Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

GA's do not mean that evolution occurs as in the Darwinian formula. If you and others figure they do, == Have a good evening.

Genetic Algorithms use a very simple formula, Descent with modification and Selection, then repeat. You should recognize this by now as Darwin's basic hypothesis.

 

[cladking]

I explained to you that reality is so ridiculously complex that it is near impossible to express it in any meaningful way as a unit.

This is exactly what I've been trying to get you to see though I'm not entirely sure you can see much of this complexity, I'm sure you don't realize it impacts our interpretation of its parts, and that all of its parts are invisible outside experiment. I also disagree that it can't be seen all at once. Every single lifer for perhaps longer than trillions of years including human beings have seen it all at once even though this is no longer possible for any of us. Every individual from acorns on other planets to the designer of the Great Pyramid saw all of reality simultaneously. Each could see only some of it and mostly only what affects that individual like an acorn can see a bit of soil. But they were all looking at the big picture and not its parts.

I am not attacking reductionistic science and I am saying science is reductionistic. As such we must be diligent to avoid making conclusions that are not founded in experiment. We must never assume that we understand every relevant force or process that applies to any experiment.

Here we have the most complicated process that science even studies; change in life. And yet we don't even know what life is nor do we know do we know what keeps any individual alive and why this eventually ceases. Even if Darwin's assumption were true, and I believe they OBVIOUSLY are not, we still put the cart before the horse. It's what we do. It's unavoidable but we don't have to marry our beliefs and then attack heretics. We don't have to forget that all of our models and knowledge are built on assumptions, definitions, and untestable axioms and premises. We could use some humility. If we could just remember science doesn't arrive at conclusions and even experiment only can generate paradigms because this is the way we think then we could use our knowledge both more effectively and less destructively.

If we could just come to appreciate the total and utter complexity of reality and how it unfolds we could see we are even tinier than the stars we see on the blackest night. We have no tools but reason and experiment to understand reality and should never lose sight of either. Anyone can challenge any paradigm and when the little boy says the emperor has no clothes it's not time for him to take a bow. It's time to trace the threads back to the point that they diverge from reality. Darwin diverged from reality a very long time ago.

 

[cladking]

Here you go, a mathematical description of fitness, the equations are simple but difficult to apply without extremely controlled environments which rarely exist in nature.

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Otherwise all of your above just says you have no idea what evolution is even though you insist on using the terms with your own unrelated definitions.

Absolute fitness​

[edit]
The absolute fitness (W

) of a genotype is defined as the proportional change in the abundance of that genotype over one generation attributable to selection. For example, if n(t)

is the abundance of a genotype in generation t

in an infinitely large population (so that there is no genetic drift), and neglecting the change in genotype abundances due to mutations, then[4]

n(t+1)=Wn(t)

.
An absolute fitness larger than 1 indicates growth in that genotype's abundance; an absolute fitness smaller than 1 indicates decline.

Relative fitness​

[edit]
Whereas absolute fitness determines changes in genotype abundance, relative fitness (w

) determines changes in genotype frequency. If N(t)

is the total population size in generation t

, and the relevant genotype's frequency is p(t)=n(t)/N(t)

, then

p(t+1)=ww¯p(t)

,

These are populations, species!! I don't believe in species. Species are abstractions that can't be palpated or put under a microscope.

 

[cladking]

When was that? In 1971? Perhaps it's time to update your knowledge a bit.

'50's and '60's.

Someone who has a basic understanding of evolution, would know what it means.

It's not necessary to know every wrong answer to arrive at a right answer.

Address my arguments.

You can disagree all you want, but it's exactly what happens in both GA's as well as in the real world.

Your beliefs are showing.

Makes no sense. This is one of those things that you say only because you have no clue and refuse to learn.

Are you seriously suggesting food shortages are "optimum"!!!!

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "optimum" either. I personally would rather eat every day but to each his own.

Ow, so you are saying that there are other life forms that are more successful then others at gathering this limited resource known as "food", ha? How about that.

No. I'm saying that what's bad for one "species" is always good for another. Life is always in balance and always cooperating.

Now, what will happen to stable populations and rate of change in those species when the stable conditions become unstable and change to something else, with different / altered selection pressures?

In most cases pretty much nothing happens. If a species can survive it will survive. If the force is too strong they will suddenly adapt. If the forces are less strong they will slowly change but this change is too gradual to detect or see in the fossil record. Even in cases where it occurs more quickly because the forces are stronger the odds are the niche will change back or to something else before there is much effect.

I've always said it is entirely possible for speciation to occur by darwinian forces but it is probably rare and usually subtle. Species do not change this way.

What will happen to the color of Polar bears, assuming they don't go extinct?
What polar bear will be likely more successful in the hunt? The one that stays completely white? Or the one that has white fur with some grey/brown patches to match the new background?

Tigers aren't green.

Which ones?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's a little arrow next to most quotes. Click it!

 

[cladking]

Here you go, a mathematical description of fitness, the equations are simple but difficult to apply without extremely controlled environments which rarely exist in nature.

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Otherwise all of your above just says you have no idea what evolution is even though you insist on using the terms with your own unrelated definitions.

I find it absolutely incredible that people believe in fitness without ever once defining or measuring it. They want to take one single characteristic and suppose it is the only one that affects an individual. Obviously some individuals are born with a common trait that is dangerous in a given environment and unsurprisingly those which have this trait tend to be eradicated before they reproduce. We see this all the time. But extrapolating this simple process to explain major changes in major species is highly speculative at best and illogical at worst.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is exactly what I've been trying to get you to see though

No. Your argument is not that it is too complex to calculate in a meaningful to be able to express it in a unit.
Your argument instead, is that there is no such thing as fitness.

I'm not entirely sure you can see much of this complexity, I'm sure you don't realize it impacts our interpretation of its parts, and that all of its parts are invisible outside experiment. I also disagree that it can't be seen all at once. Every single lifer for perhaps longer than trillions of years including human beings have seen it all at once even though this is no longer possible for any of us. Every individual from acorns on other planets to the designer of the Great Pyramid saw all of reality simultaneously.

What's all this word salad? What on earth are you on about?

Here we have the most complicated process that science even studies; change in life. And yet we don't even know what life is nor do we know do we know what keeps any individual alive and why this eventually ceases. Even if Darwin's assumption were true, and I believe they OBVIOUSLY are not, we still put the cart before the horse. It's what we do. It's unavoidable but we don't have to marry our beliefs and then attack heretics. We don't have to forget that all of our models and knowledge are built on assumptions, definitions, and untestable axioms and premises. We could use some humility. If we could just remember science doesn't arrive at conclusions and even experiment only can generate paradigms because this is the way we think then we could use our knowledge both more effectively and less destructively.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

If we could just come to appreciate the total and utter complexity of reality and how it unfolds we could see we are even tinier than the stars we see on the blackest night. We have no tools but reason and experiment to understand reality and should never lose sight of either. Anyone can challenge any paradigm and when the little boy says the emperor has no clothes it's not time for him to take a bow. It's time to trace the threads back to the point that they diverge from reality. Darwin diverged from reality a very long time ago.

All research into evolution biology since darwin has only confirmed his basic idea time and again.
When you have multiple independent lines of evidence all converging on the same answer (evolution), then you have something extremely solid.

Your refusal to learn, is not an argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe in species.

Owkay then.

 

[cladking]

No. Your argument is not that it is too complex to calculate in a meaningful to be able to express it in a unit.
Your argument instead, is that there is no such thing as fitness.

No!!! There is no such thing as "fitness" as it is defined by Darwin et al.

This hardly means that every individual is the same or some don't have characteristics to make them have better odds in given environments. I'm simply saying that it's impossible at this time and probably forever to calculate these odds or to define an environment. Generally speaking the difference amounts to little more than a rounding error even if it could be measured.

As a cause of change in species "fitness" is irrelevant. However individuals all have characteristic that can be generally beneficial or harmful. A fast individual has some advantage even where there is no footrace. A thick individual has a disadvantage even when not taking a timed IQ test.

But this doesn't mean being fast or aware might not lead to death.

No fitness. Consciousness is the engine of life and of changes in life. Free will and pattern recognition are the means by which every individual is selected in the here and now as well as the past and future. We got our genes for, by, and with consciousness. Consciousness is the root of life and its point. It also determines the future and the nature of change in "species".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

'50's and '60's.

PE was introduced in 1972. Perhaps that has something to do with it.



You might want to update your knowledge a bit btw. Quite some progress has been made since the 50's. You know, like... discovery of DNA and such

It's not necessary to know every wrong answer to arrive at a right answer.
Address my arguments.

Your arguments are rooted in ignorance. There is nothing to address. There are only false premises and strawmen to point out.

Are you seriously suggesting food shortages are "optimum"!!!!

No. You should read with more attention.
That's what you said and I said it's a nonsensical thing to say.
It shows you didn't understand a word of that post and your further replies shows you have zero intention of trying.

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "optimum" either.

Uhu.

This feels a bit like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a toddler.

In most cases pretty much nothing happens.

False.

If a species can survive it will survive. If the force is too strong they will suddenly adapt.

False. If anything happens "suddenly" then more then likely extinction will happen.
Species aren't able to adapt "suddenly" to "sudden" changes that are "too strong". Only when the change is gradual will species, through evolution, be able to respond. Because change in spaces happens gradually over generations. To big a change at once is not something biology is able to deal with (depending on the type of change, obviously)

If the forces are less strong they will slowly change but this change is too gradual to detect or see in the fossil record.

This makes no sense. The fossil record spans vast amounts of time. So gradual change most definitely can be seen in the fossil record. And it is. It is littered with transitionals and series of transitionals.

Even in cases where it occurs more quickly because the forces are stronger the odds are the niche will change back or to something else before there is much effect.

No.

I've always said it is entirely possible for speciation to occur by darwinian forces

And you make this bare claim while not even understanding how evolution actually works according to the theory.
Which you demonstrate with every post. Like with your response to mine where I explain the basics of how PE works and you having to acknowledge that you don't even know what the basic terms like "stable selection pressures" and "local optimum" and stuff even mean.
Even if you weren't familiar with the jargon but still had a proper understanding of basic evolutionary mechanics, from context you should be perfectly able to understand what is being said. But you don't, as per your own admission.

Very telling, isn't it?

Tigers aren't green.

Different environments call for different strategies. In the jungle, you have ways of hiding other then to blend into the background.
And you, off course, conveniently completely avoided actually responding to the questions asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it absolutely incredible that people believe in fitness without ever once defining or measuring it.

The page defines it. I defined it.
And as it says in the post you are responding to, it can be measured given extreme controlled environments.

You can't build a GA without measuring fitness.

More head-in-sand responses from your part.

 

[cladking]

Owkay then.

Once you believe in rabbits you are going to make the same errors as Darwin did.

All of his assumptions derived from language and "rabbits" is just a word with no referent in reality. It's a mere abstraction and you can not induce the nature of reality except through coincidence which is made more likely by the fact that our words to order and reflect reality. It still requires experiment and usually hypothesis derived through deduction. Darwin used strictly induction and all his premises were faulty. We are still stuck with his meaningless definitions and most of his assumptions. You can't gussy up nonsense to model reality.

 

[cladking]

The page defines it. I defined it.

Then summarize it in your own words even my 10 year old mind can understand.

 

[Pogo]

Absolute fitness​

[edit]
The absolute fitness (W

) of a genotype is defined as the proportional change in the abundance of that genotype over one generation attributable to selection. For example, if n(t)

is the abundance of a genotype in generation t

in an infinitely large population (so that there is no genetic drift), and neglecting the change in genotype abundances due to mutations, then[4]

n(t+1)=Wn(t)

.
An absolute fitness larger than 1 indicates growth in that genotype's abundance; an absolute fitness smaller than 1 indicates decline.

Relative fitness​

[edit]
Whereas absolute fitness determines changes in genotype abundance, relative fitness (w

) determines changes in genotype frequency. If N(t)

is the total population size in generation t

, and the relevant genotype's frequency is p(t)=n(t)/N(t)

, then

p(t+1)=ww¯p(t)

,

These are populations, species!! I don't believe in species. Species are abstractions that can't be palpated or put under a microscope.

Which is why you are ignored, species are difficult to define for various reasons, but they can be seen under a microscope as well with the unaided eye. Humans are a species, if you have a problem with that, don't just tell us that you don't believe in the concept, explain why and what you propose that is different. We are a population with a genome and all of the other requirements to fit in with the theory of evolution.

I will grant you that you can't palpate a species at least with my understanding of the word, though I am curious as to why you chose that word.

 

[Pogo]

I find it absolutely incredible that people believe in fitness without ever once defining or measuring it. They want to take one single characteristic and suppose it is the only one that affects an individual. Obviously some individuals are born with a common trait that is dangerous in a given environment and unsurprisingly those which have this trait tend to be eradicated before they reproduce. We see this all the time. But extrapolating this simple process to explain major changes in major species is highly speculative at best and illogical at worst.

I give you a link to a definition and how to calculate it in general and you respond that such a thing does not exist.
No, if you could actually read and understand you would see that we are very cognizant that there are many things that affect it and that is why it is difficult to calculate an absolute value. It is rather a bit like Harry Selden's psychohistory, if you could actually collect all the necessary information and process it, then you might be able to predict a response, but as that is not reasonable we can only use the concept in limited areas which does not render it imaginary as in your understanding.

 

[Pogo]

Then summarize it in your own words even my 10 year old mind can understand.

All of your ancestors were on average more fit than most others since they reproduced successfully.

If this was not true, you would not be here.

 

[leroy]

Don't care. Welcome to my ignore list.

Good to now………………don’t worry you will still be corrected by me if I notice other mistakes in your comments…..feel free to ignore them and miss the opportunity to learn something

 

[leroy]

Essentially I believe that most change is species is the result of mutation. Most of the rest occurs when populations drop to extremely low levels caused by an event that selects for behavior. Since behavior is the result of the wiring of the brain and experience it is in a very large part derived from genetics. Individuals with unusual behavior have unusual genes that lead to the creation of a new species. For instance 9if only beavers that ate a significant amount of meat survived the resulting beavers born from these very unusual individuals would be a new beaver-like species.

I believe this is what every experiment and observation confirms. All individuals are equally fit to the degree they are equally conscious. Individuals which are physically, behaviorally, or "mentally" defective are at such a severe disadvantage to the "species" that they are irrelevant to how species change. Even characteristics that can't be selected naturally such as resistance to CO2 poisoning are simply irrelevant to fitness. For every practical purpose there is no such thing as fitness because the niches in which every "species" exists changes in a random walk. If one thing is selected in one generation then five generations later the opposite is selected.

"Survival of the fittest" is just something in which people WANT to believe but it has never been shown to exist with any significant species. It s a mirage. Individuals are all different but they are equally fit and each has the ability to survive under ideal conditions. These conditions always prevailed at some point in the past or they wouldn't have the genes they do.

It is my understanding that “survival of the fittest” is not and has never meant to be “true” in a literal sense …………………fitness in this context simply means “more likely to survive” regardless if it is due to larger paws, or a specific diet or a specific behvior

I don’t think you made any controversial claim………..who in this forum disagrees and why?

 

[leroy]

All of your ancestors were on average more fit than most others since they reproduced successfully.

If this was not true, you would not be here.

True,. Specially because “more fit” in *this context* pretty much means “more likely to reproduce”..................The issue (seems to me) is that fitness in our daily life language has a different meaning, this seems to be just a semantic issue

 

[Dimi95]

You lost me here. Don't the unfit also need protein to stay alive?

This is appeal of ignorance.
It's not a bad thing actually , it only means that you misunderstood me.
You clearly suggest that in your first 4 words.

Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways.
This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment then others.
Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change.

We are talking about procceses , not about needs..

We need something to differentiate between the fit and unfit so natural selection knows which to promote. Defining it as "that which is promoted" is like a circular argument. It lives because it lives because it lives...

I was suggesting that we look the procceses and i can provide the information , but you just make conclusions and you want to make other things like 'needs' relevant.
What's the relevant part about needs?

Reality has proven that it has somewhat limited ways it does things.

Ok , what you just stated is open to discussion , but it has nothing to do with what we discuss.
Reality is real , simple as that.
Everything else is there to be studied.

Everything is as simple as possible which is why there is the fibonacci sequence and only two sides to a coin.

Well , most coins have three sides , if you didn't know..

Want a proof?

There are only four rules each bird must follow to create murmuration.
Why shouldn't roots loot like tress and both like bronchi?

I don't understand how these questions are of relevance to what we discuss.
Can you explain?

No, not really.

No , you do , but you won't admit it because of your definitions and the way they lead you.
You should check that 'circular' that you mentioned one more time.

While obviously all things, even rabbits, change over time I seriously don't any significant changes are typical in species because gradual changes are a random walk.

Ok , so what do you understand by 'gradual'?
How do you think that the body that we have got the kidney in the first place to function like that?

49.4: Evolution of the Vertebrate Kidney

bio.libretexts.org

Big changes occur suddenly just like the river in which you can step twice has all of it's big changes suddenly.

So you are saying that you have certain knowledge in limnology?

It changes course suddenly

No , not neccessary.

Maybe not a river, but it did happen to a canal in Louisiana…

On the morning of November 21, 1980, a 12-man crew on a Texaco oil rig sited on Louisiana's Lake Peigneur noticed that their drill bit had jammed below the surface of the shallow lake. Try as they did, they were unable to free the drill, when came a series of loud pops. Their platform begin tilting toward the water, and the alarmed men jumped from the rig and made their way to the shore.

They had no idea that their drilling activities had just redrawn the landscape of Iberia Parish, as they managed to permanently transform a 10-foot-deep freshwater lake into a 200-foot-deep saltwater one.

There is an article by Ken Jennings about it.

We can see that it can happen by interventition.

, dries up suddenly

It seems also that you don't know why rivers are drying up in present time.

, and turns into a fiord suddenly.

How are Fjords Created: Unveiling the Geological Wonders | Hurtigruten

Dive into the geological mysteries of Norwegian fjords. Explore the processes behind these majestic landscapes. Learn more about fjords with Hurtigruten.

www.hurtigruten.com

Nothing is static and no two identical things exist least of all rabbits or rivers.

I am sorry , but this is just an example of a 'False equivalence fallacy'.

Why don't you stick with the processes?

I don't believe in Evolution.

This is irrelevant.
What you believe is totally irrelevant , the same as what anyone else believes.
Can't you answer about evidence and facts?

I didn't believe in it when I studied it either.

What did you study of it?
Maybe you can Explain how you studied it , and the things that made you reject it .
Maybe we will find there something to be discussed.

It didn't ring true when I was five and it still doesn't.

It is good that you admit this is a problem from when you were five.
It's a small step , but that's how we come to this world , step-by-step.

It is

No , it isn't actually , DNA is not a matter of philosophy,it is matter of natural Sciences.

, in effect, a metaphysical language except that it is the framework of the individual rather than a means of two way communication.

No , it existed even before was even discovered.
This can be answered first in the sense of Biology and then maybe we can talk about the metaphysical.

I suggest that you don't mix things up and stick to Biology.

Why don't you just let the 'social arguments' aside and speak about natural sciences?

I expect relevant experimentation to show consciousness can be factored out and that fitness causes a gradual change in species.

No , as far as i know from analysis , whenever this goes to be discussed it goes with Biology and not with Social Sciences.

And metaphysics of science is just a subdiscipline of philosophy , you can't expect to find all the answers there.

 

[cladking]

I don’t think you made any controversial claim………..who in this forum disagrees and why?

I agree. There is nothing bizarre about my proposals. Every single individual on this forum who believes in science And most of those who understand science disagree. I believe the primary reason is that I believe and writing and the Bible are often literally correct. They simply can't agree with anyone who might be "devout" or "religious".

It is my understanding that “survival of the fittest” is not and has never meant to be “true” in a literal sense …………………fitness in this context simply means “more likely to survive” regardless if it is due to larger paws, or a specific diet or a specific behvior

I'm afraid they mean it literally. They believe that those individuals having selectable qualities are most likely to survive and they will parent a new generation like them and this constant evolution in generation eventually accumulates into a new species. They came at this through "logic" rather than experiment. Even though I keep pointing out that the human mind isn't as logical as an acorn they still believe that genius fuels science and fitness fuels Evolution.

As long as they believe in such things and the omniscience of science it will prove impossible to change their minds. They ignore every argument to the contrary and they ignore Kuhn as some madman who has nothing to do with modern science because we finally got everything right.