Well, as you can see I'm trying to keep up with several people at the same time and hopefully I'm not confusing your arguments with them and thereby answering questions you didn't ask.
But your example of C. difficile is interesting, for I think it actually proves my point.
You claim that they have objectively "low biological fitness" because they have a very low poplulation, especially compared to other bacteria.
This does not actually have anything to do with the gene pool, unless you would say that all species of bacteria share the same gene pool (and besides, bacteria have a different type of gene pool anyway, since they don't sexually reproduce).
None the less, your clasification of "having low biological fitness" is principally based on their low frequency, not based upon their internal genetical code, or their strong phenotype in and of itself, but only on their frequency.
Next you say that when anti-biotics are applied they are the only ones (or one of the very few) who can survive and therefor increase their numbers.
And once antibiotics are stopped things go back to normal.
You conclude: "That is an example of natural selection. It does not necessarily select for any particular characteristic."
Great, but that's my point!
My problem is not with the notion that nature selects, or that the survivers contribute more to the gene pool or anything, but my question is that if NS does not select for "any particular characteristic", how can that knowledge help us understand NS?
Now you can come with a specific example where NS does select for trait X, but the problem is that NS as a whole cannot be "tested". It can be (and if you ask me: must be) assumed, but I can't think of a non-tautologous formulation of NS that is explanatory.
But your example of C. difficile is interesting, for I think it actually proves my point.
You claim that they have objectively "low biological fitness" because they have a very low poplulation, especially compared to other bacteria.
This does not actually have anything to do with the gene pool, unless you would say that all species of bacteria share the same gene pool (and besides, bacteria have a different type of gene pool anyway, since they don't sexually reproduce).
None the less, your clasification of "having low biological fitness" is principally based on their low frequency, not based upon their internal genetical code, or their strong phenotype in and of itself, but only on their frequency.
Next you say that when anti-biotics are applied they are the only ones (or one of the very few) who can survive and therefor increase their numbers.
And once antibiotics are stopped things go back to normal.
You conclude: "That is an example of natural selection. It does not necessarily select for any particular characteristic."
Great, but that's my point!
My problem is not with the notion that nature selects, or that the survivers contribute more to the gene pool or anything, but my question is that if NS does not select for "any particular characteristic", how can that knowledge help us understand NS?
Now you can come with a specific example where NS does select for trait X, but the problem is that NS as a whole cannot be "tested". It can be (and if you ask me: must be) assumed, but I can't think of a non-tautologous formulation of NS that is explanatory.
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 1082 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 729 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 844 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 789 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 771 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 648 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 844 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 865 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 769 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 790 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 799 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
- 902 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 754 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 835 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
- 892 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 720 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 701 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 826 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 331 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 768 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 801 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 825 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 817 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 807 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 827 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 341 Views


100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
- 364 Views


Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 801 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 947 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 706 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 924 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 738 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 770 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 712 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 868 Views