adsf Edit

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT), All-seeing-I <

On Oct 29, 8:34 am, John Harshman <

First, No one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest. But it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's fingers helps too. The younger and stronger is the best chance for evolution to carry those susposed slight changes foward which in turn allows a better chance for species survival.

asdf Edit


A closer look by poster ZOE with replies by wilkins

post 7 by John Harshman Edit First, selection doesn't filter populations. It filters individuals within populations. Populations (or their aggregate genetic makeups) are the results of this filtering, not the objects. It's open to debate whether it's better to consider the objects of the filter to be alleles, genotypes, or individuals.

"....I could make a case for all three. Individuals are the entities that reproduce and are directly subject to selection, i.e. differential reproduction ....." - TRUTHINESS TAUTOLOGY

"...But the ones that successfully reproduced best are those with the advantageous traits....." ,"...And that's natural selection. ..."

15 Edit

No, that doesn't follow logically. You seem to believe in general that properties of wholes must be properties of parts and vice versa. That's simply not true. Individuals are selected, and the result is that allele frequencies change within populations. The former is selection, the latter is evolution.

6 Frank Reichenbacher Jun 15 2004 Edit

"...The choice of date, as far as you are concerned was completely random, but you still had a choice. ...

NO it wasnt' because the outcome was predetermined , you knew you would get a date. the agency made a selction at random

rnorman Edit

".....Still the notion of selection as a filter seems useful. ..."

rnorman Edit

{{{ On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:51:30 +0000 (UTC), (Zoe) wrote: >Well, it looks like the Law of Random Behavior thread has led to an >even more basic issue -- the role of natural selection in evolutionary >theory.

>So far, it has been acknowledged that random mutations alone will not >lead to the consistent patterns and systems found in life forms today. >Instead, natural selection has been proffered as the non-random filter >which allows advantageous mutations to evolve life forms that are >increasingly more complex than the bacterium.

>In what way does a random event become non-random via natural >selection? I would like to test this claim. But first I want to be >sure that my understanding is correct.

>Definition: Natural selection is the hypothesized mechanism for the >filtering of populations that have beneficial mutations such that the >advantaged population can mutate further in the future.

>Before I go any further, is this a correct understanding? Mel? John? >Craig? Abner, Jon? Et al, et al?

You actually seem to be on the right track!

Natural selection is the major agent producing the evolutionary results we see. However, selection requires variability, and mutation acts as the source of variation. Neither one alone will do the job. Then there is another random factor, drift, which is also arguably a major player.

You ask "in what way does a random event become non-random via selection?" Imagine a T maze. You run down an alley that comes to branch point. If you turn left, you fall until a vast pit and are never seen again. If you turn right you run into a pot of glue and get stuck. Imagine a whole series of thingies (molecules, perhaps) running down the alley and randomly turning left or right at the end. You would expect to find half of the molecules in the left branch and half of them in the right, just as predicted by the random turning. However when you look you find the left branch is empty and the right branch is crammed full of molecules stuck in the glue. How did the random turning end up in the very non-random situation where all the molecules end up on one side?

Selection works that way. Some directions lead to lower fitness, reduced reproductive rates, and eventual extinction. Other directions lead to higher fitness, increased reproduction, and a crowd gathers there. The direction of turning (the mutation) is random. However, the consequences (selection, do you stay or do you disappear) are distinctly not random. }}}

{{{ Harshman: > But the ones that successfully reproduced > best are those with the advantageous traits. >................ >.................. >..... This is natural selection .......

Zoe: " good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."

Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the tautology: 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the advantageous traits.. 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.

This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with natural selection or getting naturaled.

Question: Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their successfulness measured ? }}}

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.