Irony of the evolutionary belief

[John53]

If males with brighter colors or stronger odors become appealing to females and those males so described successfully reproduce in a greater proportion to males that don't express those traits or with the same intensity, then those colorful and stinky males have greater fitness.

Those things could be seen as proxies for male vigor, since those males that possess brighter colors or attractive stinks can afford to waste the energy producing them.

This is seen in bird populations. In some species of swallow, those males with longer tails have greater reproductive success and are fitter.

And of course, other factors are involved too. Chance events, zygosity, atavisms, etc. If two parents have a fit phenotype, but are heterozygous for some of the traits that impart greater fitness, they will have a proportion of offspring that don't have those traits and are less fit in the given environment.

Wikipedia had this quote from John Maynard Smith that I find amusing and accurate.

"Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals—for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase 'expected number of offspring' means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky."

Maynard-Smith, J. (1989) Evolutionary Genetics

Yep. The things we do to impress the ladies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it's not true.

There are 2 parents that contribute to the genetic make up of the offspring. There's also environmental issues to take into consideration.

I also see the adherence to a poor fitness concept in the claims that are hurled at us as if by the proverbial flinging ape. It is still being argued as bigger, better, faster and that is not what it means. It is not referring solely to physical fitness, aesthetic appeal, or wealth. Strong, handsome and rich may be selected as protected traits in some conditions, but they could as easily lose that protection in a different environment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. The things we do to impress the ladies.

Sexual selection is another form of selection that reflects the fitness of the available mates.

Some women like charming, cuddly, intellectual bunnies that happen to have big muscles. Some don't.

 

[John53]

If males with brighter colors or stronger odors become appealing to females and those males so described successfully reproduce in a greater proportion to males that don't express those traits or with the same intensity, then those colorful and stinky males have greater fitness.

Those things could be seen as proxies for male vigor, since those males that possess brighter colors or attractive stinks can afford to waste the energy producing them.

This is seen in bird populations. In some species of swallow, those males with longer tails have greater reproductive success and are fitter.

And of course, other factors are involved too. Chance events, zygosity, atavisms, etc. If two parents have a fit phenotype, but are heterozygous for some of the traits that impart greater fitness, they will have a proportion of offspring that don't have those traits and are less fit in the given environment.

Wikipedia had this quote from John Maynard Smith that I find amusing and accurate.

"Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals—for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase 'expected number of offspring' means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky."

Maynard-Smith, J. (1989) Evolutionary Genetics

There's also got be some kind of compromise between sexual attraction and practically. Bright colours might not only attract the females but also predators.

There's a lot of things to take into consideration. His claim that each successive generation must be brighter is just plain wrong IMO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's also got be some kind of compromise between sexual attraction and practically. Bright colours might not only attract the females but also predators.

Indeed they do. There is risk as well as the diversion of resources that come with some of these traits. It explains why you see it most often in males and less so in females. They are the choosers and they don't need the color, so are more drab for protection.

There's a lot of things to take into consideration. His claim that each successive generation must be brighter is just plain wrong IMO.

No. That claim is completely wrong and for all the reasons it has been eviscerated with.

 

[cladking]

What would be the point? You believe you are science.

I believe I have a logic and evidenced based argument. Who doesn't?

Everybody makes perfect sense.

Under pressure from the environment some lines just end.

But NOT fast squirrels running from a fox. (unless of course it's one of your unfit foxes)

"Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals—for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase 'expected number of offspring' means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky."

And all else being equal each generation should be fitter than the last.

Many individuals will survive because they are faster, smarter, and stronger than others no matter how many get hit by lightning. It is the only possible conclusion from survival of the fittest.

If they are equally fit, they are not different. If they are different, they are not equally fit.

There are no two identical things in existence. Individuals thrive under various conditions and they are depressed under various conditions. This doesn't mean some are fitter than others merely that dependent on conditions their odds of death or success vary.

 

[John53]

Sexual selection is another form of selection that reflects the fitness of the available mates.

Some women like charming, cuddly, intellectual bunnies that happen to have big muscles. Some don't.

If birds devoted as much time and effort as do when it comes to attracting the opposite sex they could rule the world.

 

[John53]

No. That claim is completely wrong and for all the reasons it has been eviscerated with.

Great, now we're back to the hobby morgue. How did that happen?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's also got be some kind of compromise between sexual attraction and practically. Bright colours might not only attract the females but also predators.

There's a lot of things to take into consideration. His claim that each successive generation must be brighter is just plain wrong IMO.

If you pull back a little from the topic, I find all the mechanisms employed to justify belief in unsupported claims to be very interesting.

Call your opponents believers as a pejorative. As if believing something is the worst condition a person could have. Coming from people that only have belief. And it isn't even a correct accusation.

Crying scientism every time someone disagrees with you. As if that will nullify the objection and make the invalid, valid.

All the claims about these magical, mystical peers that are around but never found.

The claims of word games by someone that consistently uses word games is slathered in irony.

If I were doing an advanced degree in psychology or sociology, these would be interesting points to consider as part of a study.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If birds devoted as much time and effort as do when it comes to attracting the opposite sex they could rule the world.

There is a lot to be said in the comparison of bird breeding practices and humans. When I took ornithology as an undergrad, we had some of those discussion. My professor found it all rather amusing.

 

[cladking]

Everybody makes perfect sense.

This is the point that everyone keeps missing. People just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as a creationist, believer in science, flake, or crackpot but it doesn't work this way in real life. Even though humans are sleepwalkers we still have consciousness which tries to make sense of the world. We each use different beliefs and models to make sense of it. No belief, no model is necessarily wrong. Some are simply more unlikely than others and in most cases it's impossible to estimate the odds. Sure with competing hypotheses it can often be resolved by experiment but the resolution is only in terms of metaphysics. There might be no resolution in terms of paradigms because an experiment might support or falsify both hypotheses. Those who assume there is no initial cause are engaging in the rankest possible speculation that is impossible to quantify.

My theories (hypotheses) are all based on either one or (two) metaphysics. This doesn't make me correct but the simple fact is that IMO both experiment and logic agree with me. On this basis I might not be wrong. I know my theory is comprehensible so if no one can make a case based on experiment and logic that I am wrong this obviously improves my odds. That I make good prediction improves my odds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Great, now we're back to the hobby morgue. How did that happen?

I really should write up something about the hobby morgue. It might sell.

 

[John53]

There is a lot to be said in the comparison of bird breeding practices and humans. When I took ornithology as an undergrad, we had some of those discussion. My professor found it all rather amusing.

I flew half way round the world for a mate so I guess that's why migratory waders are amongst my favourite birds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the point that everyone keeps missing. People just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as a creationist, believer in science, flake, or crackpot but it doesn't work this way in real life. Even though humans are sleepwalkers we still have consciousness which tries to make sense of the world. We each use different beliefs and models to make sense of it. No belief, no model is necessarily wrong. Some are simply more unlikely than others and most cases it's impossible to estimate the odds. Sure with competing hypotheses it can often be resolved by experiment but the resolution is only in terms of metaphysics. There might be no resolution in terms of paradigms because an experiment might support or falsify both hypotheses. Those who assume there is no initial cause are engaging in the rankest possible speculation that is impossible to quantify.

My theories (hypotheses) are all based on either one or (two) metaphysics. This doesn't make me correct but the simple fact is that IMO both experiment and logic agree with me. On this basis I might not be wrong. I know my theory is comprehensible so if no one can make a case based on experiment and logic that I am wrong this obviously improves my odds. That I make good prediction improves my odds.

It is your flaws that cause you to fail in these talks. You don't bring anything to the table but claims and beliefs you refuse to support.

Trying to draw some false equivalence between what you offer here as "fact" and the philosophical equality of people to hold a view and voice it is ridiculous. It's another defense mechanism. You would be better off spending that thought and energy on find actual answers. Save the emotional appeals for the other creationists.

I don't care to comment further on your rambling agenda.

 

[John53]

This is the point that everyone keeps missing. People just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as a creationist, believer in science, flake, or crackpot but it doesn't work this way in real life.

That's not even close to factual. I want to have a discussion but that proves impossible when the other person refuses to address what you post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I flew half way round the world for a mate so I guess that's why migratory waders are amongst my favourite birds.

I blundered across one by accident. I'm not sure what bird that reflects.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's not even close to factual. I want to have a discussion but that proves impossible when the other person refuses to address what you post.

I'm rapidly losing interest again. I've corrected everything I can. There isn't much point in further discussion from what I see an intellectual dead end as discussions go.

 

[John53]

I blundered across one by accident. I'm not sure what bird that reflects.

I'm gonna say Spangled Drongo.

Spangled Drongo | BIRDS in BACKYARDS

www.birdsinbackyards.net

 

[John53]

I'm rapidly losing interest again. I've corrected everything I can. There isn't much point in further discussion from what I see an intellectual dead end as discussions go.

Me too. I'd much rather chat about bugs, birds and annoying @Revoltingest .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the point that everyone keeps missing. People just want to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as a creationist, believer in science, flake, or crackpot but it doesn't work this way in real life. Even though humans are sleepwalkers we still have consciousness which tries to make sense of the world. We each use different beliefs and models to make sense of it. No belief, no model is necessarily wrong. Some are simply more unlikely than others and in most cases it's impossible to estimate the odds. Sure with competing hypotheses it can often be resolved by experiment but the resolution is only in terms of metaphysics. There might be no resolution in terms of paradigms because an experiment might support or falsify both hypotheses. Those who assume there is no initial cause are engaging in the rankest possible speculation that is impossible to quantify.

My theories (hypotheses) are all based on either one or (two) metaphysics. This doesn't make me correct but the simple fact is that IMO both experiment and logic agree with me. On this basis I might not be wrong. I know my theory is comprehensible so if no one can make a case based on experiment and logic that I am wrong this obviously improves my odds. That I make good prediction improves my odds.

Experiment and logic agree with me based on many metaphysics that I'm using.

Prove me wrong.