Community Messageboard: I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: by Joel

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: Joel Send a noteboard - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM

Natural Selection is the pressure put on a specie in an environment to survive. Animals with traits that are beneficial to the environment

Here I have to break in and ask: how does one know that a specific trait is beneficial to the environment?

can live longer and potentially contribute more to the gene pool. Animals with detrimental traits will live shorter lives and potentially contribute less to the gene pool.

This part seems to be oke

With these two influences, a specie's gene pool will, over time, be more beneficial to survival in that specific environment. It may not be enough to cause a deviation from specie (after all, look at the range of phenotype among humans), but it will be enough to increase the survival rate for that population.

Nothing intrinsically "wrong" with this part, but it is interesting none the less, since if you ask me, this part of your definition goes beond wat NS is, strictly speaking, and goes on to discuss the result.

There is however something else going on here, first you speak of "beneficial to the environment" (and I asked what that is), and here you say that the result is that it is beneficial to survival and even an increased survival rate for a population.

Now you make it a bit more complicated by importing the notion of a gene pool (a concept I think I understand), but something would be wrong here, if the book I'm reading is to be believed.

For you go from "beneficial to the enivronment" to "living longer/reproducing more often/contributing to the gene pool" (doesn't really matter how you label the 2nd step), to "increased survival rate".

Now first I asked you to define what you meant by "beneficial to the environment". Do you have a definition or perhaps an example?

Now, again: how would you know it is beneficial?

By the result, right? That is: if it helps to "increase the survival rate".

But if "increase of the survival rate" is the way to determine whether something is "beneficial to the environment", then the two are equal. By definition.

Hence we have a tautology.
A tautology is true (by definition), but it is not scientific in the sense that it can be tested.

I would be interested in hearing what he discussed. I'm trying to think of how one would discuss Natural Selection "philosophically", unless one is talking about cultural selection and natural selection in a society. Even then. I think that's more of a "borrowing" of the term than a true application.

I hope my repetition/application of what I think is his argument made sense to you

A benefit TO the environment seems like going too far, because that statement itself is an entry into the philosophical, but an increased survival rate is a metric for benefits IN the environment: The greater survival of organisms with a certain trait in a certain environment over that of organisms without it suggests a natural, mechanical and non-directed selection for such traits generally. Without guidance, traits that help an organism in a given environment come to predominate over those that either don't help or even harm organisms, because organisms with helpful traits live longer and breed more than others. The scientific test of the theory is whether we can observe the results it predicts over time: If we do, that's evidence the theory is valid; if not, that's counterevidence (bearing in mind, as always, that evidence does not necessarily reach the level of conclusive proof).

That's just one laymans limited understanding though, so take it for what it's worth; there's a reason I didn't leap up to give my opinion.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.

This message last edited by Joel on 06/08/2011 at 06:50:44 PM

Edit 1 by Joel on 06/08/2011 at 06:50:44 PM

Reply to message

Natural selection Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM 980 Views

selection for suitability LadyLorraine - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 633 Views

Thanks for your responce

Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 747 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: Joel - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM 679 Views

Just a question Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 680 Views

Yes it can ßelals Girl - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 556 Views

But how? Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 750 Views

Okay, I think I see what you're saying ßelals Girl - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 567 Views

Close Bramhodoulos - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 759 Views

Re: Just a question Joel - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 770 Views

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 657 Views

All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. Joel - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 682 Views

Then it is still a tautology Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 695 Views

You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations. Joel - 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM 790 Views

Maybe... Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 641 Views

I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions. Joel - 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM 730 Views

we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM 793 Views

As I understand it Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 623 Views

Better... Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 607 Views

Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 689 Views

Re: Actually Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 836 Views

Re: Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 756 Views

Oeh Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 612 Views

Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"? Joel - 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM 743 Views

yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM 293 Views

No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway. Joel - 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM 672 Views

Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 691 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 704 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 698 Views

The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... jh - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 730 Views

The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 727 Views

Re: The questions go deeper jh - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 701 Views

I think I know why you don't understand my question. Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 733 Views

How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?

*NM* Isaac - 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM 303 Views

100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool

*NM* Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM 323 Views

TalkOrigins addresses this at length. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 778 Views

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 776 Views

Re: Natural selection Night Walker - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 699 Views

Thanks a lot Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 840 Views

2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 619 Views

Re: 2 things Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 828 Views

Re: 2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 644 Views

My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 678 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 616 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 765 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 612 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 732 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="219691">
<quote id="219659"><quote id="219655">Natural Selection is the pressure put on a specie in an environment to survive.  Animals with traits that are beneficial to the environment</quote>
Here I have to break in and ask: how does one know that a specific trait is beneficial to the environment?
<quote id="219655">can live longer and potentially contribute more to the gene pool. Animals with detrimental traits will live shorter lives and potentially contribute less to the gene pool.</quote>
This part seems to be oke
<quote id="219655">With these two influences, a specie's gene pool will, over time, be more beneficial to survival in that specific environment.  It may not be enough to cause a deviation from specie (after all, look at the range of phenotype among humans), but it will be enough to increase the survival rate for that population.</quote>
Nothing intrinsically "wrong" with this part, but it is interesting none the less, since if you ask me, this part of your definition goes beond wat NS is, strictly speaking, and goes on to discuss the result.

There is however something else going on here, first you speak of "beneficial to the environment" (and I asked what that is), and here you say that the result is that it is beneficial to survival and even an increased survival rate for a population.

Now you make it a bit more complicated by importing the notion of a gene pool (a concept I think I understand), but something would be wrong here, if the book I'm reading is to be believed.

For you go from "beneficial to the enivronment" to "living longer/reproducing more often/contributing to the gene pool" (doesn't really matter how you label the 2nd step), to "increased survival rate".

Now first I asked you to define what you meant by "beneficial to the environment". Do you have a definition or perhaps an example?

Now, again: how would you know it is beneficial?

By the result, right? That is: if it helps to "increase the survival rate".

But if "increase of the survival rate" is the way to determine whether something is "beneficial to the environment", then the two are equal. By definition.

Hence we have a tautology.
A tautology is true (by definition), but it is not scientific in the sense that it can be tested.
<quote id="219655">I would be interested in hearing what he discussed. I'm trying to think of how one would discuss Natural Selection "philosophically", unless one is talking about cultural selection and natural selection in a society. Even then. I think that's more of a "borrowing" of the term than a true application.</quote>
I hope my repetition/application of what I think is his argument made sense to you :)</quote>
A benefit TO the environment seems like going too far, because that statement itself is an entry into the philosophical, but an increased survival rate is a metric for benefits IN the environment:  The greater survival of organisms with a certain trait in a certain environment over that of organisms without it suggests a natural, mechanical and non-directed selection for such traits generally.  Without guidance, traits that help an organism in a given environment come to predominate over those that either don't help or even harm organisms, because organisms with helpful traits live longer and breed more than others.  The scientific test of the theory is whether we can observe the results it predicts over time:  If we do, that's evidence the theory is valid; if not, that's counterevidence (bearing in mind, as always, that evidence does not necessarily reach the level of conclusive proof).

That's just one laymans limited understanding though, so take it for what it's worth; there's a reason I didn't leap up to give my opinion. ;)
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password