Dover Penn ID trial

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

But it is. Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection. A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator.

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

Quote:

That is my point. You spoke of rocks in a streambed. It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection."

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?

Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.

[Mercutio]

I must be misunderstanding something you say here...

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon). You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve". So now...the context does call for the word "evolve", your argument was that natural selection does apply, and I asked Hoyt whether his clarification might somehow reconcile your view with mine.

Of course not.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.

Natural selection is a process. Evolution is a result. Asking whether a result is a subset of a group of processes is inane.

Quote:

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon).

Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

Quote:

You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve".

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'? Did you even read my previous posts?

"Natural selection" is a term within biology. Its narrowing within biology, therefore, is a narrowing overall. Yes, you've confused terms. Yes, I've read your posts, and stand by everything I've written thus far.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

Technically, that's genetic drift. Natural Selection is operating on a current population. Iterations of that cause a subset of the population to be selected for the next generation. There is no change, just alteration in proportions of the population. Genetic drift allows mutations within a population, and is the second contributing factor besides iterative selection pressure or Natural Selection.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

Technically, that's genetic drift.

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.

Quote:

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

[PatKelley]

Double-Post. Sorry. Nothing to see.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

Mutation pressure is mutation pressure. It is not random drift. It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.

Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

Quote:

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.

Except on page 15 of this thread.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure."
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation. In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve. A reduction in the reproduction rate of some cannot be described in an infinite series, as all end up with an infinite number of offspring, and it is difficult to parse infinities as greater or lesser.

And to clarify:

infinite
     adj 1: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or
            magnitude;

Quote:

You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

Quote:

Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

Change in the entire population shifts the bell-curve. It does not select against a population, as all individuals are still present. I have not accomplished selection pressure by crippling the right foreleg of every member of a herd, though over time the distribution of mobility will be shifted towards lameness. The distribution of lameness has changed; the population has not.

By the way, the jagged rocks in a streambed argument is very much Lamarckian in that it involves somatic organism change representing the population change over time. It does not, however, eliminate members of a population from contributing to the next iteration of sorting which is the selection pressure mechanism.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

Who said anything about mate selection? Randomly choosing which organisms will mate will often result in a change in the gene distribution of the resulting population. No special selective pressures need to exist.

Read the posts, fool. Then take the time to actually grasp their meaning.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve.

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

Maybe you do not understand "Unlimited." Absent limits, there are no selection pressures that prevent one organism from contributing to the next generation. With an unlimited amount of sand to be sorted, have I changed the prevalence of large grains by putting more over here than over there?

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

I also note you did not address the remainder of my post. Is this what you were referring to in the second portion of your post?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

and just to throw more confusion into the mix, the round pebbles in a streambed are not "Selected", they are CREATED.
Erosion does tat sort of thing. The pebbles are not positioned by being round. They are round by virtue of their position.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure."
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation. In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Who said anything about mate selection?

You did, and I quoted you back. I've read enough of your nonsense now to conclude you're having fun at JREF expense. I will ignore you from now on. Go find a kiddie site, please; this is for mature people to discuss issues, not for pimply faced adolescents who've broken their video game players and need to find another way to kill time.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?

No, mercutio, I'm afraid our friend is just blowin' smoke up our collective rear end. When other scientists use the term "evolution" for stars, for example, they mean it in the same way that engineers speak of the "evolution" of the automobile over the past century-plus. That is all. Deliberately twisting the meaning as is being done here, is equivocation at best.

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

Okay. Now I get it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

Okay. Now I get it.

Kewl.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Except on page 15 of this thread.

I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging.

Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Yea, but he's certainly been getting nasty about this argument as the thread has gone on.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Read the posts, fool.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

You've completely missed the point, fool.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care.

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

Ah, yes. Quite remarkable. And in some cases, quite ironic.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying. We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Except on page 15 of this thread.

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by BillHoyt

You did, and I quoted you back.

Wrong. You're talking about certain forms of sexual selection. I'm talking about the random allotment of mating partners, which by itself can lead to a change in the distribution of traits.

It's impossible to argue with people too desperate to score points (or too stupid) to understand the opponent's statements properly. This explains a lot of the protracted arguments I've seen you get into.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically. This is what you say in your last sentence, and this was my point.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct. Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection. Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply...your comment notwithstanding.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically.

But this is wrong.

Quote:

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct.

Correct.

Quote:

Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.

No, it's not.

Quote:

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection.

Correct.

Quote:

Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply...

Also correct.

Quote:

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong.

No.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

But this is wrong.

...because...

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

...because...

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes. It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population. The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance. If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.