Natural selection inefficiency?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 09:37 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 09:08 AM)Youkay Wrote:  What you said was just wrong. Just like the many other things people here in this thread say.

So go on then, tell me how it is wrong. Don't just sit there saying "Wrong". How does that help? That's the kind of response you'd expect from a religious troll. If I am wrong I want to know why, as will the OP.

Everything I said applies to people before the age of reproduction. All you say is:

(18-02-2014 08:56 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Wrong.

There is one central principle to evolution (amongst others). Selection pressure only applies to traits which affect the fitness of an individual prior to the age of reproduction.


I can just as easily reply in an unhelpful manner such as yours ...

Wrong.

How can there be a central principle to evolution amongst others?

What about caring instincts in pack animals that help foster young and improve their chance of surviving even if the carer is beyond reproducing age?


So to try and elicit some kind of more helpful response from you. Are you saying any of these?

  1. Evolution is not an ongoing process and is a search with a beginning and an end?
  2. Selection pressure and environments never change?
  3. That if an environment changes then it does not take time for a species to evolve to adapt it?
  4. That if we can perfectly fit an environment we do not become less robust to future change?
  5. That there is never a compromise between traits?


EDIT Negatives mixed up
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 11:18 AM by Youkay.)
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 09:11 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:08 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Next question please

"There is only one central principal to evolution (amongst others)"

My question is, how does this statement make sense?

I wrote "There is one central principal to evolution", not "only one". Read properly and your questions might answer themselves. And even if I had made that mistake, it would have been quite obvious. So is there any other purpose to that question other than comic relief?

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 11:30 AM by Youkay.)
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
This is not a debate. Rather a clarification of facts.

Mathilda Wrote:Because evolution is an on-going process. What you are asking is why evolution hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution.

Yes, evolution is an ongoing process.
No, it would be wrong asking why it hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution, and you should have been able to point that out. The "solution" is from an evolutionary perspective optimal, already. We are perfectly capable to ensure our survival up to our age of reproduction and even further than that.


Mathilda Wrote:Selection pressure keeps changing. Our environment changes. For example, some people suffer from the evolutionary adaptations of the immune system to parasites and there is very little chance of them getting tape worms in modern society.

Yes, our environment is changing. And normally, a changing environment has an effect on selection pressure. That is correct.

Mathilda Wrote:Even if selection pressure did not change then the fact that there are inefficiencies would suggest that there has not been enough time for evolution to weed out these inefficiencies.

No, it doesn't suggest that. Because deleterious phenotypes that only occur after the age of reproduction are not selected against, there won't be "optimization" and "weeding out of inefficiencies" (very colorful language) which establish themselves after the age of reproduction. Even if there is enough time. That is a big misunderstanding. E.g. we will not evolve to have a longer life span or a later onset of aging (see anti-aging science thread)

Mathilda Wrote:Be glad that we aren't all perfect because if the evolutionary niche that we fill never changes then we will likely end up becoming too specialised, like the peacock.

There is a whole chapter I could write as a response to that. I don't want to do it now, but if there is interest, I could.

Mathilda Wrote:Often it's a compromise. For example, the danger of giving birth versus the selection pressure for larger brains.

I know what you have in mind. But from what I read, I can't judge if you actually understood the evolution of the human brain or not. Therefore, I won't judge. To be fair, that area is quite controversial and speculative.


I wrote "wrong" and then proceeded to give the correct answer to the question. Sorry, if I was too blunt.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 10:51 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:11 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  "There is only one central principal to evolution (amongst others)"

My question is, how does this statement make sense?

I wrote "There is one central principal to evolution", not "only one". Read properly and your questions might answer themselves. And even if I had made that mistake, it would have been quite obvious. So is there any other purpose to that question other than comic relief?

Firstly, please stop being rude and patronising to me by suggesting I'm only comic relief.

Secondly, when you say there is one central principal, it makes no sense to say there are others. Either there is one central principal and there are no others or there are more than one.

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
Mathilda Wrote:Because evolution is an on-going process. What you are asking is why evolution hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution.

Yes, evolution is an ongoing process.
No, it would be wrong asking why it hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution, and you should have been able to point that out.


I was telling the OP what he was effectively asking. I did not say that it was a correct question. I clarified this in my previous post.


(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
Mathilda Wrote:Even if selection pressure did not change then the fact that there are inefficiencies would suggest that there has not been enough time for evolution to weed out these inefficiencies.

No, it doesn't suggest that. Because deleterious phenotypes that only occur after the age of reproduction are not selected against, there won't be "optimization" and "weeding out of inefficiencies" (very colorful language)


Colourful language as used by the OP. Not my choice of words.

You are generally right in that only deleterious phenotypes only occuring before the age of reproduction are selected against. I never said otherwise, you assumed. Although I have since pointed out that kin selection might well be an exception here. If so then we can expect selective pressure against deleterious traits in phenotypes that run counter to any benefits of kin selection.


(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
Mathilda Wrote:Be glad that we aren't all perfect because if the evolutionary niche that we fill never changes then we will likely end up becoming too specialised, like the peacock.

There is a whole chapter I could write as a response to that. I don't want to do it now, but if there is interest, I could.

Populations need variability. Unless the population exists on a perfectly flat plateau on a fitness landscape then variability means that some members of the population will be less fit than others. This is self-evident in most populations. If the population exists on a plateau or a local maxima then variability is important in order to find paths to higher maxima.

If the population exists on a global maxima and has become too specialised then this is at the cost of reduced variability. This can lead to what is described as an evolutionary dead-end because there will be insufficient variability in the population to adapt when the evolutionary environment eventually does change. This is important because when change does occur, it can happen much faster than the rate of evolution.



(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  
Mathilda Wrote:Often it's a compromise. For example, the danger of giving birth versus the selection pressure for larger brains.

I know what you have in mind. But from what I read, I can't judge if you actually understood the evolution of the human brain or not. Therefore, I won't judge. To be fair, that area is quite controversial and speculative.

I was referring to evolution in the general sense and not with specific regard to the human brain. The process is the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
Youkay, what are you doing? Calm down.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 09:10 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 09:24 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 12:14 PM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 10:51 AM)Youkay Wrote:  I wrote "There is one central principal to evolution", not "only one". Read properly and your questions might answer themselves. And even if I had made that mistake, it would have been quite obvious. So is there any other purpose to that question other than comic relief?

Firstly, please stop being rude and patronising to me by suggesting I'm only comic relief.

Secondly, when you say there is one central principal, it makes no sense to say there are others. Either there is one central principal and there are no others or there are more than one.

I didn't say YOU are only comic relief. I asked if that QUESTION was anything other than comic relief. I wasn't rude or patronising towards you as a person. I evaluated the question, because I had the impresion it was not a serious question, judging from its content. Please do not misunderstand.

There can be more than one central principle. Core principles, so to say.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 09:21 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 04:47 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Yes, evolution is an ongoing process.
No, it would be wrong asking why it hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution, and you should have been able to point that out.


I was telling the OP what he was effectively asking. I did not say that it was a correct question. I clarified this in my previous post.


(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  No, it doesn't suggest that. Because deleterious phenotypes that only occur after the age of reproduction are not selected against, there won't be "optimization" and "weeding out of inefficiencies" (very colorful language)


Colourful language as used by the OP. Not my choice of words.

You are generally right in that only deleterious phenotypes only occuring before the age of reproduction are selected against. I never said otherwise, you assumed. Although I have since pointed out that kin selection might well be an exception here. If so then we can expect selective pressure against deleterious traits in phenotypes that run counter to any benefits of kin selection.


(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  There is a whole chapter I could write as a response to that. I don't want to do it now, but if there is interest, I could.

Populations need variability. Unless the population exists on a perfectly flat plateau on a fitness landscape then variability means that some members of the population will be less fit than others. This is self-evident in most populations. If the population exists on a plateau or a local maxima then variability is important in order to find paths to higher maxima.

If the population exists on a global maxima and has become too specialised then this is at the cost of reduced variability. This can lead to what is described as an evolutionary dead-end because there will be insufficient variability in the population to adapt when the evolutionary environment eventually does change. This is important because when change does occur, it can happen much faster than the rate of evolution.



(18-02-2014 11:05 AM)Youkay Wrote:  I know what you have in mind. But from what I read, I can't judge if you actually understood the evolution of the human brain or not. Therefore, I won't judge. To be fair, that area is quite controversial and speculative.

I was referring to evolution in the general sense and not with specific regard to the human brain. The process is the same.

OK. I might have assumed things based on what you wrote. Now that we agree, everything is fine. Still, the answer to the OP question remains the same.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: