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 1075 Views

selection for suitability LadyLorraine - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 722 Views

Thanks for your responce

Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 839 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 780 Views

Just a question Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 767 Views

Yes it can ßelals Girl - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 641 Views

But how? Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 840 Views

Okay, I think I see what you're saying ßelals Girl - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 655 Views

Close Bramhodoulos - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 854 Views

Re: Just a question Joel - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 861 Views

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 765 Views

All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. Joel - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 783 Views

Then it is still a tautology Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 793 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 896 Views

Maybe... Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 751 Views

I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions. Joel - 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM 827 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 888 Views

As I understand it Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 713 Views

Better... Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 696 Views

Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 787 Views

Re: Actually Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 927 Views

Re: Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 854 Views

Oeh Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 704 Views

Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"? Joel - 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM 823 Views

yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM 328 Views

No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway. Joel - 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM 763 Views

Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 798 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 798 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 792 Views

The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... jh - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 820 Views

The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 813 Views

Re: The questions go deeper jh - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 801 Views

I think I know why you don't understand my question. Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 822 Views

How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?

*NM* Isaac - 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM 338 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 361 Views

TalkOrigins addresses this at length. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 877 Views

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 870 Views

Re: Natural selection Night Walker - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 796 Views

Thanks a lot Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 941 Views

2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 701 Views

Re: 2 things Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 921 Views

Re: 2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 735 Views

My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 767 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 708 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 863 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 709 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 819 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