual manifestations of genetic material*, which is usually an individual organism but could also be a (cancer) cell within a multicellular organism, or DNA itself during meiosis or mitosis.






ETA:

Below:

The bit that I have coloured in red is the bit that is completely wrong.

Remember when Taffer said that you were "more than qualified to answer these questions of" mine "because evolution is actually simple in concept."

I think Taffer was pulling your leg when he led you to believe that coloring something red makes it completely wrong.

You should revisit the distinction between natural selection and reproductive success.


Actually so is the other bit.

The context was there, if you know how to read context.


Not really:




The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.



and

Success in the process of natural selection will result in reproductive success.



Are contradictory because the first states that success in natural selection might not lead to reproductive success, whilst the second states that is will lead to reproductive success.




*As an aside, below is my interpretation of this. I believe that some evolutionary biologists would have some issues with the description below, but I'd argue it is correct, and I can recognise that the emphasis is slightly different from the interpretation that some evolutionary biologists have.

Species do not survive natural selection. In its most general, and not limited to organisms on Earth, but to any imperfectly self-replicating system, you have a "template" and a "carrier". On Earth the template is the organism's genome including its mitochondrial DNA; in general the template is the information that is carried from one generation to another. The "carrier" is what the template makes. On Earth, this is often an organism. Sometimes it can be a cancer cell, and during DNA division it is the actual DNA itself.

Selection works on the carrier; this sounds slightly counter to Richard Dawkins explanation that evolution works at the gene level, but it isn't because it is the template that evolves, and evolution optimises the reproductive success of the template, but the actual manifestation of the selection process is on the manifestation of the template, which is the carrier.

[jimbob]

No, natural selection is not the same as reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest via reproductive success or failure; if an organism fails to reproduce then it is "naturally deselected" to use an ugly phrase. If an organism successfully reproduces it has been "naturally selected" to reuse a similarly ugly phrase.

You explicitly describe natural selection as an event rather than a process.
You implicitly fail to recognize commonly noted factors as part of the process of natural selection, such as nutritional availability, climate, parasites and predators.
I disagree with your views completely.

No - the factors you have listed affect reproductive success. That is how they affect natural selection.

And "luck selection" doesn't exist because the whole nature of natural selection is probabilistic. the Sunfish produces 300-million eggs, and on average two reproduce. These are "lucky" as well as adapted.

[jimbob]

With the context added in





Isn't it natural selection which prevents some traits from conferring a reproductive advantage? And then aren't the two concepts distinct ideas?

That is very muddled. Some traits confer a reproductive advantage, these improve reproductive success. These traits will tend spread through the population. Other traits will confer a reproductive disadvantage, and will die out. Many beneficial traits will die out too due to bad luck.

This is called natural selection.


To summarize your points:
Some traits are advantageous, and they will lead to reproductive advantage but they die out.
And traits that die out can be called beneficial.
And dieing may be a matter of luck but luck does not select for dieing out because you said there is no luck selection.
You got the muddled part right.


Your summary is wrong:

A corrected version:


To summarize your points:
Some traits are advantageous, and they will lead to reproductive advantage but despite this they might stilldie out.
And traits that die out can be called beneficial. Many traits that could be considered to be beneficial might still die out because of the probabilistic nature of natural selection
And dieing may be a matter of luck but luck does not select for dieing out It is like playing a game with subtly loaded dice. The odds are skewed, but there is no certainty.
because you said there is no luck selection. There is no such thing as "luck selection" that is separate from natural selection. Natural selection is by its nature probabilistic.

Think of the Sunfish again, it releases 300-million eggs, and the sunfish population isn't rocketing, therefore each egg has about a 1 in 150-million chance of reproducing. Supposing an egg had some trait that would increase its reproductive success tenfold, it would still have less chance of successful reproduction than a person would have of wining the UK national lottery with a single ticket.

If by this 1 in 15-million chance the egg did make it to reproduce, then the trait would spread very quickly, with an average of 20 reproducing offspring, and their chance of reproducing fitting a Poisson distribution

This can't be separated from natural selection; indeed where luck is more important, natural selection selects for prolific breeding with little parental investment in each individual offspring.


This website at Berkley is quite good: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml)


1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can’t support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.


If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

Natural selection follows from those conditions, there is nothing additional to these.

[jimbob]

This website at Berkley is quite good: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml)


1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can’t support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.


If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

Natural selection follows from those conditions, there is nothing additional to these.


An addition:

I'd argue that in a finite system, (i.e. any physical system within the universe) point#2 " There is differential reproduction. " also follows from the other precepts as long as there is a source of alteration to the variation, which happens with imperfect DNA replication. In other words, this follows from "imperfect self-replication". Which is what happens with evolution on Earth.

[Bill Thompson 75]

that is because only you make that distinction. :)

So, you are saying that because an idea is mine, no one else will claim it is wrong.
Thank you for that endorsement.


So where should we visit?

Visit natural selection in nature.


Uh huh, I know that is your mistaken belief.

So, you believe that reproductive success is the result of failure in natural selection?


It is on topics, you just don't want to answer it.
Which aspect of your version of natural selection led to plants having flowers.

Pretend it is not on topic. You know it is one of many aspects that your version of natural selection can not answer. It is exactly the topic!

90% of plants have flowers, why is that?

Who is going to pass on more genes to more progeny Bill Thompson 75:

a. members of population who have 1% better change of ‘survival’
b. members of population who have a 1% better chance of reproduction

Instead of constantly trying to test me on your topic, let's focus on the topic at hand.

Who is going to pass on more genes to more progeny:

a. members of population who have 0% chance of ‘survival’
b. members of population who have 1% chance of 'survival'

[Bill Thompson 75]

Sure Bill, whatever.

Oh, I see so they study and teach the ToE, sure Bill Thompson, I suppose I had to add "at university level institutions'?

Why is the UN supposed to meet the highest academic standard?

that is your problem Bill Thompson 75, you haven't read even the intro literature in the academics of the ToE, which is why you go to Wikipedia. Why not try reading the sources.

You just got an 'F' on your high school paper.

If you think that the synthesis is some big deal, you are decades out of date.

1942, 1998: same general lay text (Ernst Meyr again), and 1982 Meyr

What you can't actually go to your library and actualy read up on the ToE yourself, why don't you cite your sources in context?

Which source gave the list? The wiki?

As I pointed out, Wikipedia is clear, concise and to the point, and I presented it for your benefit.

Document something, as you put it, from "university level institutions" in the last several decades, that goes beyond the modern synthesis in evolution and that the academics generally agree upon. Good luck with that.

[Bill Thompson 75]

So you didn't write what you meant, which did contradict itself.

The most charitable interpretation is that your concept of natural selection working in the context of a species would fall into the (now discredited) idea of group selection.

Trying to pass off your misinterpretations of the fundamentals of natural selection as my concept is an interesting fallacy.

The "now discredited" idea is actually a "then discredited" idea that is a "now revisited" idea.


It still doesn't work.

In the context of our discussions natural selection works on the individual manifestations of genetic material*, which is usually an individual organism but could also be a (cancer) cell within a multicellular organism, or DNA itself during meiosis or mitosis.

Not really:

and

Are contradictory because the first states that success in natural selection might not lead to reproductive success, whilst the second states that is will lead to reproductive success.

I think the count is three for the number of times I have clarified this and you have repeated it with nothing new.


*As an aside, below is my interpretation of this. I believe that some evolutionary biologists would have some issues with the description below, but I'd argue it is correct, and I can recognise that the emphasis is slightly different from the interpretation that some evolutionary biologists have.

Species do not survive natural selection. In its most general, and not limited to organisms on Earth, but to any imperfectly self-replicating system, you have a "template" and a "carrier". On Earth the template is the organism's genome including its mitochondrial DNA; in general the template is the information that is carried from one generation to another. The "carrier" is what the template makes. On Earth, this is often an organism. Sometimes it can be a cancer cell, and during DNA division it is the actual DNA itself.

Selection works on the carrier; this sounds slightly counter to Richard Dawkins explanation that evolution works at the gene level, but it isn't because it is the template that evolves, and evolution optimises the reproductive success of the template, but the actual manifestation of the selection process is on the manifestation of the template, which is the carrier.


Usage of synonymous idiosyncratic jargon doesn't change any of the issues.
I do not have the desire to counter any specific evolutionary biologist's unique interpretations.

The idea of imperfect self-replication is great if you are studying algorithms.
To be of practical use it needs to be so strictly defined that it paradoxically becomes impractical for real world studies.

Continued self-replication is not possible for an isolated system.
"Imperfect" needs to be narrowly defined or the process of replication will fail for a multitude of reasons.

Dawkins is not referring to actual genes, he is, more accurately, referring to the traits expressed by genes.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No - the factors you have listed affect reproductive success. That is how they affect natural selection.

You are again equating the concepts of natural selection and reproductive success. They are distinct ideas. Those factors don't affect natural selection, they are some of many which constitute natural selection.


And "luck selection" doesn't exist because the whole nature of natural selection is probabilistic. the Sunfish produces 300-million eggs, and on average two reproduce. These are "lucky" as well as adapted.

You just distinguished luck from adaption. That is exactly what I did when I described it as "luck selection", as I previously explained.

[Bill Thompson 75]

With the context added in

Your summary is wrong:

A corrected version:

To summarize your points:
Some traits are advantageous, and they will lead to reproductive advantage but despite this they might stilldie out.
And traits that die out can be called beneficial. Many traits that could be considered to be beneficial might still die out because of the probabilistic nature of natural selection
And dieing may be a matter of luck but luck does not select for dieing out It is like playing a game with subtly loaded dice. The odds are skewed, but there is no certainty.
because you said there is no luck selection. There is no such thing as "luck selection" that is separate from natural selection. Natural selection is by its nature probabilistic.

My new summary of your points:
If a population of organisms gets a favorable roll of the dice (is lucky) it may develop traits that increase reproductive success but cause it die out.


Think of the Sunfish again, it releases 300-million eggs, and the sunfish population isn't rocketing, therefore each egg has about a 1 in 150-million chance of reproducing. Supposing an egg had some trait that would increase its reproductive success tenfold, it would still have less chance of successful reproduction than a person would have of wining the UK national lottery with a single ticket.

If by this 1 in 15-million chance the egg did make it to reproduce, then the trait would spread very quickly, with an average of 20 reproducing offspring, and their chance of reproducing fitting a Poisson distribution

This can't be separated from natural selection; indeed where luck is more important, natural selection selects for prolific breeding with little parental investment in each individual offspring.
[/HILITE]

This website at Berkley is quite good: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml)

"1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can’t support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. "

Natural selection follows from those conditions, there is nothing additional to these.

Note that it clearly says that evolution by natural selection is the outcome of 1, 2 and 3. And then the result is reproductive success

This explains the position I've tried to convey all along.
1. Variation
2. Selection and Survival
3. Heredity
4. The result is reproductive success.

Thank you

[Bill Thompson 75]

An addition:

I'd argue that in a finite system, (i.e. any physical system within the universe) point#2 " There is differential reproduction. " also follows from the other precepts as long as there is a source of alteration to the variation, which happens with imperfect DNA replication. In other words, this follows from "imperfect self-replication". Which is what happens with evolution on Earth.

You seem convinced that the phrase "imperfect self-replication" conveys a special understanding or significance. It doesn't.

[jimbob]

Bill,

By what mechanism does natural selection operate?

You seem to posit a separate process for natural selection from the phenomenon of differential reproductive success for different inherited traits.


This is where you are wrong.

This is why there is no such thing as "luck selection", because the only "selection" is how well the genes reproduce. Luck plays a part, but it can't and shouldn't be separated from anything else.

I believe it has been asked before - what is your level of education in a technical subject, and why do you think your understanding of evolution is correct?


And we are not saying that traits that promote survival are unimportant, we are saying that traits that promote survival are important only as far as this survival promotes reproductive success.

Many evolved traits promote reproductive success at the expense of the organism's survival. Evolution optimises for reproductive success; if evolution optimised for survival, these traits couldn't evolve.



One example where you posit this idea:

The two posts are not contradictory when read in context.
At one point, on a side track, I noted that even if an organism survives the processes of natural selection it may not be lucky enough to reproduce.
As an example, the organism that may be the most valuable to its species in reproducing, but may get hit by a meteorite and fail to reproduce. This says nothing about survival, natural selection, or reproductive success.






So what is the mechanism for natural selection? How does an organism "pass natural selection" yet fail to reproduce.

[jimbob]

My new summary of your points:
If a population of organisms gets a favorable roll of the dice (is lucky) it may develop traits that increase reproductive success but cause it die out.


Again you are confusing cause and effect.

The traits modulate the average reproductive success; some beneficial traits will survive and spread through the population in subsequent generations.

On average, organisms with traits that confer reproductive advantage will have more offspring that reproduce. As an aside it is possibly worth making the observation that due to the small percentage of organisms that actually do manage to reproduce, there is usually little chance that any particular beneficial trait will survive beyond its first generation. This is important if you want to understand how evolution works, but is evidently too subtle for the current discussion.









Note that it clearly says that evolution by natural selection is the outcome of 1, 2 and 3. And then the result is reproductive success

This explains the position I've tried to convey all along.
1. Variation
2. Selection and Survival
3. Heredity
4. The result is reproductive success.

Thank you


No it doesn't say that, clearly or otherwise.
1. There is variation in traits.
2. There is differential reproduction. (not "selection and survival)"
3. There is heredity.
4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population.


The end result is natural selection, it is not the mechanism. Reproductive success

"If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. "

"1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can’t support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. "

[jimbob]

From the Berkley website: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml)

Lesson plans for teaching about natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/search/search_lessons.php?sort_by=audience_rank&topic_id=&keywords=teach+about+natural+selection&Submit=Search)


A grade 9-12 lesson plan:


Interview: Douglas Futuyma on natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/search/template.php?resource_no=459&audience_level=9-12&js=no)
This interview with one of the most influential evolutionary biologists of today addresses many aspects of natural selection: how it works, examples, misconceptions, and implications.
This article appears at ActionBioscience.org.

and the actual article (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html)


What is natural selection, and how is it central to the theory of evolution?

Futuyma: <snip>
Simply put, natural selection is a consistent difference in survival and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, in what we could call reproductive success. [A genotype is a group of organisms sharing a specific genetic makeup.]





Some take natural selection to mean survival of the fittest. How does this slogan sometimes lead to misconceptions?

Futuyma: “Survival of the fittest” is a slogan that is really very misleading. First of all, it’s not an adequate description of what really goes on in nature for two reasons:

Sometimes there isn’t a “fittest” type. There may be several different types that are equally fit for different reasons. Perhaps they’re adapted to different facets of the environment. One is not going to replace the other because each has its proper place in the environment.
Moreover, it’s not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

My highlighting

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill,

By what mechanism does natural selection operate?

You seem to posit a separate process for natural selection from the phenomenon of differential reproductive success for different inherited traits.

Natural selection is the process which results in the phenomenon of different reproductive rates by making inherited traits more or less common in a population.


This is why there is no such thing as "luck selection", because the only "selection" is how well the genes reproduce. Luck plays a part, but it can't and shouldn't be separated from anything else.

I have defined "luck selection" as that part (as you indicate) of natural selection which can be distinguished by luck.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish any environmental factors of natural selection from the reproductive success that follows them. What is it that you think causes the differential in reproduction rates?


I believe it has been asked before - what is your level of education in a technical subject, and why do you think your understanding of evolution is correct?

I have a high level of education, which I'm sure you can verify on the internet, just easily as I can verify jimbob's.

I think my understanding of evolution is correct because I find copious amounts of documentation to support it and none to refute it.


And we are not saying that traits that promote survival are unimportant, we are saying that traits that promote survival are important only as far as this survival promotes reproductive success.

Many evolved traits promote reproductive success at the expense of the organism's survival. Evolution optimises for reproductive success; if evolution optimised for survival, these traits couldn't evolve.

One example where you posit this idea:

So what is the mechanism for natural selection? How does an organism "pass natural selection" yet fail to reproduce.

The mechanism for natural selection is the natural environment. A number of factors which are unrelated to an organism's fitness, traits, or reproductive capability can prevent an organism from reproducing.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Again you are confusing cause and effect.

The traits modulate the average reproductive success; some beneficial traits will survive and spread through the population in subsequent generations.

What is the mechanism for a trait to be beneficial?


On average, organisms with traits that confer reproductive advantage will have more offspring that reproduce. As an aside it is possibly worth making the observation that due to the small percentage of organisms that actually do manage to reproduce, there is usually little chance that any particular beneficial trait will survive beyond its first generation. This is important if you want to understand how evolution works, but is evidently too subtle for the current discussion.

What is the mechanism for conferring reproductive advantage?

How do beneficial traits survive and spread through a population if there is little chance of the trait surviving? Are you simply describing one of the common probabilities of evolution?


No it doesn't say that, clearly or otherwise.
1. There is variation in traits.
2. There is differential reproduction. (not "selection and survival)"
3. There is heredity.
4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population.


The end result is natural selection, it is not the mechanism. Reproductive success

"If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. "

So then, the end result of the three factors, including differential reproduction, is natural selection and reproductive success.

What causes differential reproduction?

[Bill Thompson 75]

From the Berkley website: (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml)

Lesson plans for teaching about natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/search/search_lessons.php?sort_by=audience_rank&topic_id=&keywords=teach+about+natural+selection&Submit=Search)

A grade 9-12 lesson plan:

and the actual article (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html)

My highlighting
From you:
"The end result is natural selection, it is not the mechanism."

From your source:
"interviewhighlights"
"Natural selection is a very efficient, predictable mechanism of evolution"

"Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?
Futuyma: No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination..."

From you:
"Many beneficial traits will die out too due to bad luck.
This is called natural selection."

From your source:
"However, natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is the antithesis of chance."

[Dancing David]

This seems to be tossing kittens down a well... not a discussion. L8TR BT75, you go JimBob!

[jimbob]

Again you are confusing cause and effect.

The traits modulate the average reproductive success; some beneficial traits will survive and spread through the population in subsequent generations.What is the mechanism for a trait to be beneficial?


Traits are beneficial if they improve the average reproductive success of an organism.

It is possible to perform evolutionary experiments using organisms with short generations. Fruit flies are commonly used, and sometimes bacteria - the best known-example being the Long Term Evolution experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). One can run experiments in parallel, with multiple populations that are very similar, so can control for environmental factors and the inevitable differences in the initial populations.

As well as this, you can observe populations of organisms in the wild and quantify how advantageous the traits that survived are. Advantageous traits often confer a selective advantage of less than 1%.

It is then trivial to see that if an average individual organism in a population has a 5% chance of reproducing, then the initial carrier of such a trait (a single organism) would have (at best - if the trait improved the chances of reproducing, as opposed to improving the viability of any offspring) a 1% of this 5% improvement. In other words, instead of a 5% chance of reproducing, it would have a 5.05% chance.



On average, organisms with traits that confer reproductive advantage will have more offspring that reproduce. As an aside it is possibly worth making the observation that due to the small percentage of organisms that actually do manage to reproduce, there is usually little chance that any particular beneficial trait will survive beyond its first generation. This is important if you want to understand how evolution works, but is evidently too subtle for the current discussion.
What is the mechanism for conferring reproductive advantage?

How do beneficial traits survive and spread through a population if there is little chance of the trait surviving? Are you simply describing one of the common probabilities of evolution?


There is little chance of any individual beneficial trait surviving its first generation. However, some beneficial traits will do. Once the trait has survived the first generation, then it will improve the chances of reproductive success for all the carrying offspring, (say 20 organisms instead of one initial one) The chances of the trait spreading increase as the population carrying it increases.

In certain populations (lemmings for example) a beneficial mutation that initially occurred during one of the quasiperiodic population explosions would be very likely to spread. The same mutation initially occurring during a population crash would be very unlikely to spread.


"Are you simply describing one of the common probabilities of evolution?"
What do you mean?


No it doesn't say that, clearly or otherwise.
1. There is variation in traits.
2. There is differential reproduction. (not "selection and survival)"
3. There is heredity.
4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population.


The end result is natural selection, it is not the mechanism. Reproductive success

"If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that. "
So then, the end result of the three factors, including differential reproduction, is natural selection and reproductive success.

What causes differential reproduction?

So then, the end result of the three factors, including differential reproduction, is natural selection and reproductive success.

Natural selection is not reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest by differences in reproductive success (i.e. differential reproduction, which is a neater phrase than the one I had been using).


What causes differential reproduction? Some traits improve reproductive success, some are neutral, and others degrade it.

[jimbob]

Natural selection is the process which results in the phenomenon of different reproductive rates by making inherited traits more or less common in a population.



Back to front: differential reproductive success leads to the phenomenon of natural selection, which is a key mechanism in evolution.

Differential reproductive success isn't a mechanism, it is a phenomenon.



I have a high level of education, which I'm sure you can verify on the internet, just easily as I can verify jimbob's.

I think my understanding of evolution is correct because I find copious amounts of documentation to support it and none to refute it.


My stated knowledge and understanding is consistent with what I write.

"I think my understanding of evolution is correct because I find copious amounts of documentation to support it and none to refute it. "

Quotes please.


The mechanism for natural selection is the natural environment. A number of factors which are unrelated to an organism's fitness, traits, or reproductive capability can prevent an organism from reproducing.

That isn't a mechanism.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Traits are beneficial if they improve the average reproductive success of an organism.

What causes a trait to improve the average reproductive success of an organism?


There is little chance of any individual beneficial trait surviving its first generation. However, some beneficial traits will do. Once the trait has survived the first generation,...

What could keep a trait from surviving?


...then it will improve the chances of reproductive success for all the carrying offspring, (say 20 organisms instead of one initial one) The chances of the trait spreading increase as the population carrying it increases.

Natural selection is not reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest by differences in reproductive success (i.e. differential reproduction, which is a neater phrase than the one I had been using).

What causes differential reproduction? Some traits improve reproductive success, some are neutral, and others degrade it.

What causes traits to have these different effects on reproduction?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Back to front: differential reproductive success leads to the phenomenon of natural selection, which is a key mechanism in evolution.

Here you say
1) That differential reproductive success precedes natural selection, and
2) That a phenomenon is also a mechanism.


Differential reproductive success isn't a mechanism, it is a phenomenon.

Here you say
That a phenomenon is not also a mechanism.


My stated knowledge and understanding is consistent with what I write.

That is a tautology of personality. It is a redundancy that says no more than that you are not crazy.


"I think my understanding of evolution is correct because I find copious amounts of documentation to support it and none to refute it. "

Quotes please.

Haven't you been paying attention?


That isn't a mechanism.

In many natural environments there are factors, such as predation, weather, nutritional competition, etc., which prevent some organisms from reproducing.
What do you call this mechanism of nature which removes less capable members from a population?

[jimbob]

Traits are beneficial if they improve the average reproductive success of an organism.

What causes a trait to improve the average reproductive success of an organism?


Are you serious?

In the case of the sunfish, increasing the number of released eggs.

In the case of the Grey Nurse shark, giving birth to live young, and never more than two at a time (the species indulges in intrauterine cannibalism, and thus the offspring that are born are pretty able to fend for themselves.

In the case of the Komodo dragon, in a region with little large prey, it involves increasing reproductive success by producing young that eat smaller prey, and the adults eating a lot of their offspring.


In the case of mammals, supplying the infant offspring with milk. As far as a trait that promotes "survival" this is pretty poor. There is a significant cost to the mother in producing milk.




There is little chance of any individual beneficial trait surviving its first generation. However, some beneficial traits will do. Once the trait has survived the first generation,...

What could keep a trait from surviving?


The odds are against it surviving the first generation because mutations happen in individual organisms and are then are carried by their descendants. The vast majority of individual organisms do not reproduce.

In the case of the sunfish, about 150-million to one against any egg making it to reproduce. If an egg carried a gene that could confer an advantage, say by increasing the fry's ability to avoid predation, then it is still very likely to be lost.



...then it will improve the chances of reproductive success for all the carrying offspring, (say 20 organisms instead of one initial one) The chances of the trait spreading increase as the population carrying it increases.

Natural selection is not reproductive success. Natural selection is manifest by differences in reproductive success (i.e. differential reproduction, which is a neater phrase than the one I had been using).

What causes differential reproduction? Some traits improve reproductive success, some are neutral, and others degrade it.

What causes traits to have these different effects on reproduction?

It depends. The genes of a mare might be fine if a stallion was around. If only potential mate is a jack, then offspring could result, but they would be sterile. The genes of a jenny would be more beneficial.

A male peacock might carry a mutation that makes his tail less conspicuous. He would be more likely to survive, but this wouldn't matter, as he would be less likely to mate. This would be a deleterious trait.

The gene for sickle cell anaemia in humans has always conferred a cost (on average 25% of the offspring of two (nearly asymptomatic) carriers would tend to die from sickle cell disease and thus not reproduce). In the malaria belt however, this cost is offset because on average 50% of their offspring would be asymptomatic carriers, and thus far less prone to malarial morbidity and mortality.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Are you serious?

In the case of the sunfish, increasing the number of released eggs.

In the case of the Grey Nurse shark, giving birth to live young, and never more than two at a time (the species indulges in intrauterine cannibalism, and thus the offspring that are born are pretty able to fend for themselves.

In the case of the Komodo dragon, in a region with little large prey, it involves increasing reproductive success by producing young that eat smaller prey, and the adults eating a lot of their offspring.

In the case of mammals, supplying the infant offspring with milk. As far as a trait that promotes "survival" this is pretty poor. There is a significant cost to the mother in producing milk.

The odds are against it surviving the first generation because mutations happen in individual organisms and are then are carried by their descendants. The vast majority of individual organisms do not reproduce.

In the case of the sunfish, about 150-million to one against any egg making it to reproduce. If an egg carried a gene that could confer an advantage, say by increasing the fry's ability to avoid predation, then it is still very likely to be lost.

It depends. The genes of a mare might be fine if a stallion was around. If only potential mate is a jack, then offspring could result, but they would be sterile. The genes of a jenny would be more beneficial.

A male peacock might carry a mutation that makes his tail less conspicuous. He would be more likely to survive, but this wouldn't matter, as he would be less likely to mate. This would be a deleterious trait.

The gene for sickle cell anaemia in humans has always conferred a cost (on average 25% of the offspring of two (nearly asymptomatic) carriers would tend to die from sickle cell disease and thus not reproduce). In the malaria belt however, this cost is offset because on average 50% of their offspring would be asymptomatic carriers, and thus far less prone to malarial morbidity and mortality.

You should note that your basic point through this post is that a trait is beneficial to reproductive success by being beneficial to reproductive success. You fail to break out of that circle and to actually explain the source/means/cause of a benefit ascribed to a trait.

How does a trait provide a benefit to reproductive success?
If there is a mechanism to this, what do you call it?

[Dancing David]

Bob

[jimbob]

You should note that your basic point through this post is that a trait is beneficial to reproductive success by being beneficial to reproductive success. You fail to break out of that circle and to actually explain the source/means/cause of a benefit ascribed to a trait.

How does a trait provide a benefit to reproductive success?
If there is a mechanism to this, what do you call it?
Er?

There are probably as many mechanisms as there are traits.

Each trait affects reproductive success in a different manner. I did give examples in the post which you quoted: the sunfish produces lots of eggs, mammals produce milk, placental mammals nurture their offspring within the womb. Carrying the gene for sickle cell anaemia increases resistance to malaria. The peacock's tail improves the chances of mating with a female peacock, because female peacocks chose males with big displays. Mares and jacks can mate, but their offspring are sterile - compatible genes that allow viable reproducing offspring are important.

Only one of these examples is a trait that increases the survival of an organism with that trait.

[jimbob]

Back to the original point:

Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation.

Traits that increase the survival of the carrier do often contribute towards reproductive success, but any such evolution of traits that improve survival is incidental, i.e. this is as a consequence of these traits increasing reproductive success (by improving survival).

Because the optimisation is towards reproductive success, traits can evolve that improve reproductive success whilst harming the individual organism's survival. This could not happen if evolution optimised towards "survival". Celibacy is often a good survival strategy, but rubbish for passing one's genes on.


Given the fact of differential reproduction for carriers of different collections of heritable traits, and given variation, natural selection follows. It is a name to describe this.

I don't know what you think, as you have been unclear, but do you agree now that evolution optimises towards reproductive success?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Er?

There are probably as many mechanisms as there are traits.

Each trait affects reproductive success in a different manner. I did give examples in the post which you quoted: the sunfish produces lots of eggs, mammals produce milk, placental mammals nurture their offspring within the womb. Carrying the gene for sickle cell anaemia increases resistance to malaria. The peacock's tail improves the chances of mating with a female peacock, because female peacocks chose males with big displays. Mares and jacks can mate, but their offspring are sterile - compatible genes that allow viable reproducing offspring are important.

Only one of these examples is a trait that increases the survival of an organism with that trait.

The common mechanism of these examples is called natural selection. Several sources cited in the Wikipedia article on natural selection very clearly make this point. You seem to be resistant to that designation.

Wikipedia, "Natural Selection"

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"...in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass."

[Bill Thompson 75]

Back to the original point:

Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation.

This is clearly a common, viable strategy, but not all evolutionary biologists agree on this. Some alternatives are based on game theory and satisficing theory. Maynard Smith referred to them as evolutionary stable strategies.


Traits that increase the survival of the carrier do often contribute towards reproductive success, but any such evolution of traits that improve survival is incidental, i.e. this is as a consequence of these traits increasing reproductive success (by improving survival).

Because the optimisation is towards reproductive success, traits can evolve that improve reproductive success whilst harming the individual organism's survival. This could not happen if evolution optimised towards "survival". Celibacy is often a good survival strategy, but rubbish for passing one's genes on.

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.


Given the fact of differential reproduction for carriers of different collections of heritable traits, and given variation, natural selection follows. It is a name to describe this.

I don't know what you think, as you have been unclear, but do you agree now that evolution optimises towards reproductive success?

Yes, generally evolution does optimize towards success in passing on the genes.

The original point was never that optimization was aimed at survival. Remember how many times I clarified the misconception that this was ever my claim.

[Dancing David]

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.

Which is not the point, the point is that you have repeatedly defined natural selection as based upon survival traits and ignored the multitude of cases where it appears to be based upon rates of reproduction.




Yes, generally evolution does optimize towards success in passing on the genes.

The original point was never that optimization was aimed at survival. Remember how many times I clarified the misconception that this was ever my claim.

And not really, you just pretended you didn't say the things you said and then pretended they mean something else.

then you accused me of trolling rather than explaining the words you used.

[jimbob]

The common mechanism of these examples is called natural selection. Several sources cited in the Wikipedia article on natural selection very clearly make this point. You seem to be resistant to that designation.

Wikipedia, "Natural Selection"

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"...in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass."
You have cause and effect muddled up.

Natural selection is a key mechanism in evolution.

The fact of differential reproduction is an important mechanism in natural selection.

Natural selection is not the mechanism behind differential reproduction.

[jimbob]

Back to the original point:

Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation.

This is clearly a common, viable strategy, but not all evolutionary biologists agree on this. Some alternatives are based on game theory and satisficing theory. Maynard Smith referred to them as evolutionary stable strategies.



"
Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation. "

Is not discussing any strategies. It is pointing out an observation.

As a digression I am quite aware of game theory, and evolutionarily stable strategies. However this doesn't alter the fact that the optimisation is towards reproductive success. The mathematical analysis of explains why the "optimal" solution (for the population) won't evolve because it would involve a sacrifice of reproductive success.




Traits that increase the survival of the carrier do often contribute towards reproductive success, but any such evolution of traits that improve survival is incidental, i.e. this is as a consequence of these traits increasing reproductive success (by improving survival).

Because the optimisation is towards reproductive success, traits can evolve that improve reproductive success whilst harming the individual organism's survival. This could not happen if evolution optimised towards "survival". Celibacy is often a good survival strategy, but rubbish for passing one's genes on.

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.


I won't. You look for it, and I will be willing to look at any examples that you find. Sometimes the nature of the reproductive success is not clear, and there are discussions as to what form this takes, but it is always there.

It is important to realise that it isn't the reproductive success of the organism but of the genes that is key.




Given the fact of differential reproduction for carriers of different collections of heritable traits, and given variation, natural selection follows. It is a name to describe this.

I don't know what you think, as you have been unclear, but do you agree now that evolution optimises towards reproductive success?

Yes, generally evolution does optimize towards success in passing on the genes.

The original point was never that optimization was aimed at survival. Remember how many times I clarified the misconception that this was ever my claim.


Yes, generally evolution does optimize towards success in passing on the genes.

"Generally" implies that there are situations where this is not the case. Please give me one counter example.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Which is not the point, the point is that you have repeatedly defined natural selection as based upon survival traits and ignored the multitude of cases where it appears to be based upon rates of reproduction.

That was the point you kept trying to assign to me so that you would have something to argue about. I merely kept reminding you that reproduction doesn't happen at all without survival.
My point was the natural selection is a key mechanism to evolution.


And not really, you just pretended you didn't say the things you said and then pretended they mean something else.

then you accused me of trolling rather than explaining the words you used.

..and explaining and explaining and...

[Bill Thompson 75]

You have cause and effect muddled up.

Natural selection is a key mechanism in evolution.

The fact of differential reproduction is an important mechanism in natural selection.

Natural selection is not the mechanism behind differential reproduction.

You mean the authors of the article and bibliographic entries have it muddled up.

[Bill Thompson 75]

"
Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation. "

Is not discussing any strategies. It is pointing out an observation.

As a digression I am quite aware of game theory, and evolutionarily stable strategies. However this doesn't alter the fact that the optimisation is towards reproductive success. The mathematical analysis of explains why the "optimal" solution (for the population) won't evolve because it would involve a sacrifice of reproductive success.

I won't. You look for it, and I will be willing to look at any examples that you find. Sometimes the nature of the reproductive success is not clear, and there are discussions as to what form this takes, but it is always there.

It is important to realise that it isn't the reproductive success of the organism but of the genes that is key.

Yes, generally evolution does optimize towards success in passing on the genes.

"Generally" implies that there are situations where this is not the case. Please give me one counter example.

I mentioned earlier that you were falling into a logical circle by presenting the cause of reproducitive success as reproductive success.
Now your argument is starting to consume itself.

You are arguing a tautology by claiming that regardless of any other theory or proposed strategy of optimization those ideas will all still be based on reproductive success.
By stating that "Sometimes the nature of the reproductive success is not clear, and there are discussions as to what form this takes, but it is always there." you have finally made your argument unfalsifiable. I imagine you know what that means.

[Dancing David]

That was the point you kept trying to assign to me so that you would have something to argue about. I merely kept reminding you that reproduction doesn't happen at all without survival.
My point was the natural selection is a key mechanism to evolution.



..and explaining and explaining and...

And so explain how traits that are not directly related to survival become predominant in the population, like flowers and fruit?

I missed that explanation given your definition of natural selection.

Seriously Bill Thompson 75, where did you answer that question?
Much less how a trait like the peacock's tail or harems which are directly detrimental to the survival of the individual become predominant in a population.

[jimbob]

I mentioned earlier that you were falling into a logical circle by presenting the cause of reproducitive success as reproductive success.
Now your argument is starting to consume itself.

You are arguing a tautology by claiming that regardless of any other theory or proposed strategy of optimization those ideas will all still be based on reproductive success.
By stating that "Sometimes the nature of the reproductive success is not clear, and there are discussions as to what form this takes, but it is always there." you have finally made your argument unfalsifiable. I imagine you know what that means.


No, I am pointing out that we don't now how all traits evolved, and that sometimes there is a discussion about the exact benefit that a trait confers (unless it is due to genetic drift). It is a given that any benefit is to reproductive success and only survival if this is the mechanism by which reproductive success is increased in a particular case. There is no discussion (except in this thread) about whether natural selection reflects "survival" or "reproductive success". That is virtually in the realm of proven logic and not science.


I have given examples before where the discussion about evolved traits isn't sure of their evolutionary benefit. For example, cystic fibrosis is obviously bad, but the prevalence is quite high in some regions, and possibly higher than one might expect if the trait was completely deleterious; there is speculation that carrying the gene might confer some protection against a formerly common disease: As discussed in this paper: Evaluating candidate agents of selective pressure for cystic fibrosis (http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/12/91.short) for example.



I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.



If you believe there are examples where this has happened, and where the trait has evolved, please give them. A single convincing case would overturn evolutionary theory. And require some pretty nifty logic.

Birth control in humans didn't evolve, so that doesn't count.

[jimbob]

The common mechanism of these examples is called natural selection. Several sources cited in the Wikipedia article on natural selection very clearly make this point. You seem to be resistant to that designation.

Wikipedia, "Natural Selection"

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

"...in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass."
You have cause and effect muddled up.

Natural selection is a key mechanism in evolution.

The fact of differential reproduction is an important mechanism in natural selection.

Natural selection is not the mechanism behind differential reproduction.You mean the authors of the article and bibliographic entries have it muddled up.
Firstly wikipedia can be edited by anybody.

In this case it is a reasonable simplification, but it still is a simplification.

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

I'd remove the bit about survival, as that is misleading (I preferred the text produced by Berkley, which was more precise, and a proper text aimed at teaching evolution to older high-school children).

The wiki quote, with the wrong bit removed could be reworded as follows:

"Natural selection (the process by which traits become more or less common in a population) is due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Natural selection is not the cause of differential reproduction but due to it.

[Dancing David]

Meooooooooo....splash.

[Bill Thompson 75]

And so explain how traits that are not directly related to survival become predominant in the population, like flowers and fruit?

I missed that explanation given your definition of natural selection.

Seriously Bill Thompson 75, where did you answer that question?
Much less how a trait like the peacock's tail or harems which are directly detrimental to the survival of the individual become predominant in a population.

To answer your questions, which are not directly related to the points I have repeatedly tried to explain and you have repeatedly tried to redirect, those traits may be indirectly related to survival and become predominant in the population.

[Dancing David]

But a peacock's tail is directly detrimental to survival of the male individual (it makes them easier to spot and easier to catch by predators, it represents a huge expenditure of physical resources) as is the energy spent of harem maintainence.

So they are directly detrimental to survival. What is this "may be indirectly related to survival " how does that work, or are you just speculating.

The effect of that harem maintainence has on the dominant male is well documented, it is not healthy for them.

What mechanism does the peacock's tail serve in survival of the individual, or harem behavior?

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, I am pointing out that we don't now how all traits evolved, and that sometimes there is a discussion about the exact benefit that a trait confers (unless it is due to genetic drift). It is a given that any benefit is to reproductive success and only survival if this is the mechanism by which reproductive success is increased in a particular case.

This circular argument is called begging the question. You explicitly assume your conclusion ("it is a given") before presenting the argument for it.


There is no discussion (except in this thread) about whether natural selection reflects "survival" or "reproductive success". That is virtually in the realm of proven logic and not science.

Of course this is not true. Suppose an organism was discovered which had clearly evolutionarily optimized towards survival, and yet was not extinct. Your argument is not that this doesn't happen, but that it cannot logically happen.


I have given examples before where the discussion about evolved traits isn't sure of their evolutionary benefit. For example, cystic fibrosis is obviously bad, but the prevalence is quite high in some regions, and possibly higher than one might expect if the trait was completely deleterious; there is speculation that carrying the gene might confer some protection against a formerly common disease: As discussed in this paper: Evaluating candidate agents of selective pressure for cystic fibrosis (http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/12/91.short) for example.

If you believe there are examples where this has happened, and where the trait has evolved, please give them. A single convincing case would overturn evolutionary theory. And require some pretty nifty logic.

You have already explicitly stated that this is impossible and that you could reinterpret any example. Such, then, would be pointless.


Birth control in humans didn't evolve, so that doesn't count.

Here you reverse yourself, now saying that artificial selection is not part of natural selection.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Firstly wikipedia can be edited by anybody.

In this case it is a reasonable simplification, but it still is a simplification.

I'd remove the bit about survival, as that is misleading (I preferred the text produced by Berkley, which was more precise, and a proper text aimed at teaching evolution to older high-school children).

The wiki quote, with the wrong bit removed could be reworded as follows:

"Natural selection (the process by which traits become more or less common in a population) is due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

This is more of your logic. You could probably pull words out of thousands of quotes to support any claim whatsoever, don't you think? See below.


Natural selection is not the cause of differential reproduction but due to it.

Here I combine your statements for clarity.
Natural selection, the process by which traits become more or less common in a population, is due to differential reproduction. What is your definition of differential reproduction that makes this point not circular?


Jimbob Logic:

"Natural selection is not the cause of differential reproduction but due to it."

This quote, with the wrong bit moved could be reworded as follows:

"Natural selection is the cause of differential reproduction but not due to it.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Meooooooooo....splash.

This is DD tripping on his tangled logic and getting mud on his face.

[Dancing David]

This is DD tripping on his tangled logic and getting mud on his face.

I see when you can't address the fact that there are traits that become dominant in populations that are detrimental to the survival of individuals, you resort to rhetoric. That has been your pattern throughout, sort of funny. Not very good critical thinking, great name calling. I see your tangled logic and raise you a nanny nanny boo boo.

So peacock's tails and harems in mammals, you have a hole in your theory, they are detrimental to the survival of the individual, why is that? Care to answer the question?

Much less how bower birds draw attention to themselvs, another great "come eat me" behavior.

[jimbob]

I see when you can't address the fact that there are traits that become dominant in populations that are detrimental to the survival of individuals, you resort to rhetoric. That has been your pattern throughout, sort of funny. Not very good critical thinking, great name calling. I see your tangled logic and raise you a nanny nanny boo boo.

So peacock's tails and harems in mammals, you have a hole in your theory, they are detrimental to the survival of the individual, why is that? Care to answer the question?

Much less how bower birds draw attention to themselvs, another great "come eat me" behavior.


Or Milk production by female mammals, caring for offspring by birds, the placenta by placental mammals, to add some even more general examples.

[jimbob]

Bill, provide a mechanism where a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success can evolve.

There is none.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, provide a mechanism where a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success can evolve.

There is none.

Suppose there is an organism which is very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births. This creature manages to evolve by focusing its main energies and capabilities on survival. It infrequently has litters but has a minimal necessary number of litters by evolving into a long-lived creature through optimization for survival. This is such a mechanism.

[jimbob]

Bill, provide a mechanism where a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success can evolve.

There is none.

Suppose there is an organism which is very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births. This creature manages to evolve by focusing its main energies and capabilities on survival. It infrequently has litters but has a minimal necessary number of litters by evolving into a long-lived creature through optimization for survival. This is such a mechanism.

There are a lot of misunderstandings in that post of yours.

Firstly organisms don't evolve,the descendants of an organism evolve.

Secondly nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. They might survive, they might reproduce successfully but this is not the same as evolve. Your choice of words also seems to suggest that there is a goal to evolution. This is not the case. Most organisms have no goal at all. Higher animals do, to differing amounts. However even higher animals, including humans most of the time do not have goals about the evolution of their descendants.

Thirdly, reproductive success is not merely producing lots of offspring that die without them reproducing; reproductive success involves producing viable offspring, a good test of whether they are viable is whether they reproduce. In other words until an organism has produced grandchildren, it hasn't had reproductive success yet.

It doesn't matter how many offspring you have if they don't reproduce. Think of bees - it doesn't really matter how many workers a queen produces, if she fails to produce a single queen that breeds, the hive will die. If she also fails to produce any drones that reproduce, she will have no grandchildren. Workers, queens and drones are all offspring, but only drones and queens reproduce.

In your example, I think you are saying that more offspring survive and breed. If this is what you are saying, then that is an example of evolution towards increased reproductive success.

To have evolution towards a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success, you would be saying that this trait reduces the number of grandchildren and increases the survival of the parent or grandparent. Not having offspring could do this. Having offspring tends to be costly. However such a trait dies out because there are fewer descendants to carry it.

[Bill Thompson 75]

There are a lot of misunderstandings in that post of yours.

I hadn't anticipated that you would be so incapable of even a paltry amount of cogent analysis.


Firstly organisms don't evolve,the descendants of an organism evolve.

Firstly and a half, a descendant organism doesn't evolve any more than an ancestral organism does, does it? It's really a population or species that evolves.
I am amazed that you couldn't interpret my usage of "organism" and "creature" as representatives of a species rather than as individuals.


Secondly nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. They might survive, they might reproduce successfully but this is not the same as evolve.

The biology of a creature certainly may focus energy on survival. Consider the fact that humans have an evolved a shiver response to cold.
I explicitly noted that this creature evolves into one with greater longevity.

With "anything else" you include reproductive success. That negates most of your previous dozens of posts.
You also are saying that reproductive success is not a mechanism of evolution.


Your choice of words also seems to suggest that there is a goal to evolution. This is not the case. Most organisms have no goal at all.

I have no idea what confused you here. The goal I was explicit about is optimization for survival, an exact parallel of your optimization for reproduction.


Higher animals do, to differing amounts. However even higher animals, including humans most of the time do not have goals about the evolution of their descendants.

Make up your mind, either they can have goals or they can't.


Thirdly, reproductive success is not merely producing lots of offspring that die without them reproducing; reproductive success involves producing viable offspring, a good test of whether they are viable is whether they reproduce. In other words until an organism has produced grandchildren, it hasn't had reproductive success yet.

Please refer to my example when presenting your rebuttal. This is irrelevant to my example.


It doesn't matter how many offspring you have if they don't reproduce. Think of bees - it doesn't really matter how many workers a queen produces, if she fails to produce a single queen that breeds, the hive will die. If she also fails to produce any drones that reproduce, she will have no grandchildren. Workers, queens and drones are all offspring, but only drones and queens reproduce.

This is irrelevant to my example.


In your example, I think you are saying that more offspring survive and breed. If this is what you are saying, then that is an example of evolution towards increased reproductive success.

Once again you simply reinterpret to fit your needs for a rebuttal, no matter how weak.

In a previous post I pointed out your fallacious use of begging the question which you chose not to rebut. But here again you presume that evolving for reproductive success is the only possibility without any substantiation.


To have evolution towards a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success, you would be saying that this trait reduces the number of grandchildren and increases the survival of the parent or grandparent. Not having offspring could do this. Having offspring tends to be costly.

I explicitly said that the trait minimizes offspring but offsets that with longevity and more litters.


However such a trait dies out because there are fewer descendants to carry it.

Here you claim that there has existed an organism which actually had this trait which you previously claimed was impossible...or you are just guessing again.

My example is a well crafted response to your claim that it is not possible for an organism to evolve a trait "that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success".

Your entire rebuttal shows incompetent and desperate analysis.

[Lithrael]

Here you claim that there has existed an organism which actually had this trait which you previously claimed was impossible...or you are just guessing again.

My example is a well crafted response to your claim that it is not possible for an organism to evolve a trait "that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success".

Well, an organism might try out such a strategy, but it won't succeed long term, because it won't be as successful reproductively as other strategies, and that's what counts. So it might come up as a fluke or as a temporarily good strategy in a new environment, but it won't stand the test of time.

Can anyone say it any simpler? Organisms with even slightly more successful reproductive strategies than the others in their species will always end up being the evolutionary winners. Counterexamples are rare (I can't think of any) and should still make sense when examined closely. I don't see why this thread is still going on.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well, an organism might try out such a strategy, but it won't succeed long term, because it won't be as successful reproductively as other strategies, and that's what counts. So it might come up as a fluke or as a temporarily good strategy in a new environment, but it won't stand the test of time.

Here are some of the issues with the points you bring up:
1) An organism trying out a strategy sounds like intentional self-evolution, that would only apply to human organisms.
2) Being less reproductively successful is fine, and it does not equate to extinction.
3) A good strategy in a new environment won't become a bad strategy unless the environment changes, which is potentially true of any strategy.
4) Others in this thread claim there are no other strategies, only optimization to reproductive success.


Can anyone say it any simpler? Organisms with even slightly more successful reproductive strategies than the others in their species will always end up being the evolutionary winners. Counterexamples are rare (I can't think of any) and should still make sense when examined closely. I don't see why this thread is still going on.

When a species evolves into separate species that does not always result in competition and it does not necessarily mean that one will "win" and one will "lose".

What you are saying here is not completely clear but I think all evolution is a counterexample to it. Evolution is the process of species populations separating and then frequently both continuing.

I don't see why this thread is still going on.

It certainly isn't evolving, is it?

[Dancing David]

I hadn't anticipated that you would be so incapable of even a paltry amount of cogent analysis.


And this is you unable to use rational debate to defend you ideas and resorting to name callin Bravo!. Another school yard triumph!

[jimbob]

My example is a well crafted response to your claim that it is not possible for an organism to evolve a trait "that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success".


So does your hypothetical case involve the evolution of a trait where carriers of this trait have fewer grandchildren than if they didn't have this trait?

That is reducing reproductive success. Having more viable offspring isn't decreasing reproductive success it is increasing it.

[Dancing David]

4) Others in this thread claim there are no other strategies, only optimization to reproductive success.


I think many have said that traits which improve reproductive success are the likeliest to become dominant in a species.

I think part of the confusion is something like this:
There are traits which are detrimental to survival (vague and general categories)

-short term death (anencephalic)
-quick death (heart valve anomalies)
-moderate death (juvenile diabetes)
-slow death (genetic traits leading to cancer later in life)

-major functional impairment (congenital blindness)
-moderate functional impairment (major visual impairment)
-minor functional impairment (color blindness)

Now detrimental traits tend to be selected out of a population through negative impacts, an anencephalic baby does not usually survive birth, an infant with heart abnormalities does not make it to the age of five. A child with juvenile diabetes may make it to young adult hood. Someone with a propensity for cancer is very likely to make it to adulthood.

Same with the functional impairments, major will be negatively selected quickly, moderate less so and minor probably not at all.

So in general the population will have traits based upon the time frame of the detrimental traits. those that impact the survival of the individual prior to the age of reproduction will generally not be frequent in the population. Those that impact the individual around the age of reproduction will be infrequent, those that impact after the age of reproduction will be frequent in the population.

So by and large most members of the population will either have no detrimental traits or they will have detrimental traits that rarely effect the individual until after they have reproduced. And in fact the proportion of detrimental traits is related to how often they impact survival prior to the age of reproduction. Some detrimental traits will be widespread because they have a low impact upon the survival of the members of the population.

Does that make sense to you Bill Thompson 75?

[Dancing David]

Case A: Organism has trait that extends life by 50% (parasite immunity)
sub1-organism reproduces once in its whole life
sub2-organism reproduces yearly with short life span
sub3-organism reproduces twice yearly with short life span
sub4-organism reproduces yearly with moderate life span
sub5-organism reproduces twice yearly with moderate life span

Which populations are most likely to have the trait become dominant, overw hat time periods?

[Bill Thompson 75]

And this is you unable to use rational debate to defend you ideas and resorting to name callin Bravo!. Another school yard triumph!

And this is you:
1) Standard claim ("unable to...") without support
2) Accusation of name callin where no name is called
3) Confusing name callin with an accurate recognition of weak arguments
4) "Name callin" implied with "school yard triumph"
5) Pulling out of context to suit your need to feel adequate
6) Supporting another poster without any supporting argument

[Bill Thompson 75]

So does your hypothetical case involve the evolution of a trait where carriers of this trait have fewer grandchildren than if they didn't have this trait?

The trait provides longevity and sufficient litters to balance the poor reproductive capacity.


That is reducing reproductive success. Having more viable offspring isn't decreasing reproductive success it is increasing it.

Reproductive success does not need to be maximized or even optimized for a species to avoid extinction.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I think many have said that traits which improve reproductive success are the likeliest to become dominant in a species.

I think part of the confusion is something like this:
There are traits which are detrimental to survival (vague and general categories)

-short term death (anencephalic)
-quick death (heart valve anomalies)
-moderate death (juvenile diabetes)
-slow death (genetic traits leading to cancer later in life)

-major functional impairment (congenital blindness)
-moderate functional impairment (major visual impairment)
-minor functional impairment (color blindness)

Now detrimental traits tend to be selected out of a population through negative impacts, an anencephalic baby does not usually survive birth, an infant with heart abnormalities does not make it to the age of five. A child with juvenile diabetes may make it to young adult hood. Someone with a propensity for cancer is very likely to make it to adulthood.

Same with the functional impairments, major will be negatively selected quickly, moderate less so and minor probably not at all.

So in general the population will have traits based upon the time frame of the detrimental traits. those that impact the survival of the individual prior to the age of reproduction will generally not be frequent in the population. Those that impact the individual around the age of reproduction will be infrequent, those that impact after the age of reproduction will be frequent in the population.

So by and large most members of the population will either have no detrimental traits or they will have detrimental traits that rarely effect the individual until after they have reproduced. And in fact the proportion of detrimental traits is related to how often they impact survival prior to the age of reproduction. Some detrimental traits will be widespread because they have a low impact upon the survival of the members of the population.

Does that make sense to you Bill Thompson 75?

Yes, it makes sense, but when you say "likeliest to become dominant", "tend to be selected", "in general", and "by and large", you clearly leave room for my example of how an evolving trait can optimize for survival.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Case A: Organism has trait that extends life by 50% (parasite immunity)
sub1-organism reproduces once in its whole life
sub2-organism reproduces yearly with short life span
sub3-organism reproduces twice yearly with short life span
sub4-organism reproduces yearly with moderate life span
sub5-organism reproduces twice yearly with moderate life span

Which populations are most likely to have the trait become dominant, overw hat time periods?

I am sure you realize that there is not enough information in your Case A to provide a definitive answer. Most of the variations can become dominant based on other non-specified relevant factors.

[Lithrael]

Here are some of the issues with the points you bring up:
1) An organism trying out a strategy sounds like intentional self-evolution, that would only apply to human organisms.

Although I was speaking colloquially, I don't see that it's astonishingly wrong to say an individual organism can try out a strategy, besides the fact that "strategy" is an overly strong word to use to describe the urges/choices of an animal.

2) Being less reproductively successful is fine, and it does not equate to extinction.

What is does equate to, though, is to eventually being completely replaced by the gene lines of the other members of the species who are more reproductively successful.

I'm NOT talking about a species speciating into two species and then one 'winning' and the other 'losing,' I'm talking about gene lines within a population.

3) A good strategy in a new environment won't become a bad strategy unless the environment changes, which is potentially true of any strategy.

A good strategy in a new environment can become a bad strategy just by the filling up of your new niche with more members of your own species.

4) Others in this thread claim there are no other strategies, only optimization to reproductive success.

No other successful strategies. No other strategies that stand the test of time. And again I am using the term strategy loosely, I'm not pretending anyone's planning anything out.


When a species evolves into separate species that does not always result in competition and it does not necessarily mean that one will "win" and one will "lose".

What you are saying here is not completely clear but I think all evolution is a counterexample to it. Evolution is the process of species populations separating and then frequently both continuing.

When that happens it is because both gene lines have found different but successful ways to optimize their reproductive success, even if it's just by being in different places entirely.

But what we are mostly talking about is the fact that every species alive today by definition has been successful at reproduction. Every species that is extinct failed, at one point, to reproduce. Being good at being alive is not the part of the equation that drives evolution. Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution.

Anyone can demonstrate that here on Earth, the creatures with the shortest lifespans and most prolific reproduction are the ones that evolve fastest. A planet full of creatures that lived forever and did not reproduce at all would not be a planet where evolution occurred. How is this supposed middle ground supposed to come in, where survival and not reproduction drives evolution?

[Dancing David]

And this is you:
1) Standard claim ("unable to...") without support
2) Accusation of name callin where no name is called
3) Confusing name callin with an accurate recognition of weak arguments
4) "Name callin" implied with "school yard triumph"
5) Pulling out of context to suit your need to feel adequate
6) Supporting another poster without any supporting argument

Keep it up, the fact that youd eride the people you debate rather than engage in discussion is something all readers will notice, it is not critical thinking. Even if you make six bullets out of it.

Figured out how that peacock's tail which is detrimental to survival makes for an 'unknown survival advantage' yet?

Huh, I thought so.

Figured out how the stress of harem maintainence in herd animals has a 'survival benefit' for the individual yet?


Figured out how flowers and fruit have a 'survival' value yet?

You can't answer these pertinent questions so you engage in empty rhetoric.

[Dancing David]

I am sure you realize that there is not enough information in your Case A to provide a definitive answer. Most of the variations can become dominant based on other non-specified relevant factors.

Why don't you try to discuss it?

Maybe you could, and like you know actually engage is a discussion,

The example is left without the rates of progeny deliberately, I had though that you could do more than just quip and copy and past from wikipedia.

So why not delineate the specifics that would effect the out come? Because it had to do with rates of reproduction and the variable sometimes labeled generically as reproductive success?

You tell me Bill Thompson 75, what are these "non-specified relevant factors"? And how do they impact the transmission of traits in the population?

I mean seriously I suppose I could up with one that isn't related to reproductive success.

[Dancing David]

Yes, it makes sense, but when you say "likeliest to become dominant", "tend to be selected", "in general", and "by and large", you clearly leave room for my example of how an evolving trait can optimize for survival.

I see you don't like the language of biology and evolutionary discussion, you bring up a specific real or imaginary and we can discuss how it might actually come to be dominant in the population. I remember a rather convoluted one I came up with for LightisLife where cheek ouches became a flying mechanism, in another thread. (That one was about how the action of evolution is blind.)

Leaves room is not the same as actually discussing it.

Take for example the trait of resistance to a specific parasite or pathogen, predator avoidance (a biggie), or the ability to digest more efficiently.

What is the actual mechanism by which these become dominant traits in a population? And in case I haven't telegraphed it to you, what will that factor be? Rates of reproduction?

Which might be based upon longevity, 'survival', rearing and number of progeny?

[jimbob]

Here are some of the issues with the points you bring up:
1) An organism trying out a strategy sounds like intentional self-evolution, that would only apply to human organisms.

Although I was speaking colloquially, I don't see that it's astonishingly wrong to say an individual organism can try out a strategy, besides the fact that "strategy" is an overly strong word to use to describe the urges/choices of an animal.

2) Being less reproductively successful is fine, and it does not equate to extinction.

What is does equate to, though, is to eventually being completely replaced by the gene lines of the other members of the species who are more reproductively successful.

I'm NOT talking about a species speciating into two species and then one 'winning' and the other 'losing,' I'm talking about gene lines within a population.



And Malthusian reasoning still holds; i.e. eventually the population will be limited so that on average there will be one reproducing offspring per parent. Any trait that reduces this average below one reproducing offspring per parent will die out, and not just be swamped by members of the population without this.



3) A good strategy in a new environment won't become a bad strategy unless the environment changes, which is potentially true of any strategy.

A good strategy in a new environment can become a bad strategy just by the filling up of your new niche with more members of your own species.

4) Others in this thread claim there are no other strategies, only optimization to reproductive success.

No other successful strategies. No other strategies that stand the test of time. And again I am using the term strategy loosely, I'm not pretending anyone's planning anything out.


When a species evolves into separate species that does not always result in competition and it does not necessarily mean that one will "win" and one will "lose".

What you are saying here is not completely clear but I think all evolution is a counterexample to it. Evolution is the process of species populations separating and then frequently both continuing.

When that happens it is because both gene lines have found different but successful ways to optimize their reproductive success, even if it's just by being in different places entirely.

But what we are mostly talking about is the fact that every species alive today by definition has been successful at reproduction. Every species that is extinct failed, at one point, to reproduce. Being good at being alive is not the part of the equation that drives evolution. Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution.

Anyone can demonstrate that here on Earth, the creatures with the shortest lifespans and most prolific reproduction are the ones that evolve fastest. A planet full of creatures that lived forever and did not reproduce at all would not be a planet where evolution occurred. How is this supposed middle ground supposed to come in, where survival and not reproduction drives evolution?


QFT

[Bill Thompson 75]

Although I was speaking colloquially, I don't see that it's astonishingly wrong to say an individual organism can try out a strategy, besides the fact that "strategy" is an overly strong word to use to describe the urges/choices of an animal.

Organisms (except humans) don't make choices or have urges that are targeted toward evolving in alternative directions.


What is does equate to, though, is to eventually being completely replaced by the gene lines of the other members of the species who are more reproductively successful.

This makes the big assumption that the species of my scenario has members which are more reproductively successful than others, which if that were the case it still doesn't mean that when populations diverge that one replaces the other.


I'm NOT talking about a species speciating into two species and then one 'winning' and the other 'losing,' I'm talking about gene lines within a population.

When you used the word "winner" without qualifying it it appeared you meant "winner".


A good strategy in a new environment can become a bad strategy just by the filling up of your new niche with more members of your own species.

It sounds like the environment changes by becoming more crowded and forcing more intense competition among its inhabitants.


No other successful strategies. No other strategies that stand the test of time. And again I am using the term strategy loosely, I'm not pretending anyone's planning anything out.

When that happens it is because both gene lines have found different but successful ways to optimize their reproductive success, even if it's just by being in different places entirely.

It only means that both gene lines have found ways to avoid extinction.
You are equating avoidance of extinction with optimization of reproduction.
They are not equivalent. You are making the mistake others have made by presuming that optimization of reproduction is the only answer before demonstrating that it is the only answer.


But what we are mostly talking about is the fact that every species alive today by definition has been successful at reproduction. Every species that is extinct failed, at one point, to reproduce. Being good at being alive is not the part of the equation that drives evolution. Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution.

It is a fact that every species alive today was successful at survival. Also, every species that is extinct was reproductively successful until it failed. These ideas contain no material content, they are tautologies.


Anyone can demonstrate that here on Earth, the creatures with the shortest lifespans and most prolific reproduction are the ones that evolve fastest. A planet full of creatures that lived forever and did not reproduce at all would not be a planet where evolution occurred. How is this supposed middle ground supposed to come in, where survival and not reproduction drives evolution?

This is where you jumped into the middle of the thread and assumed that some of the debaters were making relevant points. No one in this thread has ever made the claim that survival drives evolution. Some have tried to push that claim on me because it is a very simple idea to counter and it's all they got.

I see you believe in intelligent design. How else could you even propose a scenario where an immortal species dd not get there through evolution?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Keep it up, the fact that youd eride the people you debate rather than engage in discussion is something all readers will notice, it is not critical thinking. Even if you make six bullets out of it.

I deride your arguments because you don't perform analysis with respect to the points I have made. See below.


Figured out how that peacock's tail which is detrimental to survival makes for an 'unknown survival advantage' yet?

Huh, I thought so.

Figured out how the stress of harem maintainence in herd animals has a 'survival benefit' for the individual yet?

Figured out how flowers and fruit have a 'survival' value yet?

You can't answer these pertinent questions so you engage in empty rhetoric.

If you had a memory of where this thread came from you would understand the difference between pertinent and off-topic.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Why don't you try to discuss it?

Maybe you could, and like you know actually engage is a discussion,

The example is left without the rates of progeny deliberately, I had though that you could do more than just quip and copy and past from wikipedia.

So why not delineate the specifics that would effect the out come? Because it had to do with rates of reproduction and the variable sometimes labeled generically as reproductive success?

You tell me Bill Thompson 75, what are these "non-specified relevant factors"? And how do they impact the transmission of traits in the population?

I mean seriously I suppose I could up with one that isn't related to reproductive success.

Come up with a relevant scenario.
Don't expect me to fill in its deficiencies.
What is the reference on "copy and past from wikipedia"?
Is "one that isn't related to reproductive success" agreeing with my scenario?

[Dancing David]

I deride your arguments because you don't perform analysis with respect to the points I have made. See below.

Oh sure BW75, that is what any one without a real argument would do, the nice rhetorical pretend you addressed it ploy.

If you have a critical thought about the three cases I am presenting, you would do better to make the case than pretend. I know you are new to the JREF and your style is usually snide rhetoric. This is the SMT, try answering my counters to your usage of ‘survival’ and your definition of natural selction.

Explain how the two traits that are detrimental to the survival of the i9ndividual become dominant.



If you had a memory of where this thread came from you would understand the difference between pertinent and off-topic.

I see your rhetorical flourish, you can't answer the questions and pretend that it is off topic, which it isn't. You won't report my post as off topic either, will you? Go ahead.

You want to say it is not pertinent because it is the huge hole in your argument, there are traits which are directly detrimental to survival of the individual and yet they manage to become dominant in populations.

That is totally pertinent and the fact that you won't address it is telling.


Figured out how that peacock's tail which is detrimental to survival makes for an 'unknown survival advantage' yet?

Figured out how the stress of harem maintenance in herd animals has a 'survival benefit' for the individual yet?

Figured out how flowers and fruit have a 'survival' value yet?



BTW: Your rhetoric means little in the SMT forum. Spin away, all who care to read this thread will see that you haven’t answered those questions, because they point out the huge fallacy of your definition and usage of the term natural selection. You did not address them in your arguments.

Two traits directly detrimental to the survival of the individual and one with no survival value that I know of, so how come they are dominant traits in their respective populations?

[Bill Thompson 75]

I see you don't like the language of biology and evolutionary discussion, you bring up a specific real or imaginary and we can discuss how it might actually come to be dominant in the population.

The language is inexact because the theory is inexact. The language and theory do allow for exceptions and interpretations and disagreement. It seems that you don't.


I remember a rather convoluted one I came up with for LightisLife where cheek ouches became a flying mechanism, in another thread. (That one was about how the action of evolution is blind.)

So, evolution might optimize towards reproductive success or towards survival, it's all just a matter of chance.


Leaves room is not the same as actually discussing it.

Take for example the trait of resistance to a specific parasite or pathogen, predator avoidance (a biggie), or the ability to digest more efficiently.

What is the actual mechanism by which these become dominant traits in a population? And in case I haven't telegraphed it to you, what will that factor be? Rates of reproduction?

Natural selection. I think we've been here before.


Which might be based upon longevity, 'survival', rearing and number of progeny?

This question needs a semester to answer or more syntax.

[Dancing David]

Come up with a relevant scenario.


What other parameters do you need to make your conclusion Bill Thompson 75, which ones would you like me to give you?

I gave you some relevant facts, which other parameters would you like to know?

here is just one possible case

What other parameters would you like me to set? I deliberately chose a trait which even benefits survival, kind of funny that!

Case A: Organism has trait that extends life by 50% (parasite immunity)
sub1-organism reproduces once in its whole life
sub2-organism reproduces yearly with short life span
sub3-organism reproduces twice yearly with short life span
sub4-organism reproduces yearly with moderate life span
sub5-organism reproduces twice yearly with moderate life span

Which populations are most likely to have the trait become dominant, over what time periods?

So what other parameters would you like?

[Bill Thompson 75]

And Malthusian reasoning still holds; i.e. eventually the population will be limited so that on average there will be one reproducing offspring per parent. Any trait that reduces this average below one reproducing offspring per parent will die out, and not just be swamped by members of the population without this.

This is only one outcome of my scenario. It is not the necessary outcome and therefore does not present a counter to my scenario.

From Lithrael:
"Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution. "

The "being good" claim is not enough. You need to claim that "being maximally good" is necessary, otherwise "being minimally good " is sufficient to drive evolution.

[Dancing David]

The language is inexact because the theory is inexact.

Nope, you don't know much about history, archaeology or biological reconstruction of possible evolutionary paths, do you? The language is that way because... the data set is imperfect, so exact statements would be inaccurate in most cases.

So even though the most likely scenario in brain development of homo sapiens sapiens is that it is a side trait of the upright gait, that is all we can say, it is the most likely path to the developed brain. We at this time can not say it is the exact path.
The language and theory do allow for exceptions and interpretations and disagreement. It seems that you don't.

I am comfortable with disagreement, I have asked you to explain your version of the theory regards certain things, like peacock’s tails.

This is the JREF after all.

So, evolution might optimize towards reproductive success or towards survival, it's all just a matter of chance.


Not Really.

Let us discuss Case A shall we?
I gave you the survival benefit, what other parameters would you like in the model?



Natural selection. I think we've been here before.

maybe, maybe not.




This question needs a semester to answer or more syntax.

It is rather plain, those are four of many traits that might lead to traits becoming dominant in a population. I suppose politeness is beyond you.

[Bill Thompson 75]

What other parameters do you need to make your conclusion Bill Thompson 75, which ones would you like me to give you?

I gave you some relevant facts, which other parameters would you like to know?

here is just one possible case

What other parameters would you like me to set? I deliberately chose a trait which even benefits survival, kind of funny that!

So what other parameters would you like?

Let's let this be your little Lesson Of The Day and you can fill in the exciting answers you are so eager to present to your audience.

[Dancing David]

This is only one outcome of my scenario. It is not the necessary outcome and therefore does not present a counter to my scenario.

From Lithrael:
"Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution. "

The "being good" claim is not enough. You need to claim that "being maximally good" is necessary, otherwise "being minimally good " is sufficient to drive evolution.

Well yes and no, traits need not be maximal at all, it just has to lead to an increase in progeny that live to reproduce.

Some traits may effect survival, parasite resistance, longevity, camouflage and the like, but it is always going to be the number of progeny that survive to have progeny that is the crucial factor.

There is not need for any maximal level and in fact a minimal level can do. :)

[Dancing David]

Let's let this be your little Lesson Of The Day and you can fill in the exciting answers you are so eager to present to your audience.

Oh come no BW 75, let this be a discussion, I asked you! What other parameters would you like?

It is the dialogue that I find interesting, I change my mind all the time from these discussions, I have no interest in just a monologue.

You said you needed more information and this being the JREF, I am asking you which information?

Or do you not know which other information you would like? :)

[Bill Thompson 75]

Nope, you don't know much about history, archaeology or biological reconstruction of possible evolutionary paths, do you? The language is that way because... the data set is imperfect, so exact statements would be inaccurate in most cases.

So even though the most likely scenario in brain development of homo sapiens sapiens is that it is a side trait of the upright gait, that is all we can say, it is the most likely path to the developed brain. We at this time can not say it is the exact path.

First, you say I don't know anything, then you completely agree with my assessment.


I am comfortable with disagreement, I have asked you to explain your version of the theory regards certain things, like peacock’s tails.

This is the JREF after all.

Even JREF doesn't require one poster to follow another poster into the wasteland of irrelevance. Go back, figure out my "version" and ask questions with bearing.


Not Really.

Let us discuss Case A shall we?
I gave you the survival benefit, what other parameters would you like in the model?

maybe, maybe not.


It is rather plain, those are four of many traits that might lead to traits becoming dominant in a population. I suppose politeness is beyond you.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Oh sure BW75, that is what any one without a real argument would do, the nice rhetorical pretend you addressed it ploy.

No?


This is the SMT,

"This is SMT" is not an appeal to authority.


try answering my counters to your usage of ‘survival’ and your definition of natural selction.

Here is my "usage of survival": survival is necessary to evolution.

I use the definition of natural selection from Wikipedia, as it is very concise:

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
...
in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass".


Two traits directly detrimental to the survival of the individual and one with no survival value that I know of, so how come they are dominant traits in their respective populations?

Survival, Variation, and Natural Selection.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Well yes and no, traits need not be maximal at all, it just has to lead to an increase in progeny that live to reproduce.

A species does not need to grow to avoid extinction.


Some traits may effect survival, parasite resistance, longevity, camouflage and the like, but it is always going to be the number of progeny that survive to have progeny that is the crucial factor.

There is not need for any maximal level and in fact a minimal level can do. :)

This would allow my scenario of optimizing towards survival to succeed.

[Dancing David]

First, you say I don't know anything, then you completely agree with my assessment.

Pretzel away, it makes you look like you have no ability to think critically.




Even JREF doesn't require one poster to follow another poster into the wasteland of irrelevance. Go back, figure out my "version" and ask questions with bearing.

It is totally relevant, that is why you refuse to answer!

[Dancing David]

A species does not need to grow to avoid extinction.



This would allow my scenario of optimizing towards survival to succeed.

I though we were talking about traits becoem dominant in a population?

there you go 'optimizing for survival'.

So I gave Case A, with different parameters, you said that you needed more information, what was that information?

[Dancing David]

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
...
in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass".



Survival, Variation, and Natural Selection.

So of the two consistent effects in the case of the male peacock, which most likely leads to the dominance of the trait of the peacock's tail.

Survival or reproduction?

So of the two consistent effects in the case of the harem maintenance of herd animals, which most likely leads to the dominance of the trait of harem maintenance.

Survival or reproduction?

So of the two consistent effects in the case of the flowers/fruits, which most likely leads to the dominance of the trait of the flowers/fruits.

Survival or reproduction?

[Dancing David]

I am sure you realize that there is not enough information in your Case A to provide a definitive answer. Most of the variations can become dominant based on other non-specified relevant factors.

So what information do you need, which relevant facts?

[sphenisc]

This (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727790.101-arctic-bugs-may-have-the-longest-lifecycle-on-earth.html) article is quite interesting in its description of an extreme solution to the survival/reproduction trade-off.

[Lithrael]

Organisms (except humans) don't make choices or have urges that are targeted toward evolving in alternative directions.

I never suggested they did. Look, obviously 'strategy' was not the right word to use. All I meant to say was that an organism certainly can make choices that end up favoring its survival over its reproductive success, and that a line of organisms that tend to do this can indeed do fine for a quite few generations. I never even implied it would be doing this as part of any intentional evolutionary plan.

I was just trying to concede that point so that I could go on to say that nevertheless, a line of organisms with a trait like that is going to end up dying out, while other lines of its population which favor reproductive success more than it does will go on.

This makes the big assumption that the species of my scenario has members which are more reproductively successful than others,

Yyyes? That is one of the things which.. happens. Is it not?

Look, yes, in an artificial situation where all the organisms in a population get the same number of offspring no matter what, then of course reproductive success is robbed of its power as a driving force of evolution, and yes, other less powerful aspects of evolution will continue to operate and yes, the population will continue to evolve. Is that what you've been trying to get at for ten pages?

Because that's fine but that's still not how evolution actually happens outside of a lab. Without reproductive success as a factor you will never get things like fruit or harems or the peacock's tail.

which if that were the case it still doesn't mean that when populations diverge that one replaces the other.

I never even implied that would happen.

When you used the word "winner" without qualifying it it appeared you meant "winner".

I did. I meant the winner among the genes of that species. We're obviously arguing past one another here. You think I'm implying things I'm not based on the argument before I even got here.

No one in this thread has ever made the claim that survival drives evolution. Some have tried to push that claim on me because it is a very simple idea to counter and it's all they got.

Then what actually is your argument?

A planet full of creatures that lived forever and did not reproduce at all would not be a planet where evolution occurred.
I see you believe in intelligent design. How else could you even propose a scenario where an immortal species dd not get there through evolution?

Obvs if I say 'a planet where pigs flew would be a planet with very sturdy umbrellas' that means I believe in flying pigs.

[jimbob]

Although I was speaking colloquially, I don't see that it's astonishingly wrong to say an individual organism can try out a strategy, besides the fact that "strategy" is an overly strong word to use to describe the urges/choices of an animal.

Organisms (except humans) don't make choices or have urges that are targeted toward evolving in alternative directions.




I'm glad that you have finally accepted that, as you have been the one arguing that organisms had goals in an anthropomorphic manner earlieron (see the bit in the spoiler).

the word "strategy" is a well understood and common metaphor in discussing evolutionary biology, here (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&client=opera&hs=4Hn&rls=en&q=evolutionary%20strategies&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws) is a google scholar link demonstrating that

You earlier seemed to accept that, so I guess you are trying to score cheap points.
My spoilers to keep context

Survival is only one strategy for reproductive success.

A very, very, very good strategy.


There was actually a good example in the news this morning.

US scientists have started checking the quality of meat from bulls after slaughter, and then cloning the ones judged to have produced the best meat - after they have died.

Artificial selection is actually a subset of natural selection, and these bulls had no reproductive success whilst alive, but did after they were dead.

Even though seems to somewhat irrelevant to the basic issues, see my previous example from your authority.



And here where you seem to be anthropomorphising:

Goals may be nutrition, environment, concealment, etc. which are sought by nearly all life forms from the microscopic to the largest.

Bill, I am confused,

Have you changed your position or not?

No, you are mixing different issues together.

My points are:

1) For most species the goals of members are survival and mating, not reproduction.

2) Variation and selection are the critical factors which distinguish evolution from reproduction.



Most organisms don't have goals, they have inherited behaviours that have evolved because they maximised reproductive success.

Again you are trying to ask what the difference between reproduction and evolution.

DNA self-replication is sufficient but not necessary for evolution. This is a subset of possible self-replication systems.



No: reproduction is differentiated from evolution because reproduction is the process of creating new organisms with (somewhat imperfect) copies of the parental genes. Evolution is the process of change taking place over many generations that leads to optimisation of reproductive success.

What you have stated here is that reproduction is differentiated from evolution by 'reproduction is the process of reproduction' and 'evolution is the process of evolution'.

Yeah, that's true.

But if you still want to insist that evolution is drive by reproduction then it would be more appropriate to say that evolution is driven by dirt. How many species are there that cannot evolve without dirt?

I really don't understand your point. Evolution and reproduction are processes, "dirt" is a material.

The process of evolution works because some organisms reproduce, and the offspring tend to resemble their parent(s) but with some differences. The process of "choosing" which organisms reproduce is the process of Natural Selection.

I'll say this again.

The process of "choosing" which organisms reproduce is the process of Natural Selection. Natural selection only acts to optimise reproductive success, this can sometimes be maximised by traits that improve an organism's survival. Sometimes reproductive success is better guaranteed by producing lots of offspring, with a low chance of individual survival, as opposed to a single offspring with a better chance of survival. Sometimes it is better to breed young, others to breed late.

There is variation and natural selection in ever population of organisms that has ever lived. A "population" being defined as more than one organism. See my sums earlier about the chance of a non-mutated genome.

Not quite: By definition, in all extinct species, no representatives of the last generation reproduced.

Reproductive success is the antithesis of extinction.

Right up until it results in extinction.

Reproductive success doesn't result in extinction, reproductive failure does.

Of course extinction is the eventual fate of all gene lines. But this is when they suffer reproductive failure not success.



But behaviours don't have "targets" or "goals". Why do peahens choose to mate with peacocks with brightly coloured tails? Because those peahens that mated with the peacocks with the brightest plumage had more reproductive offspring. Why? Partly because any male offspring would tend to have brighter plumage, and this translates into reproductive success.

There was no "goal" it was just another beneficial trait that evolved. It adversely affects survival chances, but increases reproductive success.

I'm not sure why you are mincing word meanings. The peahen targets the brightest peacock for reproduction.
No it doesn't.

Hell, some humans manage to reproduce without intending to.

Peahens choose peacocks to mate with because of instinct. This evolved because those with the brightest plumage produced offspring with the best reproductive success.

I am not mincing my word meanings, I am being very precise.


Reproductive success doesn't result in extinction, reproductive failure does.

Of course extinction is the eventual fate of all gene lines. But this is when they suffer reproductive failure not success.


No it doesn't.

Hell, some humans manage to reproduce without intending to.

Peahens choose peacocks to mate with because of instinct. This evolved because those with the brightest plumage produced offspring with the best reproductive success.

I am not mincing my word meanings, I am being very precise.

You refute my claims with restatements of my claims.

and the full text:

There is variation and natural selection in ever population of organisms that has ever lived. A "population" being defined as more than one organism. See my sums earlier about the chance of a non-mutated genome.

Not quite: By definition, in all extinct species, no representatives of the last generation reproduced.

Reproductive success is the antithesis of extinction.

Right up until it results in extinction.

Reproductive success doesn't result in extinction, reproductive failure does.

Of course extinction is the eventual fate of all gene lines. But this is when they suffer reproductive failure not success.



But behaviours don't have "targets" or "goals". Why do peahens choose to mate with peacocks with brightly coloured tails? Because those peahens that mated with the peacocks with the brightest plumage had more reproductive offspring. Why? Partly because any male offspring would tend to have brighter plumage, and this translates into reproductive success.

There was no "goal" it was just another beneficial trait that evolved. It adversely affects survival chances, but increases reproductive success.

I'm not sure why you are mincing word meanings. The peahen targets the brightest peacock for reproduction.
No it doesn't.

Hell, some humans manage to reproduce without intending to.

Peahens choose peacocks to mate with because of instinct. This evolved because those with the brightest plumage produced offspring with the best reproductive success.

I am not mincing my word meanings, I am being very precise.


First highlighted bit:

Reproductive success doesn't result in extinction any more than finding water in a desert results in death. Reproductive success postpones extinction for at least another generation.

Second highlighted bit: You writing implies that the peahen has a "target" of reproducing, this is wrong.

In general :
I am not sure whether you are misinterpreting what I everyone else in this thread have has written or what you yourself have written.







2) Being less reproductively successful is fine, and it does not equate to extinction.
What is does equate to, though, is to eventually being completely replaced by the gene lines of the other members of the species who are more reproductively successful.

This makes the big assumption that the species of my scenario has members which are more reproductively successful than others, which if that were the case it still doesn't mean that when populations diverge that one replaces the other.


I'm NOT talking about a species speciating into two species and then one 'winning' and the other 'losing,' I'm talking about gene lines within a population.

When you used the word "winner" without qualifying it it appeared you meant "winner".

And so Lithrael did. If the geneline dies out within the population, it has died out within the population, It has "lost". There is no need for the population to diverge

With Lithrael's original quoting added gfor context:


3) A good strategy in a new environment won't become a bad strategy unless the environment changes, which is potentially true of any strategy.
A good strategy in a new environment can become a bad strategy just by the filling up of your new niche with more members of your own species.

It sounds like the environment changes by becoming more crowded and forcing more intense competition among its inhabitants.


That is trivially true. Is this just an observation, or do you have a point. You do realise that the environment is constantly changing, due to co-evolution within the ecosystem? Your original statement was misguided because it described a situation that could never occur.


4) Others in this thread claim there are no other strategies, only optimization to reproductive success.
No other successful strategies. No other strategies that stand the test of time. And again I am using the term strategy loosely, I'm not pretending anyone's planning anything out.

When that happens it is because both gene lines have found different but successful ways to optimize their reproductive success, even if it's just by being in different places entirely.

It only means that both gene lines have found ways to avoid extinction.
You are equating avoidance of extinction with optimization of reproduction.
They are not equivalent. You are making the mistake others have made by presuming that optimization of reproduction is the only answer before demonstrating that it is the only answer.


But what we are mostly talking about is the fact that every species alive today by definition has been successful at reproduction. Every species that is extinct failed, at one point, to reproduce. Being good at being alive is not the part of the equation that drives evolution. Being good at having young that are also good at having young is the part that drives evolution.

It is a fact that every species alive today was successful at survival. Also, every species that is extinct was reproductively successful until it failed. These ideas contain no material content, they are tautologies.


Anyone can demonstrate that here on Earth, the creatures with the shortest lifespans and most prolific reproduction are the ones that evolve fastest. A planet full of creatures that lived forever and did not reproduce at all would not be a planet where evolution occurred. How is this supposed middle ground supposed to come in, where survival and not reproduction drives evolution?

This is where you jumped into the middle of the thread and assumed that some of the debaters were making relevant points. No one in this thread has ever made the claim that survival drives evolution. Some have tried to push that claim on me because it is a very simple idea to counter and it's all they got.




You have suggested that evolution could optimise for survival at the expense of reproductive success under certain circumstances.

This is not true.

I see you believe in intelligent design. How else could you even propose a scenario where an immortal species dd not get there through evolution?
How do you come to the bit highlighted? You really do have problems with grammar, as this is obviously describing a hypothetical situation.

[jimbob]

Suppose there is an organism which is very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births. This creature manages to evolve by focusing its main energies and capabilities on survival. It infrequently has litters but has a minimal necessary number of litters by evolving into a long-lived creature through optimization for survival. This is such a mechanism.

There are a lot of misunderstandings in that post of yours.

I hadn't anticipated that you would be so incapable of even a paltry amount of cogent analysis.


Firstly organisms don't evolve,the descendants of an organism evolve.

Firstly and a half, a descendant organism doesn't evolve any more than an ancestral organism does, does it? It's really a population or species that evolves.
I am amazed that you couldn't interpret my usage of "organism" and "creature" as representatives of a species rather than as individuals.

I should have said "Individual organisms". However you referred to an organism evolving. This, taken with your other mistakes is probably indicative of misunderstanding, especially with the rest of your quote.



Secondly nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. They might survive, they might reproduce successfully but this is not the same as evolve.

The biology of a creature certainly may focus energy on survival. Consider the fact that humans have an evolved a shiver response to cold.
I explicitly noted that this creature evolves into one with greater longevity.

With "anything else" you include reproductive success. That negates most of your previous dozens of posts.
You also are saying that reproductive success is not a mechanism of evolution.


I don't follow your reasoning there. Nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. Their descendants evolve as a consequence of the fact that any which reproduce wsill by definition be adequately adapted to the environment.

"Focusing energies on survival" and "evolving into a longer lived creature" (I guess as a consequence) sounds like Lamarck.

"Reproductive success" is not a mechanism of evolution. Differential reproductive success is the key mechanism behind natural selection, which is key to evolution. There is a not very subtle difference.




Your choice of words also seems to suggest that there is a goal to evolution. This is not the case. Most organisms have no goal at all.

I have no idea what confused you here. The goal I was explicit about is optimization for survival, an exact parallel of your optimization for reproduction.


But there are no goals like that. It just happens as a consequence of imperfect self-replication of genetic material.






Higher animals do, to differing amounts. However even higher animals, including humans most of the time do not have goals about the evolution of their descendants.

Make up your mind, either they can have goals or they can't.


What do you mean?

My full paragraph without interuptions:

Secondly nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. They might survive, they might reproduce successfully but this is not the same as evolve. Your choice of words also seems to suggest that there is a goal to evolution. This is not the case. Most organisms have no goal at all. Higher animals do, to differing amounts. However even higher animals, including humans most of the time do not have goals about the evolution of their descendants.

Most organisms have no goal at all.
This means that most organisms: do not have any "goal". There is room for some exceptions.

Higher animals do, [have goals] to differing amounts.
For example a dog can have a certain type of goal, and a chimp might have more complex goals.

However even higher animals, including humans most of the time do not have goals about the evolution of their descendants.

What is wrong with that statement? I know for a fact that certain people do think about the evolution of their descendants. Some people plan to intervene by trying to explicitly chose the "best genes" for their offspring. These people do have goals for the evolution of their offspring.

I also know for a fact that many creationists (for example) do not believe in evolution, so they don't have any goal for the evolution of their descendants.

I would think that most of the time, most humans don't have goals for the evolution of their descendants. Is that really hard to understand? There was no logical error there.





Thirdly, reproductive success is not merely producing lots of offspring that die without them reproducing; reproductive success involves producing viable offspring, a good test of whether they are viable is whether they reproduce. In other words until an organism has produced grandchildren, it hasn't had reproductive success yet.

Please refer to my example when presenting your rebuttal. This is irrelevant to my example.

This was relevant. I think this that you didn't (or don't) actually understand what reproductive success actually means

You originally stated:


I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.


A hypothetical example (that incidentally doesn't demonstrate the point) is not a real example.

There are no real examples of the situation you describe because reproductive success is what natural selection works with. This is in the realms of logic, and whilst I could conceive of a different universe with different laws of thermodynamics, if such a universe had imperfect self-replication and finite resources, natural selection would still work.




It doesn't matter how many offspring you have if they don't reproduce. Think of bees - it doesn't really matter how many workers a queen produces, if she fails to produce a single queen that breeds, the hive will die. If she also fails to produce any drones that reproduce, she will have no grandchildren. Workers, queens and drones are all offspring, but only drones and queens reproduce.

This is irrelevant to my example.




No it isn't. If the organism does survive longer and has more offspring that reproduce as a consequence, this longer survival enhances reproductive success. If the organism does survive longer and has fewer offspring that reproduce as a consequence, this longer survival is detrimental to reproductive success and such a trait would die out quickly.



In your example, I think you are saying that more offspring survive and breed. If this is what you are saying, then that is an example of evolution towards increased reproductive success.

Once again you simply reinterpret to fit your needs for a rebuttal, no matter how weak.

In a previous post I pointed out your fallacious use of begging the question which you chose not to rebut. But here again you presume that evolving for reproductive success is the only possibility without any substantiation.


No, it is pointing out what reproductive success actually *is*.


To have evolution towards a trait that promotes survival at the expense of reproductive success, you would be saying that this trait reduces the number of grandchildren and increases the survival of the parent or grandparent. Not having offspring could do this. Having offspring tends to be costly.

I explicitly said that the trait minimizes offspring but offsets that with longevity and more litters.


More litters is more offspring.

the key is in how many offspring reproduce, or how many grandchildren . That is the measure of reproductive success. Does your hypothetical example increase the number of grandchildren, or minimise them?

[jimbob]

Firstly wikipedia can be edited by anybody.

In this case it is a reasonable simplification, but it still is a simplification.

I'd remove the bit about survival, as that is misleading (I preferred the text produced by Berkley, which was more precise, and a proper text aimed at teaching evolution to older high-school children).

The wiki quote, with the wrong bit removed could be reworded as follows:

"Natural selection (the process by which traits become more or less common in a population) is due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

This is more of your logic. You could probably pull words out of thousands of quotes to support any claim whatsoever, don't you think? See below.


Natural selection is not the cause of differential reproduction but due to it.


I was unclear:
I should have said that the quote

"Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

Is most naturally read as "Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population" and that this [Natural Selection] is "due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers".

With the caveat about survival.

I think it is a bit eccentric to take this as a claim that natural selection causes consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

It is irrelevant, as Wikipedia can be edited by anybody - including you.

[Lithrael]

I'm wondering if this whole thread is a huge misunderstanding.

Differential reproductive success is how gene lines that reproductively outperform other gene lines get to spread their genes (and therefore traits) throughout a species' population. It's how any new trait becomes widespread in a species and becomes the new... baseline definition, I guess, of the species.

But if you removed differential reproductive success, evolution would still happen, just fantastically less efficiently. A gene line more successful at survival than its peers would only begin to represent a larger portion of the population if/when the environment put so much pressure on the population that it killed most of them off. This is the kind of thing you only see taking effect in real world evolution in extreme situations like the sudden desertification of an isolated environment, where members of a species that resist drought better suddenly become the new standard of that species.

So, in those extreme situations where an entire population is in danger of being wiped out, the members that survive at all get to be the winners. Perhaps the peacocks with the smallest tails become the genetically dominant members of the species, simply because the showy ones all died when their huge tails caught fire.

But the vast majority of the time, when huge upheavals aren't going on, it's differential reproductive success that takes the evolutionary wheel. And the peahens will still be looking for the showiest tails.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I never suggested they did. Look, obviously 'strategy' was not the right word to use. All I meant to say was that an organism certainly can make choices that end up favoring its survival over its reproductive success, and that a line of organisms that tend to do this can indeed do fine for a quite few generations. I never even implied it would be doing this as part of any intentional evolutionary plan.

Your phrase "an individual organism can try out a strategy" sounds exactly like intent.

Your phrase "quite few generations" implies plenty enough time for evolution to occur.


I was just trying to concede that point so that I could go on to say that nevertheless, a line of organisms with a trait like that is going to end up dying out, while other lines of its population which favor reproductive success more than it does will go on.

You imply that there is a clearly defined line between dying out and going on. There isn't.


Yyyes? That is one of the things which.. happens. Is it not?

Look, yes, in an artificial situation where all the organisms in a population get the same number of offspring no matter what, then of course reproductive success is robbed of its power as a driving force of evolution, and yes, other less powerful aspects of evolution will continue to operate and yes, the population will continue to evolve. Is that what you've been trying to get at for ten pages?

I was simply asked to provide an example of optimization for other than reproductive success. Your agreement is appreciated.


Because that's fine but that's still not how evolution actually happens outside of a lab. Without reproductive success as a factor you will never get things like fruit or harems or the peacock's tail.

No, you will have things which survive without harems or the peacock's tail.


I never even implied that would happen.

Your phrase "being completely replaced by the gene lines of the other members of the species" sounds a lot like my phrase "when populations diverge that one replaces the other."


I did. I meant the winner among the genes of that species. We're obviously arguing past one another here. You think I'm implying things I'm not based on the argument before I even got here.

Then what actually is your argument?

Ah, been there, done that...many times.


Obvs if I say 'a planet where pigs flew would be a planet with very sturdy umbrellas' that means I believe in flying pigs.

And very sturdy umbrellas.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'm glad that you have finally accepted that, as you have been the one arguing that organisms had goals in an anthropomorphic manner earlieron (see the bit in the spoiler).

First, you equate a goal of mating with a strategy of evolution.
Then you claim that anthropomorphism cannot be used as a metaphor but evolutionary strategy can.
Both of these points here are absurd.


the word "strategy" is a well understood and common metaphor in discussing evolutionary biology, here (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&client=opera&hs=4Hn&rls=en&q=evolutionary%20strategies&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws) is a google scholar link demonstrating that

You earlier seemed to accept that, so I guess you are trying to score cheap points.

And here where you seem to be anthropomorphising:

And so Lithrael did. If the geneline dies out within the population, it has died out within the population, It has "lost". There is no need for the population to diverge

The point is that neither geneline will necessarily die out.


With Lithrael's original quoting added gfor context:

That is trivially true. Is this just an observation, or do you have a point. You do realise that the environment is constantly changing, due to co-evolution within the ecosystem?

Good misinterpretation, that was the point I was making.


Your original statement was misguided because it described a situation that could never occur.

When someone says a set of conditions can never occur, especially in sciences with as many variables as biology and evolution, then about 99% of the time they are 100% wrong.


You have suggested that evolution could optimise for survival at the expense of reproductive success under certain circumstances.

This is not true.

Yes, but only if you assume that reproductive success is the only option before you analyze any others. Were you ever going to deny that you were begging the question all along?


How do you come to the bit highlighted? You really do have problems with grammar, as this is obviously describing a hypothetical situation.

The problem is with the logic not the grammar (that is really off the mark).
An impossible hypothetical situation is not very helpful here.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I should have said "Individual organisms". However you referred to an organism evolving. This, taken with your other mistakes is probably indicative of misunderstanding, especially with the rest of your quote.

I clarified my usage and then you clarified your usage, then you claim mine is a mistake and ignore yours. Let's just forget you ever made this childish argument.


I don't follow your reasoning there. Nothing evolves by focusing their "main energies and capabilities on survival" or on anything else. Their descendants evolve as a consequence of the fact that any which reproduce wsill by definition be adequately adapted to the environment.

Here again, my scenario simply does not happen, analysis not needed, because your claim happens by definition. This is still called begging the question and it is still an approach without any substance.


"Focusing energies on survival" and "evolving into a longer lived creature" (I guess as a consequence) sounds like Lamarck.

Here you are claiming that a species which has evolved more successful survival capabilities and a longer lifespan violates the common tenets of evolution. I bet you can think of one species that has actually evolved those traits. One?, I meant One Thousand.


"Reproductive success" is not a mechanism of evolution. Differential reproductive success is the key mechanism behind natural selection, which is key to evolution. There is a not very subtle difference.

But there are no goals like that. It just happens as a consequence of imperfect self-replication of genetic material.

What do you mean?

My full paragraph without interuptions:

This means that most organisms: do not have any "goal". There is room for some exceptions.

For example a dog can have a certain type of goal, and a chimp might have more complex goals.

What is wrong with that statement? I know for a fact that certain people do think about the evolution of their descendants. Some people plan to intervene by trying to explicitly chose the "best genes" for their offspring. These people do have goals for the evolution of their offspring.

I also know for a fact that many creationists (for example) do not believe in evolution, so they don't have any goal for the evolution of their descendants.

I would think that most of the time, most humans don't have goals for the evolution of their descendants. Is that really hard to understand? There was no logical error there.

You explicitly said "there are no goals like that" (optimization for reproduction)
and "people do have goals for the evolution of their offspring." Make up your mind.


This was relevant. I think this that you didn't (or don't) actually understand what reproductive success actually means

You originally stated:

A hypothetical example (that incidentally doesn't demonstrate the point) is not a real example.

There are no real examples of the situation you describe because reproductive success is what natural selection works with. This is in the realms of logic, and whilst I could conceive of a different universe with different laws of thermodynamics, if such a universe had imperfect self-replication and finite resources, natural selection would still work.

Here again, you claim your point based on logic not evidence. You are saying that your point does not depend on the scientific method of developing theory but it is true by definition.


No it isn't. If the organism does survive longer and has more offspring that reproduce as a consequence, this longer survival enhances reproductive success. If the organism does survive longer and has fewer offspring that reproduce as a consequence, this longer survival is detrimental to reproductive success and such a trait would die out quickly.

You claimed there are no real examples of this. Where do you get your evidence from?


No, it is pointing out what reproductive success actually *is*.

More litters is more offspring.

More litters is a result of evolving a longer lifespan for increased survivability.


the key is in how many offspring reproduce, or how many grandchildren . That is the measure of reproductive success. Does your hypothetical example increase the number of grandchildren, or minimise them?

Looks like you went back to your textbook and pulled out a new angle - the grandchildren.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I was unclear:
I should have said that the quote

Is most naturally read as "Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population" and that this [Natural Selection] is "due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers".

With the caveat about survival.

I think it is a bit eccentric to take this as a claim that natural selection causes consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

It is irrelevant, as Wikipedia can be edited by anybody - including you.

I haven't noticed anyone but you battling over the content of the Wikipedia article on Natural selection.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'm wondering if this whole thread is a huge misunderstanding.

Differential reproductive success is how gene lines that reproductively outperform other gene lines get to spread their genes (and therefore traits) throughout a species' population. It's how any new trait becomes widespread in a species and becomes the new... baseline definition, I guess, of the species.

But if you removed differential reproductive success, evolution would still happen, just fantastically less efficiently. A gene line more successful at survival than its peers would only begin to represent a larger portion of the population if/when the environment put so much pressure on the population that it killed most of them off.

Do you have a specific name for this process of pressuring and killing?


This is the kind of thing you only see taking effect in real world evolution in extreme situations like the sudden desertification of an isolated environment, where members of a species that resist drought better suddenly become the new standard of that species.

So, in those extreme situations where an entire population is in danger of being wiped out, the members that survive at all get to be the winners.

Are you saying that the result of survival is reproductive success?


Perhaps the peacocks with the smallest tails become the genetically dominant members of the species, simply because the showy ones all died when their huge tails caught fire.

But the vast majority of the time, when huge upheavals aren't going on, it's differential reproductive success that takes the evolutionary wheel. And the peahens will still be looking for the showiest tails.

[Lithrael]

Are you saying that the result of survival is reproductive success?

No. No more than the result of waking up in the morning is having coffee. That's not what 'result' means.

Look, I tried, I don't know what else to say. It seems like you want to make a semantics game out of the whole thing. If I ask you what your argument is and you won't even point me at a relevant post then I'm not going to hang around just to take part in an insincere discussion.

[Dancing David]

Thanks for your effort Lithrael!

[Bill Thompson 75]

No. No more than the result of waking up in the morning is having coffee. That's not what 'result' means.

You claimed that "members that survive at all get to be the winners."

I could have interpreted this to mean that surviving happens and winning happens but the two are not related. I could have interpreted it as a vacuous and irrelevant statement. I didn't.

I reasonably interpreted this to mean that winning would follow from and be a consequence of surviving.

Here are some synonyms of result: aftermath, by-product, conclusion, consequence, eventuality, fruition, outcome, payoff, product,
upshot, eventuality, culmination, effect.
Pick any meaning you want and insert it instead of "result" and see if your statement says something different than what it does.

I note you wisely avoided the first question altogether.


Look, I tried, I don't know what else to say. It seems like you want to make a semantics game out of the whole thing. If I ask you what your argument is and you won't even point me at a relevant post then I'm not going to hang around just to take part in an insincere discussion.

Semantics is trying to rework the meaning of what you said after you realize that what you said weakens your point. See above.

When you enter a thread many pages into it it is your obligation to catch up, not mine to fall back.

Also, if you don't want your posts challenged, then review what you are saying for logic and relevance before you post. You should have easily anticipated the obvious challenges I made.

To paraphrase you, "members that survive it all don't have to be the whiners."

[Lithrael]

When you enter a thread many pages into it it is your obligation to catch up, not mine to fall back.

Also, if you don't want your posts challenged, then review what you are saying for logic and relevance before you post. You should have easily anticipated the obvious challenges I made.

Great. I apologize for not being a sharply honed debating machine. You win billionty JREF points. Enjoy.

[Dancing David]

When you enter a thread many pages into it it is your obligation to catch up, not mine to fall back.



Ever the rhetoric, if you actually read around in the SMT forum, you would see that we all repeat our statements all the time, the fact that you can't state yours clearly and concisely is telling.

How would you put it in three sentences?

BTW any input on Case A yet, or the stress to the individual or maintaining a herd harem?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Ever the rhetoric, if you actually read around in the SMT forum, you would see that we all repeat our statements all the time, the fact that you can't state yours clearly and concisely is telling.

How would you put it in three sentences?

1) You've been listening to some libelous fact telling stories.
2) You want me to repeat all my statements clearly and concisely all the time.
3) There are pills that help with the stressors of everyday life.


BTW any input on Case A yet, or the stress to the individual or maintaining a herd harem?

The next sentence explains it all in detail.
See the previous sentence.

If you are reading this sentence then the pills are working.

[Dancing David]

1) You've been listening to some libelous fact telling stories.
2) You want me to repeat all my statements clearly and concisely all the time.
3) There are pills that help with the stressors of everyday life.



The next sentence explains it all in detail.
See the previous sentence.

If you are reading this sentence then the pills are working.

I notice that your description does not encompass your definition of natural selection.
So you don't know your own ideas clearly enough to state them in a coherent form?

Figures you resort to rhetoric, that makes me feel you really don't know what you think. I thought you were capable of more that that.

Oh well.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I notice that your description does not encompass your definition of natural selection.
So you don't know your own ideas clearly enough to state them in a coherent form?

Figures you resort to rhetoric, that makes me feel you really don't know what you think. I thought you were capable of more that that.

Oh well.

Take two at a time.

[Dancing David]

Take two at a time.

Critical thinking
understanding your thoughts
appears not in you

[jimbob]

Bill:

Are you going to provide an example of a trait that evolved because it increased survival despite the fact that it reduced the number of offspring that reproduced?

This is what you are claiming could happen. Indeed this is what you asked me to find.



I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.



I say that this can't happen and won't waste my time looking for it. Have you been looking? Have you found any real examples? If you have found any examples, does the evolved trait reduce the number of reproducing offspring?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Critical thinking
understanding your thoughts
appears not in you

Now it appears that
Seventeen syllables is
Beyond your limit.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill:

Are you going to provide an example of a trait that evolved because it increased survival despite the fact that it reduced the number of offspring that reproduced?

This is what you are claiming could happen. Indeed this is what you asked me to find.



I say that this can't happen and won't waste my time looking for it. Have you been looking? Have you found any real examples? If you have found any examples, does the evolved trait reduce the number of reproducing offspring?

Reread my example. This was not part of it. This is the part you invented.

[jimbob]

Bill:

Are you going to provide an example of a trait that evolved because it increased survival despite the fact that it reduced the number of offspring that reproduced?

This is what you are claiming could happen. Indeed this is what you asked me to find.

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.

I say that this can't happen and won't waste my time looking for it. Have you been looking? Have you found any real examples? If you have found any examples, does the evolved trait reduce the number of reproducing offspring?

Reread my example. This was not part of it. This is the part you invented.


But that is what sacrificing reproductive success entails.

Reproductive success is only determined by how many of the organism's offspring actually reproduce. Otherwise the cod that releases 1-million or so fry would be considered more successful than rabbits, that would tend to have fewer than a hundred offspring.

However, cod stocks are threatened, whilst rabbit populations are not. The difference being that in many areas, and after a population crash, the surviving rabbits have many offspring that reproduce. Cod has about one per parent.

Your "example" wasn't a real example, it was a hypothetical situation.

To reiterate:

Reproductive success is determined by how many offspring themselves reproduce. Reducing reproductive success axiomatically reduces the number of offspring that themselves reproduce.

This is why your insistence about survival is wrong. I have previously discussed how there are different reproductive strategies, some involving producing a lot of offspring with little parental "investment" in each individual, and others involving a small number of offspring in total with a lot of parental investment in each individual. Mammals, by suckling their young tend towards the latter, placental mammals more than marsupials. Longer-lived mammals tend to invest more in each individual offspring, and thus tend to have smaller total numbers of offspring.

As an aside, the above point was also why your hypothetical example was unrealistic. I might expand on that later.

[Bill Thompson 75]

But that is what sacrificing reproductive success entails.

Reproductive success is only determined by how many of the organism's offspring actually reproduce. Otherwise the cod that releases 1-million or so fry would be considered more successful than rabbits, that would tend to have fewer than a hundred offspring.

However, cod stocks are threatened, whilst rabbit populations are not. The difference being that in many areas, and after a population crash, the surviving rabbits have many offspring that reproduce. Cod has about one per parent.

Your "example" wasn't a real example, it was a hypothetical situation.

That is fine, unless you think that hypothetical situations are inappropriate tools for the study of science.


To reiterate:

Reproductive success is determined by how many offspring themselves reproduce. Reducing reproductive success axiomatically reduces the number of offspring that themselves reproduce.

This is why your insistence about survival is wrong. I have previously discussed how there are different reproductive strategies, some involving producing a lot of offspring with little parental "investment" in each individual, and others involving a small number of offspring in total with a lot of parental investment in each individual. Mammals, by suckling their young tend towards the latter, placental mammals more than marsupials. Longer-lived mammals tend to invest more in each individual offspring, and thus tend to have smaller total numbers of offspring.

As an aside, the above point was also why your hypothetical example was unrealistic. I might expand on that later.

You seem to be avoiding making your claim explicit.
Is it impossible for a species to optimize for survival and maintain a reproductive rate that avoids extinction?

[jimbob]

But that is what sacrificing reproductive success entails.

Reproductive success is only determined by how many of the organism's offspring actually reproduce. Otherwise the cod that releases 1-million or so fry would be considered more successful than rabbits, that would tend to have fewer than a hundred offspring.

However, cod stocks are threatened, whilst rabbit populations are not. The difference being that in many areas, and after a population crash, the surviving rabbits have many offspring that reproduce. Cod has about one per parent.

Your "example" wasn't a real example, it was a hypothetical situation.

That is fine, unless you think that hypothetical situations are inappropriate tools for the study of science.



Thought experiments have their place. This wasn't a thought experiment, but a bad hypothetical case.

What you originally said is this: I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.

You stated that if I did the research you thought I would find examples of this. When I asked for examples you gave something that was not real. Not very convincing.

Suppose there is an organism which is very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births. This creature manages to evolve by focusing its main energies and capabilities on survival. It infrequently has litters but has a minimal necessary number of litters by evolving into a long-lived creature through optimization for survival. This is such a mechanism.

An organism that is...

"very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births"

Will have many offspring - as "many litters", each "with few successful births" equates to "many offspring". This isn't "very poor at reproduction" (whatever that actually means).

The next bit seems to suggest that organisms evolve in a particular direction almost as if based on a particular perceived need.

This creature manages to evolve by focusing its main energies and capabilities on survival. It infrequently has litters but has a minimal necessary number of litters by evolving into a long-lived creature through optimization for survival.

This seems to be Lamarckism in that the "creature" tries hard to survive, so its offspring try harder to survive.

What your supposed example would be in real life is as follows:

Some organisms live in environments where there is a lot of "attrition" in other words, very few survive to reproduce. Anything that spends part of its lifecycle as plankton will have a high death rate, and this will be high as long as the organism remains with part of its lifecycle as plankton. Above all, any such an organism that does actually reproduce will be lucky as well as adequately adapted to the environment.

In such a situation, there will be a strong selective pressure towards reproducing via vast numbers of offspring, each individual offspring representing minimal parental investment.

Where luck is so dominant, increasing parental investment in individual offspring doesn't pay off as the increased survival rate for each individual offspring is more than offset by the reduced number of offspring.

The situation that you were trying to describe is the opposite case.

In longer-lived harem animals, a larger proportion reach maturity, but often only the alpha male will breed. In such a situation, investing more parental resources in each individual and getting the offspring that are most successful at mating would be more important.

In other words, one would expect sexual selection to play a bigger part in longer-lived harem animals.

In other longer-lived animals, the grandmothers can also help in raising the grandchildren. This has been proposed as one reason why female humans have a menopause. Older mothers (of the age of grandmothers) would historically have been poor at raising their last children, but would have been competing for resources to raise these later children with their own daughters. In other words, by not having children, the grandmothers on average actually end up having more grandchildren that manage to reproduce.


Notice how the deciding factor is how many descendants that reproduce is the important factor, and that numbers of grandchildren trumps numbers of children and so on...




To reiterate:

Reproductive success is determined by how many offspring themselves reproduce. Reducing reproductive success axiomatically reduces the number of offspring that themselves reproduce.

This is why your insistence about survival is wrong. I have previously discussed how there are different reproductive strategies, some involving producing a lot of offspring with little parental "investment" in each individual, and others involving a small number of offspring in total with a lot of parental investment in each individual. Mammals, by suckling their young tend towards the latter, placental mammals more than marsupials. Longer-lived mammals tend to invest more in each individual offspring, and thus tend to have smaller total numbers of offspring.

As an aside, the above point was also why your hypothetical example was unrealistic. I might expand on that later.

You seem to be avoiding making your claim explicit.
Is it impossible for a species to optimize for survival and maintain a reproductive rate that avoids extinction?

I don't really understand what you are saying in this question, so I'll restate how evolution works:

We have said this many times.

Natural selection works via differential reproductive success.

Those traits that promote more reproducing offspring are selected for. Those that hinder reproductive success are selected against, by simple virtue of the fact that fewer carriers of such traits reproduce through successive generations.

Traits that promote survival can evolve when this also promotes reproductive success. In such a situation the optimisation is still towards reproductive success but this occurs because the organism survives better.

Is it impossible for a species to optimize for survival and maintain a reproductive rate that avoids extinction?

About the most meaningful response to such a question is to ask what you mean. Some cars are red, is it possible for them to have wheels?

Optimisation towards increased survival occurs only when this increased survival increases reproductive success. How else can it act? If it increases survival, but doesn't increase the number of offspring carrying such a trait into the next generation, there will be no selective pressure for this trait.

[jimbob]

Bill do you still think (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6106600#post6106600) that imperfect self-replication is necessary and sufficient for evolution, but that this provides no guarantee that evolution will take place?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Thought experiments have their place. This wasn't a thought experiment, but a bad hypothetical case.

A thought experiment is fundamentally this:
Think of a question.
Think of an answer.

You thought of a question.
I thought of an answer.

You are saying it is bad because it does not presuppose optimization toward reproductive success. It truly would be bad if it did because that would be begging the question.


What you originally said is this:

You stated that if I did the research you thought I would find examples of this. When I asked for examples you gave something that was not real. Not very convincing.

Yeah, I didn't want to do the research either.


An organism that is...

"very poor at reproduction and can only successfully pass on genes by having many litters, each of which has few successful births"

Will have many offspring - as "many litters", each "with few successful births" equates to "many offspring". This isn't "very poor at reproduction" (whatever that actually means).

The next bit seems to suggest that organisms evolve in a particular direction almost as if based on a particular perceived need.

This seems to be Lamarckism in that the "creature" tries hard to survive, so its offspring try harder to survive.

Of course, creatures try hard to survive. Their metabolism, biologocal systems, and instincts all "focus" on survival with reproduction as a secondary concern to those systems, but not so much that the species dies out.


What your supposed example would be in real life is as follows:

Some organisms live in environments where there is a lot of "attrition" in other words, very few survive to reproduce. Anything that spends part of its lifecycle as plankton will have a high death rate, and this will be high as long as the organism remains with part of its lifecycle as plankton. Above all, any such an organism that does actually reproduce will be lucky as well as adequately adapted to the environment.

In such a situation, there will be a strong selective pressure towards reproducing via vast numbers of offspring, each individual offspring representing minimal parental investment.

Where luck is so dominant, increasing parental investment in individual offspring doesn't pay off as the increased survival rate for each individual offspring is more than offset by the reduced number of offspring.

The situation that you were trying to describe is the opposite case.

In longer-lived harem animals, a larger proportion reach maturity, but often only the alpha male will breed. In such a situation, investing more parental resources in each individual and getting the offspring that are most successful at mating would be more important.

In other words, one would expect sexual selection to play a bigger part in longer-lived harem animals.

In other longer-lived animals, the grandmothers can also help in raising the grandchildren. This has been proposed as one reason why female humans have a menopause. Older mothers (of the age of grandmothers) would historically have been poor at raising their last children, but would have been competing for resources to raise these later children with their own daughters. In other words, by not having children, the grandmothers on average actually end up having more grandchildren that manage to reproduce.


Notice how the deciding factor is how many descendants that reproduce is the important factor, and that numbers of grandchildren trumps numbers of children and so on...

I notice you keep wanting to rework my example to satisfy the characterization of optimization for reproductive success.


I don't really understand what you are saying in this question, so I'll restate how evolution works:

If you cannot understand that question you certainly have no claim to the comprehension required to understand evolution.


We have said this many times.

Natural selection works via differential reproductive success.

Those traits that promote more reproducing offspring are selected for. Those that hinder reproductive success are selected against, by simple virtue of the fact that fewer carriers of such traits reproduce through successive generations.

Traits that promote survival can evolve when this also promotes reproductive success. In such a situation the optimisation is still towards reproductive success but this occurs because the organism survives better.

About the most meaningful response to such a question is to ask what you mean. Some cars are red, is it possible for them to have wheels?

See previous comment.


Optimisation towards increased survival occurs only when this increased survival increases reproductive success. How else can it act? If it increases survival, but doesn't increase the number of offspring carrying such a trait into the next generation, there will be no selective pressure for this trait.

If the offspring are carrying the trait, there doesn't necessarily need to be an increase if offspring, just not a decrease.

Note that your last paragraph here admits that there is at least one solution for optimization towards survival.
Thank you.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill do you still think (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6106600#post6106600) that imperfect self-replication is necessary and sufficient for evolution, but that this provides no guarantee that evolution will take place?

I think that the use of the term self-replication is unfortunate because when combined with imperfection it becomes oxymoronic.

Imperfection (variation) and self-replication (reproduction) are necessary and sufficient in some environments. In some environments they are not.

Here is a simple, but accurate, description of imperfect self-replication from Wikipedia.

"Any self-replicating mechanism which does not make a perfect copy will result in the creation of different variants and thus be subject to natural selection as the variants which are better at persisting in their environment will outlive and outreproduce variants which are not so suited to their environment."

If there are no environmental pressures then there may be evolution, but it won't optimize towards any trait. There may be fortunate evolution that avoids extinction.

Since "imperfect self-replication" does not imply multiple generations, if an common fatal imperfection develops in a population, then change may stop at the first self-replication, which would not constitute evolution.

[jimbob]

Bill, you are missing out a subtlety in our argument.

We are stating that improved survivability can only evolve when this improves reproductive success. This is because only those organisms that reproduce pass their "template" to the next generation.

You are saying that improved survival can evolve even at the expense of reproductive success. You haven't explained how.

Because there is no mechanism

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, you are missing out a subtlety in our argument.

We are stating that improved survivability can only evolve when this improves reproductive success. This is because only those organisms that reproduce pass their "template" to the next generation.

Your reasoning only implies that improved survivability requires maintaining reproductive success, improvement is not required.


You are saying that improved survival can evolve even at the expense of reproductive success. You haven't explained how.

Because there is no mechanism

It is not a zero sum process. Natural selection can improve survivability without sacrificing reproduction.

[jimbob]

Bill, you are missing out a subtlety in our argument.

We are stating that improved survivability can only evolve when this improves reproductive success. This is because only those organisms that reproduce pass their "template" to the next generation.

Your reasoning only implies that improved survivability requires maintaining reproductive success, improvement is not required.


Improvement is required for a trait to evolve. Any trait that is neutral with respect to reproductive success will have no selective pressure.

Furthermore, it is probably impossible for a trait that improves survival to be neutral with respect to reproductive success. Either it improves it (which happens a lot) or it would degrade it (whereupon survival under these conditions is selected against).




You are saying that improved survival can evolve even at the expense of reproductive success. You haven't explained how.

Because there is no mechanism

It is not a zero sum process. Natural selection can improve survivability without sacrificing reproduction.

We are not talking about sacrificing reproductive success - you were:

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.

If you read what you quoted above, we have stated many times that improved survivability is often advantageous. But that when this is advantageous, it is advantageous because it improves reproductive success.

We are stating that improved survivability can only evolve when this improves reproductive success. This is because only those organisms that reproduce pass their "template" to the next generation.

In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Improvement is required for a trait to evolve. Any trait that is neutral with respect to reproductive success will have no selective pressure.

Selective pressure comes from the environment and that will determine the level of reproductive success. Evolving survivability does not necessitate improving reproductivity.


Furthermore, it is probably impossible for a trait that improves survival to be neutral with respect to reproductive success. Either it improves it (which happens a lot) or it would degrade it (whereupon survival under these conditions is selected against).

Probably implies possibly not.

In any case, since you have previously said that there are no examples of survival optimization and that an example cannot exist, then I must assume that you are making guesses here.



We are not talking about sacrificing reproductive success - you were:

If you read what you quoted above, we have stated many times that improved survivability is often advantageous. But that when this is advantageous, it is advantageous because it improves reproductive success.

In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success.

This directly contradicts your previous statement that:

"We are not talking about sacrificing reproductive success"

You have completely dropped several of many faults in your analysis that I have pointed out.

For example:

You have agreed the optimization for survival is possible. I do not see where you can go with your claim that it is not possible.

You admitted that you could not understand the hypothesis that optimization for survival could occur without extinction.
It is understandable that you cannot provide a viable negation of it.

You make claims of "always" and "never" then follow up with support of "most" and "probably", which I will point is not support but concession.

I explained the deficiency in your "imperfect self-replication" as a synonym for evolution and you did not respond.

And you have a predilection for returning to old arguments that I rebutted unchallenged to try to give them a second life, to no avail.

I am not sure which direction you are trying to drag this thread, other than in a circle.

[jimbob]

No, we have stated many times that optimisation can occur for any trait that improves reproductive success. This obviously includes traits that improve reproductive success via improving survival.

You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen.

I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, we have stated many times that optimisation can occur for any trait that improves reproductive success. This obviously includes traits that improve reproductive success via improving survival.

Previously, your claim was much more exclusive:
"Evolution optimises towards reproductive success not survivability."


You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen.

I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success.

[jimbob]

No, we have stated many times that optimisation can occur for any trait that improves reproductive success. This obviously includes traits that improve reproductive success via improving survival.

Previously, your claim was much more exclusive:
"Evolution optimises towards reproductive success not survivability."


Yes, the "goal" of any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success, that is true. And we have been clear from the start that this is often via evolution of traits that promote reproductive success by promoting survival.

On the first page of this thread

The survival instinct has only evolved because it helps reproduction. There are many situations where it hinders reproduction, and then it is absent.


And your reply:


The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.



Obviously at this point you have been claiming that success in natural selection is not just a consequence of reproductive success. In fact you are claiming that some organisms are "naturally selected" yet still fail to reproduce

Or even earlier:


Evolution is the variation of traits and the selection of those traits by survival of the individual (and throw in some random genetic drift). Reproduction does not cause the first and only indirectly helps with the second.








You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen.

I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success.


"I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success."

Although it is a bit muddled the above isn't where you are wrong, if you claiming that the two are *sometimes* compatible.

You are wrong in claiming that traits promoting survival at the expense of reproductive success can ever evolve.


I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.




In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success. You certainly have claimed otherwise.

Do you still claim otherwise?

[Roboramma]

I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success.
That's true but has little bearing on anything: evolution isn't about species going extinct (or at least, not mostly), it's about the changing frequencies of genes within populations.
And of course "optimization towards survival" isn't necessarily detrimental to reproductive success. No one said it was. In fact, it seems everyone agrees that things that improve survival tend to improve reproductive success, except where, for instance, the investment in resources necessary for those gains in survival are counterproductive.

And it's just those cases, where it is counterproductive, that this discussion is actually considering: in those cases, where optimization toward survival is detrimental to reproductive success, it won't evolve.
Do you think it will?
If so, by what mechanism?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Yes, the "goal" of any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success, that is true. And we have been clear from the start that this is often via evolution of traits that promote reproductive success by promoting survival.

You have two statements that directly and incontrovertibly contradict each other.

"No, we have stated many times that optimisation can occur for any trait that improves reproductive success."

"Yes, the "goal" of any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success, that is true."

You need to decide where you are wrong.


Obviously at this point you have been claiming that success in natural selection is not just a consequence of reproductive success. In fact you are claiming that some organisms are "naturally selected" yet still fail to reproduce


I conclude that you are rehashing this rebuttal from long ago in anticipation that your current argument will fail.


[I]"I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success."

Although it is a bit muddled the above isn't where you are wrong, if you claiming that the two are *sometimes* compatible.

You are wrong in claiming that traits promoting survival at the expense of reproductive success can ever evolve.

In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success. You certainly have claimed otherwise.

Do you still claim otherwise?

Once you say "ever" you lock yourself into an all or nothing position.
You claim that this, traits promoting survival, does not happen but also that it cannot possibly happen.

You claim that reproductive success only occurs at a maximum level, that no factor detrimental to reproductive success can exist.

Your claim entails that any factor, such as optimization towards survival, which is detrimental towards reproductive success, that is, which keeps it from its maximum potential, is not possible.

Reproduction does not need to be maximized to avoid extinction.

[Bill Thompson 75]

That's true but has little bearing on anything: evolution isn't about species going extinct (or at least, not mostly), it's about the changing frequencies of genes within populations.

I would think that extinction might be a topic of interest to evolutionary biologists.

"Mostly" leaves enough room for the current discussion.


And of course "optimization towards survival" isn't necessarily detrimental to reproductive success. No one said it was.

In the immediately preceding post:

"You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen."

"In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success."

If you can't read how can you write?


In fact, it seems everyone agrees that things that improve survival tend to improve reproductive success, except where, for instance, the investment in resources necessary for those gains in survival are counterproductive.

And it's just those cases, where it is counterproductive, that this discussion is actually considering: in those cases, where optimization toward survival is detrimental to reproductive success, it won't evolve.
Do you think it will?
If so, by what mechanism?

Read the response to the previous post.

[jimbob]

Bill, do you know the meaning of the word "necessarily"?

And of course "optimization towards survival" isn't necessarily detrimental to reproductive success. No one said it was.
In the immediately preceding post:

"You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen."

"In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success."

If you can't read how can you write?

We have been saying from the beginning that in the situations where optimisation towards survival improves reproductive success, survival will be optimised. In other situations, there will be no optimisation towards survival.

Optimisation towards survival will only occur when it improves reproductive success.

Can you give a real example of where optimisation towards survival has occurred, despite it not improving reproductive success?

I can provide many where optimisation towards reproductive success has been detrimental to survival.

You only need to provide one real example to show us that we are mistaken.

I am even asking you for an easier case for you to defend than your original claim that there would be some occasions where a survival was optimised at the expense of reproductive success.

[jimbob]

You have two statements that directly and incontrovertibly contradict each other.

"No, we have stated many times that optimisation can occur for any trait that improves reproductive success."

"Yes, the "goal" of any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success, that is true."

You need to decide where you are wrong.

Both statements are true.

The optimisation is towards reproductive success. If a trait improves reproductive success, there is a selective pressure in its favour, and it could evolve. A trait could improve reproductive success by improving survival, and such a trait (polar bear fur, for example) would incidentally optimise for survival even though this is just a particular means to the "end" of improved reproductive success.

The language in the preceding paragraph is a bit too teleological, but this is just for simplicity. Natural selection is a consequence of imperfect self-replication and nothing else.



"I have always been clear that my point was that optimization towards survival and non-extinction were compatible. It is not necessarily detrimental to reproductive success."
Although it is a bit muddled the above isn't where you are wrong, if you claiming that the two are *sometimes* compatible.

You are wrong in claiming that traits promoting survival at the expense of reproductive success can ever evolve.

In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success. You certainly have claimed otherwise.

Do you still claim otherwise?

I conclude that you are rehashing this rebuttal from long ago in anticipation that your current argument will fail.



Once you say "ever" you lock yourself into an all or nothing position.
You claim that this, traits promoting survival, does not happen but also that it cannot possibly happen.

You claim that reproductive success only occurs at a maximum level, that no factor detrimental to reproductive success can exist.

Your claim entails that any factor, such as optimization towards survival, which is detrimental towards reproductive success, that is, which keeps it from its maximum potential, is not possible.

Reproduction does not need to be maximized to avoid extinction.

Yes, so if we are mistaken, it should be easy to disprove with a single example.

Show me a situation where a trait has evolved that hinders reproductive success but promotes survival.

How would such a trait propagate? There would be a selective pressure against such a trait evolving. We are not talking about a single mutation occurring, we are talking about generational change in this direction against selective pressure.

Maybe you think that the selective pressure wouldn't be against it. If not, please explain how.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, do you know the meaning of the word "necessarily"?

Yes, and in the context used it was clearly the opposite of what you have claimed many times.


We have been saying from the beginning that in the situations where optimisation towards survival improves reproductive success, survival will be optimised. In other situations, there will be no optimisation towards survival.

From the beginning that was just the opposite of what you said.


Optimisation towards survival will only occur when it improves reproductive success.

Again, your claim was that optimization towards survival did not and could not occur.


Can you give a real example of where optimisation towards survival has occurred, despite it not improving reproductive success?

I can provide many where optimisation towards reproductive success has been detrimental to survival.

You only need to provide one real example to show us that we are mistaken.


I found that to be a useless endeavor since you defined optimization as a process that only benefits reproductive success. This is, however, clearly a mischaracterization since evolution and biology are sciences not founded on definitions.


I am even asking you for an easier case for you to defend than your original claim that there would be some occasions where a survival was optimised at the expense of reproductive success.

I made my claim quite clear when I repeatedly specified that survival can be optimized without resulting in extinction.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Both statements are true.

If you can reconcile
"optimisation can occur for any trait"
with
"any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success"
I imagine you can reconcile the truth with falsehood.


The optimisation is towards reproductive success. If a trait improves reproductive success, there is a selective pressure in its favour, and it could evolve. A trait could improve reproductive success by improving survival, and such a trait (polar bear fur, for example) would incidentally optimise for survival even though this is just a particular means to the "end" of improved reproductive success.

The language in the preceding paragraph is a bit too teleological, but this is just for simplicity. Natural selection is a consequence of imperfect self-replication and nothing else.

Nothing in "imperfect self-replication", other than random chance, would cause a trait to become more or less common in a population. Since "imperfect self-replication" provides for no selective pressures your analogy is incomplete.


Yes, so if we are mistaken, it should be easy to disprove with a single example.

Show me a situation where a trait has evolved that hinders reproductive success but promotes survival.

How would such a trait propagate? There would be a selective pressure against such a trait evolving. We are not talking about a single mutation occurring, we are talking about generational change in this direction against selective pressure.

Maybe you think that the selective pressure wouldn't be against it. If not, please explain how.

You are rebutting an argument I have not made.

[jimbob]

Bill, it is "optimisation could occur for any trait that improves reproductive success."

The qualifying statement in italics is important.

We have never said that optimisation towards survival can not occur. We have said that it can occur only when this improved survival improves reproductive success.

You said the following:

"I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival."

That does imply that situations do occur where traits have evolved even though they hinder reproductive success. Maybe that isn't what you meant. But it is what you wrote.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, it is "optimisation could occur for any trait that improves reproductive success."

The qualifying statement in italics is important.

We have never said that optimisation towards survival can not occur. We have said that it can occur only when this improved survival improves reproductive success.

Every time you repeat that false claim I will repeat your other false claim that
"any optimisation in evolution is towards reproductive success",
so there.


You said the following:

"I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival."

That does imply that situations do occur where traits have evolved even though they hinder reproductive success. Maybe that isn't what you meant. But it is what you wrote.

Without specifying one of many examples, many animals in the wild kill their young, for the greater good of the species. However, it is not that uncommon for an evolved survival instinct to allow the consumption of offspring to avoid starvation. Here optimization of survival defeats reproductive success.

I anticipate that you will not accept this example, since you have previously defined it as impossible.

[Roboramma]

I would think that extinction might be a topic of interest to evolutionary biologists. It is, but it's not a driving force of evolution. Do you understand how natural selection operates?

"Mostly" leaves enough room for the current discussion. Does it? I don't think it does, perhaps you could explain how those situations where extinction does have some effect on evolution "leave room for the current discussion"?



In the immediately preceding post:

"You however claim that sometimes traits that are detrimental to reproductive success can evolve if they improve survival. That can't happen."
Yes, and I agree with that statement. It doesn't contradict what I said. If you think that it contracts this statement:
"And of course "optimization towards survival" isn't necessarily detrimental to reproductive success. No one said it was."
then please specifically explain how.

"In other words, we are saying that improved survival can't evolve when it is detrimental to reproductive success."

If you can't read how can you write?
Let me make this clear: Improved survival can't evolve when it's detrimental to reproductive success. Sometimes improved survival isn't detrimental to reproductive success.

Do you think the above two sentences contradict one another?

[Roboramma]

Without specifying one of many examples, many animals in the wild kill their young, for the greater good of the species. No, they don't.

However, it is not that uncommon for an evolved survival instinct to allow the consumption of offspring to avoid starvation. Here optimization of survival defeats reproductive success. No, it improves reproductive success, because the chances of offspring surviving when the parents are starving are low enough that those resources are more likely to result in more offspring if the parent consumes and them uses them for current survival: leading to more future offspring, particularly grandchildren.

Which is basically the definition of reproductive success.

I anticipate that you will not accept this example, since you have previously defined it as impossible.
Actually the reason for not accepting it is because it's false. But if you could show a specific example, that might help.

[Dancing David]

Without specifying one of many examples, many animals in the wild kill their young, for the greater good of the species.

Wow talk about broad unsupported over generalizations!
However, it is not that uncommon for an evolved survival instinct to allow the consumption of offspring to avoid starvation. Here optimization of survival defeats reproductive success.


You are abusing the term 'instinct' there.

[Bill Thompson 75]

It is, but it's not a driving force of evolution. Do you understand how natural selection operates?

Does it? I don't think it does, perhaps you could explain how those situations where extinction does have some effect on evolution "leave room for the current discussion"?

As you said, evolution is partly about species going extinct, which is one aspect of the current discussion, or haven't you noticed?


Yes, and I agree with that statement. It doesn't contradict what I said. If you think that it contracts this statement:
"And of course "optimization towards survival" isn't necessarily detrimental to reproductive success. No one said it was."
then please specifically explain how.

They are not contradictory, they are both false.


Let me make this clear: Improved survival can't evolve when it's detrimental to reproductive success. Sometimes improved survival isn't detrimental to reproductive success.

The point that has consistently been avoided is:
Can improved survival evolve while reproductive success declines but remains at a level that avoids extinction?


Do you think the above two sentences contradict one another?

No, the first is false, the second is true.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, they don't.

And then you immediately contradict yourself with the following statements.


No, it improves reproductive success, because the chances of offspring surviving when the parents are starving are low enough that those resources are more likely to result in more offspring if the parent consumes and them uses them for current survival: leading to more future offspring, particularly grandchildren.

Which is basically the definition of reproductive success.

"Chances" and "more likely" are the spaces that my argument falls into.


Actually the reason for not accepting it is because it's false. But if you could show a specific example, that might help.

A example would be wasted on you. You already said it does not occur then proceeded to explain how it does occur.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Wow talk about broad unsupported over generalizations!

You're kidding right. There are so many examples I found the effort to pare them down too exhausting.


You are abusing the term 'instinct' there.

Let me disabuse you of the idea that you are presenting a rational rebuttal.

[jimbob]

We have been saying from the beginning that in the situations where optimisation towards survival improves reproductive success, survival will be optimised. In other situations, there will be no optimisation towards survival.

From the beginning that was just the opposite of what you said.


Optimisation towards survival will only occur when it improves reproductive success.

Again, your claim was that optimization towards survival did not and could not occur.

No it isn't, you misunderstood what everyone else has been saying,

This is from post#11 in this thread, on page 1: (so pretty close to the beginning)




The survival instinct has only evolved because it helps reproduction. There are many situations where it hinders reproduction, and then it is absent.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No it isn't, you misunderstood what everyone else has been saying,

This is from post#11 in this thread, on page 1: (so pretty close to the beginning)

I did make the commitment that every time you disavowed your claim of optimization towards only reproductive success I would counter it.

Which of your posts did I most misunderstand?

"Evolution is the process of change taking place over many generations that leads to optimisation of reproductive success."

"Natural selection only acts to optimise reproductive success"

"Evolution optimises towards reproductive success not survivability. "

"If evolution optimised towards survival and not reproductive success then reproductive strategies that are detrimental to survival could never evolve however much they increase reproductive success. There are plenty of examples of reproductive strategies that have evolved, at the expense of individual survival."

"Because the optimisation is towards reproductive success, traits can evolve that improve reproductive success whilst harming the individual organism's survival. This could not happen if evolution optimised towards "survival"."

Evolution optimises towards reproductive success because only those organisms that reproduce will pass their heritable traits to the next generation. "

[Dancing David]

You're kidding right. There are so many examples I found the effort to pare them down too exhausting.

Oh sure Bill, like name five then.



Let me disabuse you of the idea that you are presenting a rational rebuttal.

I assure you, you don't know the meaning of instinct in biology, your usage is not that used by ethologists, ever heard of 'modal action patterns', or 'stereotypic behaviors'?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Oh sure Bill, like name five then.

Read the Infanticide (zoology) article on Wiki. This is somewhat of a purposeless request since if you actually have read much at all on evolution you already know this is a common and verified practice among many species.


I assure you, you don't know the meaning of instinct in biology, your usage is not that used by ethologists, ever heard of 'modal action patterns', or 'stereotypic behaviors'?

It is clearly not stereotypic behavior since that generally refers to abnormal reflexive behavior.

There is fundamentally no appreciable difference between instinct and modal action pattern, other than where one animal behaviorist may insist his personal meaning is special. A modal action pattern may refer to a more common behavior in a species than an instinct, but both are primarily reflexive and widespread.

The consuming of offspring in the threat of starvation is very much driven by the immediate instinct to survive.

[Dancing David]

Read the Infanticide (zoology) article on Wiki. This is somewhat of a purposeless request since if you actually have read much at all on evolution you already know this is a common and verified practice among many species.

I see , you are too lazy to even choose your own. I wonder why?




It is clearly not stereotypic behavior since that generally refers to abnormal reflexive behavior.

Nope. It is the common way that ethologists and many define instinct. It is separate from reflex yes, stereotypic, yes. If it is abnormal then by definition it is not an ‘instinct’. Stereotypic was the usage for instinct about 30 years ago, no MAP.


There is fundamentally no appreciable difference between instinct and modal action pattern,

Duh, that is why your usage of 'survival instinct' is technically incorrect. They are the same.

other than where one animal behaviorist may insist his personal meaning is special.

Duh, I know that BW75 is your use which is incorrect. MAP is the modern terminology for 'instinct' in many references

A modal action pattern may refer to a more common behavior in a species than an instinct, but both are primarily reflexive and widespread.

The consuming of offspring in the threat of starvation is very much driven by the immediate instinct to survive.

There is no such thing, learned and developed patterns, yes. Instincts no, in 'instinct to survive'. Conditioned and learned responses to survive, yes.
How positively Victorian of you.

[Lithrael]

OK, I suck, I'm trollbait, back for one last gasp.

The consuming of offspring in the threat of starvation is very much driven by the immediate instinct to survive.

And the instinct to consume offspring in the threat of starvation is there because it has been selected for, because it results in maximised reproductive success.

Let's see if just plain spelling it all out will help at all.

Trait: I will never eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes
Season One Environmental Pressure: temporary shortage of food in a small pond
Season One Event: spawning!
Season One Result: parents and offspring starve to death.
Season Two Environmental pressure: reasonable supply of food in a small pond
Season Two Event: none; everybody is already dead
Overall result: extinction

Trait: I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am a bit peckish
Season One Environmental Pressure: temporary shortage of food in a small pond
Season One Event: spawning!
Season One Result: parents survive, all offspring are eaten.
Season Two Environmental pressure: reasonable supply of food in a small pond
Season Two Event: spawning!
Season Two Result: parents survive, most offspring are eaten.
Overall result: some reproductive success

Trait: I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am starving to death
Season One Environmental Pressure: temporary shortage of food in a small pond
Season One Event: spawning!
Season One Result: parents survive, all offspring are eaten.
Season Two Environmental pressure: reasonable supply of food in a small pond
Season Two Event: spawning!
Season Two Result: parents survive, all offspring survive.
Overall result: excellent reproductive success

In this situation, trait: "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am starving to death" is selected for, because it is the one that nets most offspring in the long run. It eventually becomes the norm for that species because its genes are the ones that get diffused though the species because it's the one having the most successful offspring.

Fish with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am a bit peckish" are better survivors than reproducers. They do NOT die out immediately, but they are overrun in a few generations by the fish with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am starving to death". Eventually there will be very few if any fish left with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am a bit peckish". We call this process of fish with traits that improve reproductive success becoming the dominant representatives of their species 'natural selection'. This is why we say that natural selection is selecting for maximised offspring. This is why we say that natural selection for maximised offspring is what drives evolution.

[jimbob]

The point that has consistently been avoided is:
Can improved survival evolve while reproductive success declines but remains at a level that avoids extinction?




The point hasn't been avoided - I have stated that it is impossible.

Please demonstrate the mechanism:

Below is how this would really pan out:

Suppose you have a red deer stag, that is slightly less aggressive in the mating season than other otherwise "equivalent" males. Because of this, it will only fight males that are far less physically imposing than it. This improves its survival, as it avoids lots of injury, and energy expenditure, so is in better condition to go into the winter. It will still mate where it can, and will even drive off sufficiently less imposing rivals. This stag will have fewer offspring (probably none), so its trait dies with it.

Even if it did have offspring, any descants that were even less aggressive would have fewer offspring still. It wouldn't matter if they lived a long time, because they wouldn't pass their genes on.


In a benign enough environment, it could be possible for deleterious traits to spread, but even so, such traits wouldn't evolve.

You are positing a situation where a trait leads to an organism having fewer reproducing offspring, and that each generation with the stronger trait has progressively fewer reproducing offspring.

Such a trait would die out. Very Quickly.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I see , you are too lazy to even choose your own. I wonder why?

Because wasting time on your responses is a waste of time.


Nope. It is the common way that ethologists and many define instinct. It is separate from reflex yes, stereotypic, yes. If it is abnormal then by definition it is not an ‘instinct’. Stereotypic was the usage for instinct about 30 years ago, no MAP.

You disagree, then you agree, then you disagree.


Duh, that is why your usage of 'survival instinct' is technically incorrect. They are the same.

You must have meant technically redundant, although that would also be wrong since it is not an uncommon usage.


Duh, I know that BW75 is your use which is incorrect. MAP is the modern terminology for 'instinct' in many references

You disagree then you agree.


There is no such thing, learned and developed patterns, yes. Instincts no, in 'instinct to survive'. Conditioned and learned responses to survive, yes.
How positively Victorian of you.

You equated instinct with MAP and now imply that neither exist in relation to survival. This is not the common conclusion of many ethologists..

How far off topic are you planning on going?

You appear to be trying to practice some ideas you recently read in a text book.

[Bill Thompson 75]

OK, I suck, I'm trollbait, back for one last gasp.

And the instinct to consume offspring in the threat of starvation is there because it has been selected for, because it results in maximised reproductive success.

You are saying that a trait which is detrimental to reproductive success can maximize reproductive success.


Let's see if just plain spelling it all out will help at all.

Not a bit

.
In this situation, trait: "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am starving to death" is selected for, because it is the one that nets most offspring in the long run. It eventually becomes the norm for that species because its genes are the ones that get diffused though the species because it's the one having the most successful offspring.

You are saying that the gene that drives offspring to be eaten gets diffused the most.


Fish with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am a bit peckish" are better survivors than reproducers. They do NOT die out immediately, but they are overrun in a few generations by the fish with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am starving to death". Eventually there will be very few if any fish left with the trait "I will eat those little thingies that smell like me and have big eyes if I am a bit peckish". We call this process of fish with traits that improve reproductive success becoming the dominant representatives of their species 'natural selection'. This is why we say that natural selection is selecting for maximised offspring. This is why we say that natural selection for maximised offspring is what drives evolution.

What if reproductive success does not improve but merely stalls at a point that avoid extinction?

I assume by maximize you meant optimize.

[Bill Thompson 75]

The point hasn't been avoided - I have stated that it is impossible.

But stating it is not enough and your explanations consistently modify my example to fit your explanations.


Please demonstrate the mechanism:

Below is how this would really pan out:

A guess follows.


Suppose you have a red deer stag, that is slightly less aggressive in the mating season than other otherwise "equivalent" males. Because of this, it will only fight males that are far less physically imposing than it. This improves its survival, as it avoids lots of injury, and energy expenditure, so is in better condition to go into the winter. It will still mate where it can, and will even drive off sufficiently less imposing rivals. This stag will have fewer offspring (probably none), so its trait dies with it.

"Probably" establishes my example as possible.

Your conclusion that the stag will have fewer offspring and therefore die out does not follow. Especially since you describe it with the ability to compete successfully.


Even if it did have offspring, any descants that were even less aggressive would have fewer offspring still. It wouldn't matter if they lived a long time, because they wouldn't pass their genes on.

"Even less aggressive" is one instance of reworking my example.

Fewer offspring means fewer genes, not none at all.


In a benign enough environment, it could be possible for deleterious traits to spread, but even so, such traits wouldn't evolve.

You claim that traits spread through a population but there is no evolution. This sounds contradictory. And how do you reconcile the spread of disadvantageous traits with your prior thoughts on evolution?


You are positing a situation where a trait leads to an organism having fewer reproducing offspring, and that each generation with the stronger trait has progressively fewer reproducing offspring.

Such a trait would die out. Very Quickly.

"progressively fewer reproducing offspring" is exactly the opposite of what I posited. See what I mean about reworking my example?

[sphenisc]

...

In a benign enough environment, it could be possible for deleterious traits to spread, but even so, such traits wouldn't evolve.

...

By "evolve" do you mean specifically evolution by natural selection, as opposed to evolution by genetic drift? Just for clarity.

[Roboramma]

And then you immediately contradict yourself with the following statements.



"Chances" and "more likely" are the spaces that my argument falls into. How does your argument fall into those spaces? Do you understand the law of large numbers?



A example would be wasted on you. You already said it does not occur then proceeded to explain how it does occur.
No, an example would not be wasted on me. It would show that I was wrong, but so far you fail to provide one, which suggests that you don't have any.

[Roboramma]

As you said, evolution is partly about species going extinct, which is one aspect of the current discussion, or haven't you noticed? It doesn't impact on the current discussion because extinction doesn't lead to selection. It's just that simple. If you think it does, why don't you be specific about how extinction can lead to selection of the type that you're suggesting?



The point that has consistently been avoided is:
Can improved survival evolve while reproductive success declines but remains at a level that avoids extinction? It hasn't been avoided at all, the answer is no. If it isn't no, explain why and if possible provide an example.

[Roboramma]

By the way Bill, when I said "No, they don't." I was not quarrelling with the first part of the following sentence, that happens plenty, my quarrel is with the latter part, which I've bolded:


Without specifying one of many examples, many animals in the wild kill their young, for the greater good of the species.

Things do not evolve "for the greater good of the species". If you think they do, please explain the mechanism.

[jimbob]

...

In a benign enough environment, it could be possible for deleterious traits to spread, but even so, such traits wouldn't evolve.

...

By "evolve" do you mean specifically evolution by natural selection, as opposed to evolution by genetic drift? Just for clarity.

There are classic cases where such a trait could initially spread. Lemming populations are subject to chaotic oscillations. When the population is booming, the average number of reproducing offspring per parent is far greater than one and a trait that arises in such a situation could spread even if it were deleterious. The trait would increase, but at a slower rate than the general population. As soon as the environment becomes less benign, which will happen quickly, due to population pressures causing competition, the deleterious trait will die out, as it would decline when the general population is stable, and decline faster than the general population when that is declining.

Increasing populations are only temporary, and only occur for a few generations, so I'd say that even genetic drift wouldn't allow such evolution of traits, beyond a short number of generations.

[jimbob]

"progressively fewer reproducing offspring" is exactly the opposite of what I posited. See what I mean about reworking my example?

Bill,

That is the point.

Reproductive success is defined as numbers of offspring that reproduce. The usually used term is "viable offspring".

Viability is determined by whether the offspring reproduce. It is recursive.

Reducing reproductive success, by definition means reducing the number of reproducing offspring.

A cod, with a million offspring, but only one that reproduces has less reproductive success than a rabbit with 20 offspring, and five that make it to reproduce.

[Dancing David]

Because wasting time on your responses is a waste of time.

Because you know you can't show a consistent patterns of parents killing offspring that does not defeat your argument.

You disagree, then you agree, then you disagree.

Nope, pretend all you want, the stereotypic behaviors, instinct and MAP are the technical usages for the same event. I can't help your confusion.

You must have meant technically redundant, although that would also be wrong since it is not an uncommon usage.

The way you used it is technically incorrect, that is your problem. MAP and instinct are the same, duh. Common usage is not technical usage.

You disagree then you agree.

Did not, I did not say that they were different MAP and instinct are the same thing, your usage is incorrect. There are is no 'survival instinct'.

You equated instinct with MAP and now imply that neither exist in relation to survival. This is not the common conclusion of many ethologists..

Who, where?
You are wrong.
Nope you used 'survival instinct' there are no such thing, there are instincts which may benefit survival.


How far off topic are you planning on going?

You appear to be trying to practice some ideas you recently read in a text book.

Nope, you used instinct incorrectly in the technical sense.

Funny how you can't construct a valid defense of your statements and how you ersort to rhetoric.

[Lithrael]

You are saying that a trait which is detrimental to reproductive success can maximize reproductive success.

Almost; I am saying that a trait which is detrimental to reproductive success in the short term but which is helpful to reproductive success in the long term can maximize reproductive success.

You are saying that the gene that drives offspring to be eaten gets diffused the most.

Almost; I am saying that the gene that drives offspring to be eaten under circumstances that would otherwise result in the death of both offspring and parents gets diffused the most.

What if reproductive success does not improve but merely stalls at a point that avoid extinction?

If on average over their lifetimes every member of a species is achieving the same amount of reproductive success then there is no mechanism for any gene lines to gain more representation in the species than any other. If the the dominant gene lines are not changing then the expressed traits of the species as a whole are not changing either. There is no change for the species as a whole. No evolution, because there is no selection.

If any individual dies before achieving the amount of lifetime reproductive success that all the other members are getting, it is breaking your hypothetical situation: it's NOT reproducing at the same rate as its peers. Its traits are being selected against, but not because it failed to survive - because it failed to reproduce as successfully as its peers.

If any individual survives longer than its peers and gets an extra generation of viable offspring off beyond what its peers manage, it is breaking your hypothetical situation: it's NOT reproducing at the same rate as its peers. Its traits are being selected for, but not because it survived exceptionally well - because it reproduced more successfully than its peers.

I assume by maximize you meant optimize.

I think so.

I don't get the word game angle on this. If I said "A car isn't a good method of transportation compared to a camel, in the desert" would you come back with "You are saying a car isn't a good method of transportation?" These qualifiers we're using mean things.

[Bill Thompson 75]

How does your argument fall into those spaces? Do you understand the law of large numbers?

Well, what exceptions were leaving room for with "Chances" and "more likely"?

The law of large numbers is says that things that are not impossible are possible.


No, an example would not be wasted on me. It would show that I was wrong, but so far you fail to provide one, which suggests that you don't have any.

If you think it's possible say so. If you think it's impossible, what are the odds any example will change your mind?

[Bill Thompson 75]

It doesn't impact on the current discussion because extinction doesn't lead to selection. It's just that simple. If you think it does, why don't you be specific about how extinction can lead to selection of the type that you're suggesting?

Since the issue you are referring to has only been about avoidance of extinction I will assume you have not been following the posts.


It hasn't been avoided at all, the answer is no. If it isn't no, explain why and if possible provide an example.

You're kidding right? I ask a question, you claim no, then put the burden on me to justify yes.

[Bill Thompson 75]

By the way Bill, when I said "No, they don't." I was not quarrelling with the first part of the following sentence, that happens plenty, my quarrel is with the latter part, which I've bolded:



Things do not evolve "for the greater good of the species". If you think they do, please explain the mechanism.

Natural selection. I will let you read up on that for yourself.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill,

That is the point.

Reproductive success is defined as numbers of offspring that reproduce. The usually used term is "viable offspring".

Viability is determined by whether the offspring reproduce. It is recursive.

Everywhere else it's called circular.

Wikipeida: "A circular definition is one that assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. By using the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition, a circular definition provides no new or useful information"


Reducing reproductive success, by definition means reducing the number of reproducing offspring.

A cod, with a million offspring, but only one that reproduces has less reproductive success than a rabbit with 20 offspring, and five that make it to reproduce.

When you agree to my point then you agree that reworking my example to mean something different makes your rebuttals irrelevant.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Because you know you can't show a consistent patterns of parents killing offspring that does not defeat your argument.

Nope, pretend all you want, the stereotypic behaviors, instinct and MAP are the technical usages for the same event. I can't help your confusion.

The way you used it is technically incorrect, that is your problem. MAP and instinct are the same, duh. Common usage is not technical usage.

I didn't realize you were hanging out in the Advanced Biology Lab.
I'm here in the Elementary Grammar Lab. Your current post is wrong because it is technically incorrect.


Did not, I did not say that they were different MAP and instinct are the same thing, your usage is incorrect. There are is no 'survival instinct'.

Who, where?
You are wrong.
Nope you used 'survival instinct' there are no such thing, there are instincts which may benefit survival.

Nope, you used instinct incorrectly in the technical sense.

Funny how you can't construct a valid defense of your statements and how you ersort to rhetoric.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Almost; I am saying that a trait which is detrimental to reproductive success in the short term but which is helpful to reproductive success in the long term can maximize reproductive success.

Is this

Almost; I am saying that the gene that drives offspring to be eaten under circumstances that would otherwise result in the death of both offspring and parents gets diffused the most.

If on average over their lifetimes every member of a species is achieving the same amount of reproductive success then there is no mechanism for any gene lines to gain more representation in the species than any other. If the the dominant gene lines are not changing then the expressed traits of the species as a whole are not changing either. There is no change for the species as a whole. No evolution, because there is no selection.

You describe a situation where only one trait can spread through a
population at a time and where populations cannot branch off.
Let the trait that optimizes for survival and longevity separate from the others so that that competition does not occur.


If any individual dies before achieving the amount of lifetime reproductive success that all the other members are getting, it is breaking your hypothetical situation: it's NOT reproducing at the same rate as its peers. Its traits are being selected against, but not because it failed to survive - because it failed to reproduce as successfully as its peers.

If any individual survives longer than its peers and gets an extra generation of viable offspring off beyond what its peers manage, it is breaking your hypothetical situation: it's NOT reproducing at the same rate as its peers. Its traits are being selected for, but not because it survived exceptionally well - because it reproduced more successfully than its peers.

Here you are referring to individuals in a species, not traits that spread through a population that is evolving.


I think so.

I don't get the word game angle on this. If I said "A car isn't a good method of transportation compared to a camel, in the desert" would you come back with "You are saying a car isn't a good method of transportation?" These qualifiers we're using mean things.

I am not sure what word game you are referring to:
1) If the car is leaving the desert to increase its lifespan then it is as good as a camel as evolving.
2) Evolution can optimize towards a trait, but it doesn't maximize a trait.

[Roboramma]

Well, what exceptions were leaving room for with "Chances" and "more likely"? The fact that individuals vary, and so do individual outcomes. It's not always the case that that more fit individual has more grandchildren, but it is the case that on average more fit individuals have more grandchildren, and that is what influences the gene pool of the population as a whole. Do you understand that?

The law of large numbers is says that things that are not impossible are possible. No, it says that when you deal with enough iterations of an event with a probability, you'll end up with a particular distribution of events. What that means is that while for individual cases you don't know the outcome, for enough cases we do know what the general shape of outcomes will be. And it's that general shape that influences evolution, not the fact that there are outliers.



If you think it's possible say so. If you think it's impossible, what are the odds any example will change your mind?

I think it's impossible, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I make up my mind based on the evidence that I have available to me, so with new evidence my mind can be changed.

[Roboramma]

Since the issue you are referring to has only been about avoidance of extinction I will assume you have not been following the posts. But here's the crux of the matter: things don't evolve because they fail to lead to extinction: they evolve because they are selected for.



You're kidding right? I ask a question, you claim no, then put the burden on me to justify yes.
Yes, because if you there is an example it should be easy for you to show one.

[Roboramma]

Natural selection. I will let you read up on that for yourself.

I know how natural selection works. I've read dozens of books on it, thanks. It doesn't lead to "the good of the species".
For instance, the sex ratio in seals is 50/50, even though only 10% of males reproduce. This means that "the species" is wasting 90% of males. Clearly the species would be better off if it didn't waste all that biomass and energy. How do you explain the sex ratio in seals?

I can explain it and will be happy to do so if you ask. And my explanation will be grounded in natural selection.

[jimbob]

I know how natural selection works. I've read dozens of books on it, thanks. It doesn't lead to "the good of the species".
For instance, the sex ratio in seals is 50/50, even though only 10% of males reproduce. This means that "the species" is wasting 90% of males. Clearly the species would be better off if it didn't waste all that biomass and energy. How do you explain the sex ratio in seals?

I can explain it and will be happy to do so if you ask. And my explanation will be grounded in natural selection.

Furthermore, natural selection in your explanation will only be a consequence of variation, heritability and differential reproductive success. It won't be a magic mechanism of itself that causes differential reproductive success, which seems to be what Bill posits...

[Dancing David]

Natural selection. I will let you read up on that for yourself.

Uh huh, yet again a mischaracterization of the ToE and resorting to being unable to back up your claims.

Figured out the peacocks tail yet, or flowers and fruit?

[Dancing David]

Here you are referring to individuals in a species, not traits that spread through a population that is evolving.


It is through the reproduction of individuals that those traits become more dominant (i.e. prevalent) , you are just engaging in rhetorical argument again.

[Dancing David]

I didn't realize you were hanging out in the Advanced Biology Lab.
I'm here in the Elementary Grammar Lab. Your current post is wrong because it is technically incorrect.

So you really are just here to argue semantics, whether you like it or not there are no 'survival instincts' in the technical arena. You misused the term and then focus on rhetorical spin to avoid defending your ideas.

So what is this alleged survival instinct you made reference to?

And which particulars of infanticide do you wish to discuss?

Have you figured out why traits that are directly detrimental to the survival of the individual, like peacock’s tails (much less gestational effects) can become dominant in the population?


So where are these 'survival instincts'?

[Lithrael]

You describe a situation where only one trait can spread through a population at a time and where populations cannot branch off.

No I don't.

Let the trait that optimizes for survival and longevity separate from the others so that that competition does not occur.

The only time I can think of where that happens is when some trait allows individuals that carry it to take advantage of some new niche that the others in their population can't take advantage of. But the thing is, that's still a trait being selected for because of reproductive success. If you can get even a handful of offspring off in a niche nobody else is using yet, you are de facto the organism with the most successful reproduction in that niche.


Here you are referring to individuals in a species, not traits that spread through a population that is evolving.

The individuals in a species are what carry the traits of a population. Whether any traits spread and the population evolves is down to whether the individuals have different amounts of reproductive success.

There is not some different kind of evolution going on in a species' population happily evolving away without significant branches popping off it, versus a split into two new species. In each case it's the best long team reproducers under the circumstances, whose genes are propagated throughout their group, or whose genes form the basis for a new group.

I am not sure what word game you are referring to:

The one where you were rephrasing my statements with important qualifiers stripped out. So like if I said "3 beans plus 2 beans equals 5 beans" you'd say "You are saying 3 beans equals 5 beans."

[Bill Thompson 75]

The fact that individuals vary, and so do individual outcomes. It's not always the case that that more fit individual has more grandchildren, but it is the case that on average more fit individuals have more grandchildren, and that is what influences the gene pool of the population as a whole. Do you understand that?

No, it says that when you deal with enough iterations of an event with a probability, you'll end up with a particular distribution of events. What that means is that while for individual cases you don't know the outcome, for enough cases we do know what the general shape of outcomes will be. And it's that general shape that influences evolution, not the fact that there are outliers.

It is the outliers that separate into different populations.


I think it's impossible, but I could be persuaded otherwise. I make up my mind based on the evidence that I have available to me, so with new evidence my mind can be changed.

So you think that a case which would counter the general shape of evolution of a species is impossible. That type of reasoning has not gotten very far in the progress of science.

[Bill Thompson 75]

But here's the crux of the matter: things don't evolve because they fail to lead to extinction: they evolve because they are selected for.

No, the crux of the matter, is that if they fail to lead to extinction they can be successful, even if success is not the primary end.


Yes, because if you there is an example it should be easy for you to show one.

But if you make a claim, prove it.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I know how natural selection works. I've read dozens of books on it, thanks. It doesn't lead to "the good of the species".
For instance, the sex ratio in seals is 50/50, even though only 10% of males reproduce. This means that "the species" is wasting 90% of males. Clearly the species would be better off if it didn't waste all that biomass and energy. How do you explain the sex ratio in seals?

The seals are not extinct. That is good for the species.


I can explain it and will be happy to do so if you ask. And my explanation will be grounded in natural selection.

Save that for your worshipful students.

[Bill Thompson 75]

No I don't.

The only time I can think of where that happens is when some trait allows individuals that carry it to take advantage of some new niche that the others in their population can't take advantage of. But the thing is, that's still a trait being selected for because of reproductive success. If you can get even a handful of offspring off in a niche nobody else is using yet, you are de facto the organism with the most successful reproduction in that niche.

Exactly, and as you note, reproduction must only be more successful, not optimized.


The individuals in a species are what carry the traits of a population. Whether any traits spread and the population evolves is down to whether the individuals have different amounts of reproductive success.

Exactly, reproductive success merely needs to be greater, not optimized.


There is not some different kind of evolution going on in a species' population happily evolving away without significant branches popping off it, versus a split into two new species. In each case it's the best long team reproducers under the circumstances, whose genes are propagated throughout their group, or whose genes form the basis for a new group.

And one case may be a genes for survival and longevity that reproduces best in a niche.


The one where you were rephrasing my statements with important qualifiers stripped out. So like if I said "3 beans plus 2 beans equals 5 beans" you'd say "You are saying 3 beans equals 5 beans."

My explanatory analogy must have gotten past you.

[Lithrael]

Exactly, reproductive success merely needs to be greater, not optimized.

OK, I give up (again). This is some serious forest-for-trees business right here. Good luck, guys.

[Roboramma]

No, the crux of the matter, is that if they fail to lead to extinction they can be successful, even if success is not the primary end. Things that are selected against, even if they fail to lead to extinction, will not evolve.

Say there's a gene that on average leads to those who possess it to have 10% less grandchildren, do you agree that this gene will, over time, be represented less and less in the gene pool? If you disagree, why?



But if you make a claim, prove it.
My proof is the fact that you are incapable of showing an example. If such examples were common, you'd be able to find one, and thus would have offered one. If they are don't exist, you won't be able to find one.
I leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions.

[jimbob]

I didn't realize you were hanging out in the Advanced Biology Lab.
I'm here in the Elementary Grammar Lab. Your current post is wrong because it is technically incorrect.

Bill, as you are playing the troll, picking people up on obvious typos, it is fair to point out that you don't understand that if a set of conditions are necessary and sufficient for an outcome, then if these conditions are fulfilled, the outcome will be inevitable. This is basic English.





I would argue that, given a finite system, then imperfect self-replication is necessary and sufficient for evolution to occur.
Evolution usually refers to variation (imperfection) and selection.

Selection becomes irrelevant if the system presents no circumstances to favor any imperfections (variations).

Evolution without selection may result in changes that may or may not allow the species to die out.

If a species dies out then evolution ends.

So you have necessity, sufficiency, but not guarantee.


Furthermore, you don't seem to realise the difference between "will" and "may or may not":





The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.



and

Success in the process of natural selection will result in reproductive success.


This is also basic English.

Below: you again contradict yourself, without seeming to realise it.

This is not basic English, but basic logic.


For most life forms survival goals are much more immediate than reproduction.
Mating is a goal and parenting is an instinct.
Reproduction is an evolutionary developed process that is protected by achieving the goals of survival.

That is saying that reproduction includes hunting, gathering, sheltering, disguising, etc. It is more appropriate to place reproduction under the umbrella of survival (family, clan, society increase the survival chances of the individual).



That is why survival is the primary goal of the individual.


<snip>
Evolution is the variation of traits and the selection of those traits by survival of the individual (and throw in some random genetic drift). Reproduction does not cause the first and only indirectly helps with the second.



The survival instinct helps selection, which may or may not lead to reproduction.

Reproduction is necessary to the continuation of a species. It contributes nothing more to evolution than what it already contributes to continuation.

A species can continue through reproduction but it cannot evolve without variation and selection.

Since, historically, evolution has not been controlled your statement clearly shows that reproduction is not the key factor in evolution.



But here you seem to be agreeing that maybe reproduction is actually what defines "selection".

Same thing, reproduction is necessary for selection, regardless of variation.



Now you are disagreeing again.


This all goes back to the claim that the key to evolution is reproduction.
I rebutted with the claim that the more commonly recognized key factors or mechanisms in evolution are variation and selection.



Below: you make a category error, in stating what differentiates evolution from reproduction. The highlighted bit isn't even wrong.


If you mean that variation and selection are just minor participants in the panorama of evolution then you are wrong.
Variation and selection are the critical factors which distinguish evolution from reproduction.

No: reproduction is differentiated from evolution because reproduction is the process of creating new organisms with (somewhat imperfect) copies of the parental genes. Evolution is the process of change taking place over many generations that leads to optimisation of reproductive success.



Here you claim that you have an (unspecified) high level of education:



I have a high level of education, which I'm sure you can verify on the internet, just easily as I can verify jimbob's.


and below you demonstrate that you don't understand what tautology means:





My stated knowledge and understanding is consistent with what I write.

That is a tautology of personality. It is a redundancy that says no more than that you are not crazy.



It is not a tautology, because, as you have demonstrated, your writing is not consistent with a "high level of education", which is what you have claimed for yourself.

My writing is consistent with my claimed scientific literacy.

[Bill Thompson 75]

OK, I give up (again). This is some serious forest-for-trees business right here. Good luck, guys.

I guess what you're saying is that I am paying too much attention to the details.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Things that are selected against, even if they fail to lead to extinction, will not evolve.

How can a trait, which does not lead to extinction, appear, if not through evolution?


Say there's a gene that on average leads to those who possess it to have 10% less grandchildren, do you agree that this gene will, over time, be represented less and less in the gene pool? If you disagree, why?

I agree. Say there is a gene that leads to a constant rate of grandchildren.
Would you agree that it will maintain its place in the gene pool?


My proof is the fact that you are incapable of showing an example. If such examples were common, you'd be able to find one, and thus would have offered one. If they are don't exist, you won't be able to find one.
I leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions.

You must be aware that this fallacy is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. Carl Sagan put it as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

[Bill Thompson 75]

Bill, as you are playing the troll, picking people up on obvious typos, it is fair to point out that you don't understand that if a set of conditions are necessary and sufficient for an outcome, then if these conditions are fulfilled, the outcome will be inevitable. This is basic English.

Technically, I did not play the troll: I followed DD into the realm of nitpicking as a demonstration of showing that it usually backfires as a rational argument.

Example:
Technically, your statements are structured as relatively basic English.
Technically, you probably meant your argument was basic Logic.


Furthermore, you don't seem to realise the difference between "will" and "may or may not":

Technically, I think I covered that issue months ago.


and

This is where you quote two of my statements, where one explicitly clarifies the other, and you fraudulently claim a contradiction.


This is also basic English.

Below: you again contradict yourself, without seeming to realise it.
And the passage you highlight certainly don't show it.

This is not basic English, but basic logic.

You finally recognize the difference.


But here you seem to be agreeing that maybe reproduction is actually what defines "selection".

That is because you are confusing necessary with necessary and sufficient, which really weakens your opening claim in this post.


Now you are disagreeing again.

As I always have on this point.


Below: you make a category error, in stating what differentiates evolution from reproduction. The highlighted bit isn't even wrong.

You lost sight of your "imperfect self-replication" (variation and selection) argument when it is compared to "perfect self-replication" (reproduction without evolution).


No: reproduction is differentiated from evolution because reproduction is the process of creating new organisms with (somewhat imperfect) copies of the parental genes. Evolution is the process of change taking place over many generations that leads to optimisation of reproductive success.

Here you claim that you have an (unspecified) high level of education:

and below you demonstrate that you don't understand what tautology means:


The tautology exists because your writing is the clearest statement of your
"knowledge and understanding". They are equivalent, thus the tautology.


It is not a tautology, because, as you have demonstrated, your writing is not consistent with a "high level of education", which is what you have claimed for yourself.

You have never pointed out that my writing is not consistent with a high level of education. If you meant to refer to the content of my writing, then you have made an elementary mistake by confusing the two. This would be an indicator of your "knowledge and understanding".


My writing is consistent with my claimed scientific literacy.

It seems to be inconsistent with your self-analysis.

[Roboramma]

How can a trait, which does not lead to extinction, appear, if not through evolution? Mutation, or perhaps evolving in a different environment: when the environment changes a previously adaptive trait can be selected against.



I agree. Say there is a gene that leads to a constant rate of grandchildren.
Would you agree that it will maintain its place in the gene pool? If you mean a gene that doesn't affect the rate of grandchildren then I almost agree, but not quite: it will be buffeted by genetic drift.
But basically yeah.



You must be aware that this fallacy is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. Carl Sagan put it as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The problem here is that when such evidence is expected, it's absense is evidence that the theory that expects it is wrong.
Your hypothesis makes a prediction. If it's correct the evidence should be common. It's not: the prediction is wrong, and thus so is the hypothesis.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Mutation, or perhaps evolving in a different environment: when the environment changes a previously adaptive trait can be selected against.

For mutation:
Mutation does not lead to optimization of a trait in a single generation.
Or
Mutation that persists through multiple generations basically is evolution.

Environmental changes:
This says nothing counter to any of my points, since it applies to any trait, including one that optimizes survival.


If you mean a gene that doesn't affect the rate of grandchildren then I almost agree, but not quite: it will be buffeted by genetic drift.
But basically yeah.

There is no contradiction between a gene that optimizes for survival and also does not affect the rate of grandchildren.


The problem here is that when such evidence is expected, it's absense is evidence that the theory that expects it is wrong.
Your hypothesis makes a prediction. If it's correct the evidence should be common. It's not: the prediction is wrong, and thus so is the hypothesis.

You cannot escape from the fallacy of argument from ignorance by asserting a self-established expectation.
A failure to meet your expectations does not make an argument logically false.

My example made no predictions. The hypothesis was that a consistent set of conditions could be defined and that is exactly what it accomplished.

I was asked to present a scenario, which I did. I did not claim that I would present any real world examples.
You have made the claim that no example is possible. You brought that burden of proof upon yourself. To attempt to pass it off onto me shows a confused interpretation of reason and debate.

Finally, you make the new claim that evidence should be common to support a hypothesis. This has no basis in my hypothesis, the scientific method, evolution, or logic.

[Roboramma]

For mutation:
Mutation does not lead to optimization of a trait in a single generation. I didn't say it did. I simply said that mutation leads to a trait. That trait can then be selected against.

What are you arguing here? It seems like you're not even following the discussion.

Environmental changes:
This says nothing counter to any of my points, since it applies to any trait, including one that optimizes survival. It wasn't meant to counter any of your points, I was answering a question.

Go back and read what I posted. What are you disagreeing with?



There is no contradiction between a gene that optimizes for survival and also does not affect the rate of grandchildren. No one said there was.

[Dancing David]

Welcome to this thread Roborama, its all my fault, apparently I have some sort of power to induce pedantry in Bill Thompson 75. :D

[Bill Thompson 75]

I didn't say it did. I simply said that mutation leads to a trait. That trait can then be selected against.

What are you arguing here? It seems like you're not even following the discussion.

You said that a trait can appear through means other than evolution.
So, are you referring to a trait appearing and disappearing in one generation (irrelevant to my point) or multiple generations (then it is evolution).


It wasn't meant to counter any of your points, I was answering a question.

Go back and read what I posted. What are you disagreeing with?

I didn't disagree, I specifically and only noted that your rebuttal was irrelevant.
Read my actual post, not the imagined one you want to respond to.


No one said there was.

Actually, that has been the primary point against my points. You just disqualified yourself from this thread.

I do not understand why those who post so often will post blatant, false statements, knowing that they are immediately disprovable, and credibility damaging.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Welcome to this thread Roborama, its all my fault, apparently I have some sort of power to induce pedantry in Bill Thompson 75. :D

World English Dictionary
"pedantry — n , pl -ries, the habit or an instance of being a pedant, esp in the display of useless knowledge or minute observance of petty rules or details"

An odd choice of words, assuming DD knows how to use a dictionary.

Go back, but not too far, and:

See who complains that I do not provide enough details (the opposite of pedantry).

See who has been attempting to nitpick the debate and pull it off topic with personal agendas of irrelevance.

See how often I have pulled the debate back to where it started with my straight forward observations of the importance of variation and natural selection to evolutionary theory.

It is the power of obfuscation that DD should brag on.

[Roboramma]

Actually, that has been the primary point against my points. You just disqualified yourself from this thread. No, it hasn't, in fact, many people have specifically pointed out that they don't disagree with that statement. Your inability to understand that is staggering.

But, if you think anyone has actually said that, why don't you go find an example?

Oh, wait, your inability to find an example doesn't show that none exist, sorry, forgot about that.

I do not understand why those who post so often will post blatant, false statements, knowing that they are immediately disprovable, and credibility damaging.
That's actually what I was thinking.

[Roboramma]

You said that a trait can appear through means other than evolution.
So, are you referring to a trait appearing and disappearing in one generation (irrelevant to my point) or multiple generations (then it is evolution). I'm referring to two things: a trait appearing through mutation in the course of a single generation: maybe that is or is not irrelevant to your point: at this point I'm very foggy about what your point actually is.
The other thing I'm referring to is traits that arose through evolution but which are then selected against due to a change in environment.

Your original point seemed to be that traits already in existence weren't selected against, with the example of mutation I was pointing out that a mutation leads to a phenotype that is often selected against. With the example of changes in environment I was pointing out that environmental changes lead to traits being selected against.
If you don't disagree with the above perhaps I misunderstood what your original point was: if so please clarify.

[Roboramma]

It is the outliers that separate into different populations. Originally I missed this post, sorry. But no, the outliers don't separate into new species: the outliers that are under discussion are those individuals who posses a disadvantageous trait but nevertheless happen to reproduce. Here's the problem: those of their offspring who inherit the gene that leads to that disadvantages trait are still less likely to reproduce than the average for the population as a whole: thus the gene in question becomes less and less frequent over time.
Genes that are selected against don't just magically form new species.



So you think that a case which would counter the general shape of evolution of a species is impossible. That type of reasoning has not gotten very far in the progress of science.
I don't think anything of the sort: could you please explain why you think I do?

[Roboramma]

The seals are not extinct. That is good for the species. There's nothing about a 90/10 sex ratio that would lead to extinction. So, given that there's no evidence that it impacts on extinction one way or the other, in what way is a 50/50 sex ratio "good for the species"?
How do you think it evolved?

[Dancing David]

...

So when asked about why there are traits that become dominant in a population, even though they were detrimental to survival, your answer was?

So in Case A what was the information you wanted to make your decision?

[Dancing David]

There's nothing about a 90/10 sex ratio that would lead to extinction. So, given that there's no evidence that it impacts on extinction one way or the other, in what way is a 50/50 sex ratio "good for the species"?
How do you think it evolved?

Especially since it is about the distribution of the Y chromosone.

[Dancing David]

I followed DD into the realm of nitpicking ...

Compare and contrast pedantry vs. nitpicking...

[Bill Thompson 75]

No, it hasn't, in fact, many people have specifically pointed out that they don't disagree with that statement. Your inability to understand that is staggering.

Here's what's staggering.

That you think, while entering an advanced point in a thread, that you would somehow have a greater knowledge of the thread than someone who has been in it from the beginning, is, to put it as reasonably as possible, absurdly ignorant of you.


But, if you think anyone has actually said that, why don't you go find an example?
Oh, wait, your inability to find an example doesn't show that none exist, sorry, forgot about that.
That's actually what I was thinking.

If you wish to be relevant you need to review the thread, and not expect me to backtrack through the thread to help you catch up.

[Bill Thompson 75]

I'm referring to two things: a trait appearing through mutation in the course of a single generation: maybe that is or is not irrelevant to your point: at this point I'm very foggy about what your point actually is.
The other thing I'm referring to is traits that arose through evolution but which are then selected against due to a change in environment.

Your original point seemed to be that traits already in existence weren't selected against, with the example of mutation I was pointing out that a mutation leads to a phenotype that is often selected against. With the example of changes in environment I was pointing out that environmental changes lead to traits being selected against.
If you don't disagree with the above perhaps I misunderstood what your original point was: if so please clarify.

In your previous post you were certain about my posts, now you twice admit that that was not true.

[Roboramma]

Here's what's staggering.

That you think, while entering an advanced point in a thread, that you would somehow have a greater knowledge of the thread than someone who has been in it from the beginning, is, to put it as reasonably as possible, absurdly ignorant of you. It is staggering that your knowledge of what people have directly said to you is so limited that even at this point I am able to see that you're wrong, but the evidence right there in the words that they typed, for anyone to see.

Here's another way for you to look at it: there are many people posting in this thread aside from you who have been engaged in it for a long time, yet they disagree with you as well.
Anyway, later I'll go back and dig up some quotes, because this is getting ridiculous.

[Roboramma]

In your previous post you were certain about my posts, now you twice admit that that was not true.

Whoopie.

Look, Bill, here's the thing: this isn't a contest to me. I don't care if it turns out I'm wrong. I'm happy to admit it if I was mistaken about something. In fact, I hope it turns out I'm wrong and I actually learn something. That's the main reason I get post on this forum to begin with. Yes, maybe I misunderstood you. Great.

Do you mind responding to the actual point however?

[Roboramma]

There's nothing about a 90/10 sex ratio that would lead to extinction. So, given that there's no evidence that it impacts on extinction one way or the other, in what way is a 50/50 sex ratio "good for the species"?
How do you think it evolved?

Bill, rather than posts that have nothing to do with the topic (like your last two) could you perhaps respond to this?

[Bill Thompson 75]

Originally I missed this post, sorry. But no, the outliers don't separate into new species: the outliers that are under discussion are those individuals who posses a disadvantageous trait but nevertheless happen to reproduce. Here's the problem: those of their offspring who inherit the gene that leads to that disadvantages trait are still less likely to reproduce than the average for the population as a whole: thus the gene in question becomes less and less frequent over time.
Genes that are selected against don't just magically form new species.

Those are not the outliers under discussion.

Here again, an argument is presented where "less likely" is intended to mean not possible. "less likely" implies that exceptions are clearly possible.

Then to paraphrase your point:
"Those of their offspring who inherit the gene that leads to that disadvantageous trait are as likely to reproduce as the average of the population as a whole: and the gene in question does not become less and less frequent over time."


I don't think anything of the sort: could you please explain why you think I do?

Before I presented an example of my hypotheses you said it would be impossible for me to do so. Biology is not exact enough or knowledge complete enough to make such a universal claim. You followed that with an attempt to pass the burden of your claim onto me and I declined it.

[Bill Thompson 75]

There's nothing about a 90/10 sex ratio that would lead to extinction. So, given that there's no evidence that it impacts on extinction one way or the other, in what way is a 50/50 sex ratio "good for the species"?
How do you think it evolved?

A trait does not need to be optimized to have value. If a trait is beneficial in any way it is "good for the species".

It evolved through the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection operating on variation.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Compare and contrast pedantry vs. nitpicking...

DD's nitpicking was a "carping, petty criticism" where common usage was considered inappropriate in an informal online forum.
DD's pedantry showed a "slavish attention to petty details" where common usage was considered inappropriate in an informal online forum.

[Bill Thompson 75]

It is staggering that your knowledge of what people have directly said to you is so limited that even at this point I am able to see that you're wrong, but the evidence right there in the words that they typed, for anyone to see.

What you see at this point is slight compared to what you have missed prior to this point. That is why you only see what you want to see.


Here's another way for you to look at it: there are many people posting in this thread aside from you who have been engaged in it for a long time, yet they disagree with you as well.
Anyway, later I'll go back and dig up some quotes, because this is getting ridiculous.

Read the thread and pay attention so that you debate the topic instead of wasting time trying to explain the topic to those who have invested much more time in it than you.

[Bill Thompson 75]

Whoopie.

Look, Bill, here's the thing: this isn't a contest to me. I don't care if it turns out I'm wrong. I'm happy to admit it if I was mistaken about something. In fact, I hope it turns out I'm wrong and I actually learn something. That's the main reason I get post on this forum to begin with. Yes, maybe I misunderstood you. Great.

Do you mind responding to the actual point however?

The original point is that an organism can evolve traits that optimize for survival and that do not result in extinction. There are many conditions where this may not occur, but there needs to be only one set of conditions where this is possible for the hypothesis to be true. That is why all the arguments that include "most likely", "probably", "chances are", etc, actually support my hypothesis, by leaving room for the exceptional case.

[Roboramma]

Those are not the outliers under discussion. Actually, they are. I would know, I'm the one whose reference to outliers you were replying to.

Then to paraphrase your point:
"Those of their offspring who inherit the gene that leads to that disadvantageous trait are as likely to reproduce as the average of the population as a whole: and the gene in question does not become less and less frequent over time." That's not a paraphrasing of my point, its a completely different point.
Obviously if a trait isn't selected against it's not selected against.
That doesn't change the fact that when a trait does lead to an average of fewer grandchildren it is selected against.


Before I presented an example of my hypotheses you said it would be impossible for me to do so. You haven't presented such an example.

Biology is not exact enough or knowledge complete enough to make such a universal claim. You followed that with an attempt to pass the burden of your claim onto me and I declined it.
Actually, one thing we do know about biology is that life on earth evolved by evolution through natural selection. It's an understanding of that process that leads me to claim that the sort of thing that you are suggesting wont' evolve. That is the evidence that I have to support that. But as I said, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps other things than natural selection are at play (clearly there are some things that influence the distribution of genes in gene pools other than natural selection: genetic drift is an example) which could lead to the sort of thing you are referring to. I highly doubt it, but if it has happened, and if it's happened often enough that it's a meaningful driver in evolutionary biology, such examples should be common enough for you to find one.
No, your inability to find one doesn't show that none exist: it simply shows that they are either rare or nonexistent. That's fine, but considering that theory suggests that they are nonexistent, lacking any example I'm going to continue to be swayed by theory.

I didn't think I needed to spell that out, but clearly I did.

[Roboramma]

If you read what you quoted above, we have stated many times that improved survivability is often advantageous.

An example of someone agreeing with what Bill claims is his whole point in this thread: perhaps he doesn't even understand what he is arguing against?

[jimbob]

If you read what you quoted above, we have stated many times that improved survivability is often advantageous.

An example of someone agreeing with what Bill claims is his whole point in this thread: perhaps he doesn't even understand what he is arguing against?


Actually Lithrael's analogy earlier made me think.

The argument is equivalent to a discussion between two people - let's call them "Person B " (PB) and "Everyone Else" (EE)

PB states that the aim in Rugby is to score as many drop-goals as possible.

EE points out that this isn't necessarily the case, and actually he aim is to score more points than the opponents.
PB then gives an example where the winning team did score more drop-goals. When EE agrees that this team did indeed win, PB then claims that EE has just contradicted him/herself and the earlier EE did claim that it wasn't possible to win by scoring more drop-goals.



One example:

My second post in this thread:


The survival instinct has only evolved because it helps reproduction. There are many situations where it hinders reproduction, and then it is absent.

I do accept that it would have been clearer to state:

"The survival instinct has only evolved because where it helps reproduction. There are many situations where it hinders reproduction, and then it is absent. "

On the second page, so still early in the thread:



I'll say this again.

The process of "choosing" which organisms reproduce is the process of Natural Selection. Natural selection only acts to optimise reproductive success, this can sometimes be maximised by traits that improve an organism's survival. Sometimes reproductive success is better guaranteed by producing lots of offspring, with a low chance of individual survival, as opposed to a single offspring with a better chance of survival. Sometimes it is better to breed young, others to breed late.



Bill, you are missing out a subtlety in our argument.

We are stating that improved survivability can only evolve when this improves reproductive success. This is because only those organisms that reproduce pass their "template" to the next generation.

You are saying that improved survival can evolve even at the expense of reproductive success. You haven't explained how.

Because there is no mechanism



Optimisation towards increased survival occurs only when this increased survival increases reproductive success. How else can it act? If it increases survival, but doesn't increase the number of offspring carrying such a trait into the next generation, there will be no selective pressure for this trait.
Note that your last paragraph here admits that there is at least one solution for optimization towards survival.
Thank you.

[jimbob]

Bill,

Do you accept that optimisation towards improved survival can only occur where this improved survival also improves reproductive success?

In such a situation, the organisms are still being selected for reproductive success.

[jimbob]

Actually, one thing we do know about biology is that life on earth evolved by evolution through natural selection. It's an understanding of that process that leads me to claim that the sort of thing that you are suggesting wont' evolve. That is the evidence that I have to support that. But as I said, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps other things than natural selection are at play (clearly there are some things that influence the distribution of genes in gene pools other than natural selection: genetic drift is an example) which could lead to the sort of thing you are referring to. I highly doubt it, but if it has happened, and if it's happened often enough that it's a meaningful driver in evolutionary biology, such examples should be common enough for you to find one.
No, your inability to find one doesn't show that none exist: it simply shows that they are either rare or nonexistent. That's fine, but considering that theory suggests that they are nonexistent, lacking any example I'm going to continue to be swayed by theory.

I didn't think I needed to spell that out, but clearly I did.
Below is my take on it. remembering that the actual quote was:



I think if you did the research you would find examples where reproductive success may be sacrificed, however slightly, to survival.



Any such genetic drift would have to work against selective pressure.



...

In a benign enough environment, it could be possible for deleterious traits to spread, but even so, such traits wouldn't evolve.

...

By "evolve" do you mean specifically evolution by natural selection, as opposed to evolution by genetic drift? Just for clarity.

There are classic cases where such a trait could initially spread. Lemming populations are subject to chaotic oscillations. When the population is booming, the average number of reproducing offspring per parent is far greater than one and a trait that arises in such a situation could spread even if it were deleterious. The trait would increase, but at a slower rate than the general population. As soon as the environment becomes less benign, which will happen quickly, due to population pressures causing competition, the deleterious trait will die out, as it would decline when the general population is stable, and decline faster than the general population when that is declining.

Increasing populations are only temporary, and only occur for a few generations, so I'd say that even genetic drift wouldn't allow such evolution of traits, beyond a short number of generations.

[Lithrael]

I guess what you're saying is that I am paying too much attention to the details.

No, I'm saying that you seem to agree to the details which add up to the big picture we are trying to explain, but every time we step back from four wheels and a chassis and say 'see, a car' you go 'I've been saying the whole time it is a giraffe and it is still a giraffe. Obviously you do not understand the argument here.' And we say 'why do you think it is a giraffe?' and you say 'it's not my fault if you have not been paying attention and it is not my job to do your research for you. Go back and read the thread again. And also, it is my understanding that your mother wears army boots.'

It is my prediction that your first instinct will be to point out that there are many things composed of four wheels and a chassis that are not cars. Please can we assume for the purposes of this post that the object under hypothetical discussion is in fact a car.