tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2623652725069663399..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Enjoying natural selection on multiple levelsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13358473948302864052012-07-06T23:35:19.262-04:002012-07-06T23:35:19.262-04:00Asexual reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...Asexual reproduction.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproductionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64316720357997267452012-07-06T23:34:17.251-04:002012-07-06T23:34:17.251-04:00Yep, selection operates on the process of reproduc...Yep, selection operates on the process of reproduction of a bundle of genes of each individual of a group until one or more are outside the curve and dash off with a mate or stay to help the group ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55907781475681632742012-07-06T22:36:55.487-04:002012-07-06T22:36:55.487-04:00Natural selection operates on entities composed fr...Natural selection operates on entities composed from lesser things that are related by non linear interactions. Both mutual profit and other kinds of unbalanced interactions such as predation make a mathematics compatible with natural selection on the whole combination.<br /><br />The specialization of individuals beyond a single bell curve is indeed evidence of natural selection on groups. Male and female is the only evidence needed to establish the phenomenon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09538738675782128266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47303957936247455442012-07-04T06:00:24.345-04:002012-07-04T06:00:24.345-04:00Sorry, I don't see that opportunity as serving...Sorry, I don't see that opportunity as serving any of my present purposes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75441424581898737432012-07-04T05:39:27.175-04:002012-07-04T05:39:27.175-04:00In terms of current theory yours is nonesense, yes...In terms of current theory yours is nonesense, yes. Mine is parallel, as it provides the mutational level, where the problem lies. You understand purpose at the selection level, like everyone else who proposes purpose, as that is the level on which biology is investigated. <br /><br />The penny has not dropped for anyone that the mutational level is yet to be defined, because we comfortably explore the broad limits of selection and revere Darwin, thinking there is nothing more. It's a common human tendency to conform, and our numbers are low anyway as 90% of the world is spiritual and not really on board.<br /><br />See the 4th post in this blog for an outline of where my theory fits in. I have been arguing with knowledge of your absent argument and my real argument, although you have suspected I have no real argument, which would be illogical without some investigation, so there is an opportunity for you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75347897555167462442012-07-04T01:02:15.482-04:002012-07-04T01:02:15.482-04:00You mean your ideas aren't weird, but mine on ...You mean your ideas aren't weird, but mine on the other hand are nonsense? Now there's an argument if I ever saw one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86016078313628047892012-07-03T20:20:06.448-04:002012-07-03T20:20:06.448-04:00You are back to intelligent purpose again as your ...You are back to intelligent purpose again as your fundamental condition, which is nonsense under any current theory you might like to apply. My explanation is structurally sound, although you can make sweeping unsubstantiated summaries such as 'weird' if you like. That's not an argument.<br /><br />In my theory, intelligence is both from mutation to produce the '747' (unlikely) and selection to allow it to continue (obvious). At least I have clearly set the scene for my theory, rather than falling into a mantra. But I'm not going to bother with that right now.<br /><br />Clearly the 747 argument applies despite selection for intelligence or anything else, as the next mutation could be anything. Accumulated tiny anythings becoming a highly specific something would take forever, literally, even if selected upon each mutation arising to eliminate duds. That's a clue for you, it's back to the drawing board.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54560101982130095802012-07-03T15:05:29.723-04:002012-07-03T15:05:29.723-04:00Random mixing done for an intelligent purpose is n...Random mixing done for an intelligent purpose is no accident. Mutations don't give intelligence, unless they are intelligently directed to. <br />Neo-Darwinians think otherwise, but your rather weird understanding of any of the current theories isn't supported by any of them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87464427714915105272012-07-03T14:54:02.470-04:002012-07-03T14:54:02.470-04:00I don't understand where you are coming from e...I don't understand where you are coming from either. It began with your discussion of the process pre selection, which I am trying to outline as a process for more or less random mixing, apparently an accident by your definition. Mutation is also generally considered an accident, but that's a separate issue as you haven't mentioned it at all, merely the circular process of mixing genes within a species. So I brought in mutation to make it more real. It's quite logical.<br /><br />Intelligent responses to the accidents of random mixing or mutation? That makes no sense to me at all. Intelligence is as given by mutation as long as it can survive by whatever means, and if those cards are dealt randomly then so be it. But I doubt it for particular reasons not yet stated, rather than blind faith in a purpose of intelligence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30500022467112779872012-07-03T12:40:26.042-04:002012-07-03T12:40:26.042-04:00Nothing you have said there makes any sense. We r...Nothing you have said there makes any sense. We respond intelligently to accidents. Accidents don't respond intelligently to us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20415928817094267152012-07-03T11:18:16.997-04:002012-07-03T11:18:16.997-04:00I would say they are scrabbled. I don't mean s...I would say they are scrabbled. I don't mean scrambled, because the combinations that come out in the individual might have more survival value in that arrangement, as if spelling out more useful words than random letters.<br /><br />But they are rearranged in unpredictable ways. As you say, the basis is a species process to churn out individuals that share a spectrum of genes across a group, enhancing survival chances. But that is static.<br /><br />Development must spring from novelty within the group, by one or more individuals whose genes mutate and reproduce within the group. If you ask what is selected, I would say the individuals that have those new genes are from a species process to churn out individuals to be selected.<br /><br />There is a possibility that individuals will add value to the group by mutation. It gets back to individuals in the selection of a species process. One mate is needed to reproduce a new trait, but clearly chances are increased all around if there is widespread group sharing of the new addition.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12083226767702966542012-07-03T03:02:33.533-04:002012-07-03T03:02:33.533-04:00Genes aren't scrabbled. They are diversified ...Genes aren't scrabbled. They are diversified for a purpose. It's an intelligent adaptation (or preadaptation) process that improves the odds of the members of the next generation to survive as a group of diverse individuals, whether it's a family group, or a group of families. Environmental changes are not predictable with accuracy, but the need to be prepared for dealing with a range of changes is something every species has learned.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39304669620384861622012-07-03T01:15:23.884-04:002012-07-03T01:15:23.884-04:00Say, a trait is a gene, and genes are on chromosom...Say, a trait is a gene, and genes are on chromosomes that obey strict laws within and between species to mix genes robustly for new individuals. Say, the individual survives because just one of those genes happens to work at a crucial moment. Has the gene or the individual been selected if that individual finds a mate and reproduces it? Clearly the individual with the gene has survived, so how do we prioritize? I would only do so because the individual is part of a species process that is a framework to collect and reproduce genes of intact individuals. That process has priority, and the individual is its flagship, complete with genes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38823642749783359632012-07-03T00:38:17.861-04:002012-07-03T00:38:17.861-04:00Imagine a framwork of chromsomes carrying genes as...Imagine a framwork of chromsomes carrying genes as a process that scrabbles the genes as you describe. If genes were the level of selection, why scrabble them? <br /><br />If genes have priority, there should be a way for them to prioritize, when in fact they seem to fit in all sorts of ways to make individuals, and the individual survives or not along with all of the genes. <br /><br />Thus individuals have priority both as the entity that survives as holus bolus genes, and because the genes are just scrabble in that process, without any known priority.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82140152798358427272012-07-03T00:25:32.881-04:002012-07-03T00:25:32.881-04:00Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me a...Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71308630475201426612012-07-03T00:18:53.283-04:002012-07-03T00:18:53.283-04:00I think what you are getting at is the difference ...I think what you are getting at is the difference between the species and the individual. Traits are constrained by the universal process of reproduction, involving genetic scrabble, so it would be the framework of that universal process (chromosome and gene behavior), which is a species process shared with other species across evolution.<br /><br />The genes that are scrabble in that species process would be scrabble for the purposes of the individual produced by that process. Individuals are churned out with genes intact, rather than genes scabbled to hopefully produce a workable individual. The individual of the species, by a species process, is guaranteed by the controlled scrabbling of genes. I favor the individual over the gene on that analysis, and that the individual would be the point of the species, being churned out by the species process.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56960000338287954312012-07-01T23:41:42.846-04:002012-07-01T23:41:42.846-04:00This is how we take advantage of random choice:
ht...This is how we take advantage of random choice:<br />http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/meiosis.htm<br />Meiosis II<br />"Interestingly, because the homologous pairs line up during Metaphase I, there is a 50:50 chance of which one of each pair will go to each of the poles of the cell (like flipping a coin, where you can get either heads or tails). Therefore, in humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes, a gamete (egg or sperm) could have 223 or 8,388,604 possible combinations of chromosomes from that parent. Any couple could have 223 × 223 or 70,368,744,177,644 (70 trillion) different possible children, based just on the number of chromosomes, not considering the actual genes on those chromosomes. Thus, the chance of two siblings being exactly identical would be 1 in 70 trillion. In addition, something called crossingover, in which the two homologous chromosomes of a pair exchange equal segments during synapsis in Meiosis I, can add further variation to an individual’s genetic make-up."<br />Somebody who knows Pinker should remind him of that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15855526762790006262012-07-01T20:03:29.007-04:002012-07-01T20:03:29.007-04:00It's that thinking that got me interested in b...It's that thinking that got me interested in biology, when my brother a year ahead in high school said flat out "we select oursleves!". Took me a while to get what he meant, but it might be possible that the chemical environment of the cell at mutation is more complex than providing a theatre for mere random chance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62758374920550467322012-07-01T19:52:55.313-04:002012-07-01T19:52:55.313-04:00Selection is open to whatever mutated trait surviv...Selection is open to whatever mutated trait survives, and whether a group of some extent is required for individual traits to survive will vary (beyond one partner to satisfactorily reproduce the trait), so it is one of the factors falling under the general umbrella.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30371198453326754312012-07-01T13:10:32.070-04:002012-07-01T13:10:32.070-04:00Actually the offspring is not a replica of either ...Actually the offspring is not a replica of either the genes or the parent. So when I said "copies" it was probably the wrong word to use. The offspring results from instructions carried by the sperm that wins the race, and each sperm seems to carry slightly different instructions, DNA, RNA or otherwise. As do the eggs of the female apparently. So the child is not a replicate of any parent, but a blend of their predominate traits. Mendel's laws seem to apply here, and they have seemed over time to be reliable. (Not that I ever really understood them.)<br />And to say that the offspring is a replica of its genes over generations is just wrong.<br />The information that genes carry is never exactly the same over time, and genes are nothing without their information.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74079221819286268782012-07-01T11:26:58.820-04:002012-07-01T11:26:58.820-04:00Roy, I don't think Pinker will dispute what yo...Roy, I don't think Pinker will dispute what you said, but the point he is trying to make is that the genes are the replicators not the bodies that carry them. When people (or any other organism) reproduce sexually, the offspring is not a replica of the parent, only the genes.Gilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804109921806813813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85448890093701976212012-07-01T10:06:38.136-04:002012-07-01T10:06:38.136-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.mememine69https://www.blogger.com/profile/10509609864799268105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74480910637561790712012-07-01T09:38:47.405-04:002012-07-01T09:38:47.405-04:00Incredibly, Dawkins accuses Wilson of "an act...Incredibly, Dawkins accuses Wilson of "an act of wanton arrogance". <br /><br />Please! Dawkins wrote the book on arrogance. At least Wilson manages to present his case without resorting to snide Dorthy Parker-esque comments. <br /><br />The degree to which Dawkins (of "Dear Muslima" fame) and his buddy Jerry Coyne are lacking in civility amazes me.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20071818140340937322012-07-01T07:11:26.750-04:002012-07-01T07:11:26.750-04:00Level of selection could mean several things. (1.)...Level of selection could mean several things. (1.) A unit or target of selection or (2.) a level of biological organisation that structures fitness of targets/units of selection. Elisabeth A. Lloyd has sorted these ambiguities out a long time ago. I wonder why they still exist. When group structure and dynamics is said to constitute a level of selection, AFAIK, 2. is meant not 1.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72592170948358184032012-07-01T00:13:54.004-04:002012-07-01T00:13:54.004-04:00@Kei,
If groups weren't formed to teach their ...@Kei,<br />If groups weren't formed to teach their members what to do and how to do it to survive, then no life forms would have survived. They don't learn the myriad of things they have to learn by their own experience when their competitors have had the advantage of their cultures.<br />Inclusive fitness is about success by cooperative social behavior. But it should also be cognizant of the effects of that group learning experience on the evolution over time of its members. Groups also develop strategies of how best to react to accidents. Accidents don't offer strategies without the assistance of the group intelligence.<br />Cells react to the bodies' experience intelligently. But that experience in turn depends on other levels of intelligence in that same body as well as in the overall group. That's one way of looking at multi-level pressures in evolution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.com