No environment is static, but the phenotypic embodiment of genotypic change must increase fitness.
derdag
phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
environment. As the environment continues to transform in terms of
competition and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness
for "that" transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's
call this the derdagian paradox. We'll either hash it out with random
incremental mutation, or we will find whole code sets which seem to be
placed into unrelated Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have
been placed "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to
adapt to a changing environment.
Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone put
words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and special
circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
And, I just wish to add: Thank You! Good Site! mobilehome forsale
free internet porn
Dan Luke
"derdag" wrote:
Um, no. It's another load of bollocks from derdag: a ludicrous false
dichotomy poorly disguised as a scientific problem.
IOW, not worthy of hashing out; it's already hash.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus
derdag
A transvestite post, aye? You're pretty special, aren't you?
Kelsey Bjarnason
> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> environment.
Hypothesized: a genetic change to the coloration of a population of
snowshoe hares, resulting in dark coloration in winter, rather than the
white coloration they enjoy now.
By your statement above, the members with the dark coloring - despite
being more visible to predators - would be at *no* disadvantage to their
white-colored counterparts. They would have equal probability of
survival, despite lack of camouflaging coloration.
Perhaps you want to re-think the restriction on selection to that which is
advantageous; traits can be selected against just as readily as they can
be selected for.
> call this the derdagian paradox. We'll either hash it out with random
> incremental mutation, or we will find whole code sets which seem to be
> placed into unrelated Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been
> placed "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
> changing environment.
Err... not sure what this is supposed to mean. It suggests you're arguing
the possibility that populations have an entire range of possible
adaptations "built in from word go", which are simply expressed - or not -
as the environment warrants.
It occurs to me that this would require a designer, one who not only
designed the environments and the populations, but also all the possible
interactions between them - including the cases where, for example, some
members of a population are transported to entirely unfamiliar environs
thanks to human intervention (think bugs in cargoes of fruit and the like,
that sort of thing).
Given what we know of genetic plasticity and the mechanics of inheritance,
it seems a much more likely explanation than a system designed with every
possible contingency planned for in advance.
The notion would also raise the question why, if such designs were so well
thought out in advance, are there ever extinctions? Or are you suggesting
that extinctions don't exist, that what we think are extinctions are
actually just the recorded remnants of the pre-adapted populations? The
stragglers, that is, the ones who didn't quite make it, while their
siblings and cousins did?
It's not clear what your hypothesis even is, let alone what it implies,
nor is it clear that you've defined it well enough for it to be evidenced
even in principle.
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but from where I sit, it looks more like a
Just-So story than anything relating to science.
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
Bobby Bryant
derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> writes:
> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> environment.
Or disadvantage, as the case may be.
> As the environment continues to transform in terms of competition
> and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness for "that"
> transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's call this
> the derdagian paradox.
Changes in the environment that "evaluates" fitness does in fact
result in noisy fitness evaluations. In genetic algorithms we find
that that isn't a problem unless the noise becomes so excessive that
selection is randomized.
In fact, noisy evaluations are useful in evolving solutions that
generalize well to previously unforeseen situations. Perhaps that
happens in biology as well.
> We'll either hash it out with random incremental mutation, or we
> will find whole code sets which seem to be placed into unrelated
> Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been placed
> "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
> changing environment.
Here you fork off into mere fantasy.
> Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone
> put words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and
> special circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
Why is it a problem, again?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
derdag
> In article <1177275825.654952.114...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> writes:
>
> > No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> > phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> > environment.
>
> Or disadvantage, as the case may be.
NO. Only advantagous changes promulgate as "speciation" per the ToE.
The unselected variation is extinct. General Biology 101
>
> > As the environment continues to transform in terms of competition
> > and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness for "that"
> > transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's call this
> > the derdagian paradox.
>
> Changes in the environment that "evaluates" fitness does in fact
> result in noisy fitness evaluations. In genetic algorithms we find
> that that isn't a problem unless the noise becomes so excessive that
> selection is randomized.
Perhaps the randomization represents (ten) variations which compete on
long term basis in ten niches; or, it isn't random variation selected
by the environment. Since we don't know, we might as well pretend
that it is all textbook evolution by natural selection and worship at
the alter of the ToE?
>
> In fact, noisy evaluations are useful in evolving solutions that
> generalize well to previously unforeseen situations. Perhaps that
> happens in biology as well.
Perhaps, not.
>
> > We'll either hash it out with random incremental mutation, or we
> > will find whole code sets which seem to be placed into unrelated
> > Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been placed
> > "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
> > changing environment.
>
> Here you fork off into mere fantasy.
>
> > Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone
> > put words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and
> > special circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
>
> Why is it a problem, again?
It is a problem for unbelievers. Not all worship at the Cult of the
Mutant Monkey bunker.
derdag
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:03:45 -0700, derdag wrote:
> > No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> > phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> > environment.
>
> Hypothesized: a genetic change to the coloration of a population of
> snowshoe hares, resulting in dark coloration in winter, rather than the
> white coloration they enjoy now.
I'm letting this slide in the attitude of fair sportsmanship for now.
I'll see what you do with your imaginary hypothesis.
>
> By your statement above, the members with the dark coloring - despite
> being more visible to predators - would be at *no* disadvantage to their
> white-colored counterparts. They would have equal probability of
> survival, despite lack of camouflaging coloration.
OK. You haven't successfully attributed that hypothesis to me, but
you did try. Most readers know you as a filthy liar attempting to
show that I said something when it is You who said something.
>
> Perhaps you want to re-think the restriction on selection to that which is
> advantageous; traits can be selected against just as readily as they can
> be selected for.
Perhaps you're ignorant enough to try this, but don't attribute it to
me.
>
> > call this the derdagian paradox. We'll either hash it out with random
> > incremental mutation, or we will find whole code sets which seem to be
> > placed into unrelated Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been
> > placed "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
> > changing environment.
>
I'm finished with this reply. You aren't slightly honest.
Bye
> Do not contact me at kbjarna...@ncoldns.com
John Harshman
> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> environment. As the environment continues to transform in terms of
> competition and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness
> for "that" transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's
> call this the derdagian paradox.
Sorry. You will have to explain more clearly just what this "paradox"
is, because so far I have no clue.
> We'll either hash it out with random
> incremental mutation, or we will find whole code sets which seem to be
> placed into unrelated Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have
> been placed "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to
> adapt to a changing environment.
"Whole code sets"?
> Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone put
> words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and special
> circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
It may be, but it's impossible for me to tell until you explain more
clearly what the problem is.
[snip]
John Harshman
> On Apr 22, 6:49 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
>>In article <1177275825.654952.114...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
>>>phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
>>>environment.
>>
>>Or disadvantage, as the case may be.
>
>
> NO. Only advantagous changes promulgate as "speciation" per the ToE.
> The unselected variation is extinct. General Biology 101
No. Advantageous changes are not speciation. Speciation is the evolution
of reproductive isolation between populations. Biology 101.
>>>As the environment continues to transform in terms of competition
>>>and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness for "that"
>>>transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's call this
>>>the derdagian paradox.
>>
>>Changes in the environment that "evaluates" fitness does in fact
>>result in noisy fitness evaluations. In genetic algorithms we find
>>that that isn't a problem unless the noise becomes so excessive that
>>selection is randomized.
>
> Perhaps the randomization represents (ten) variations which compete on
> long term basis in ten niches; or, it isn't random variation selected
> by the environment. Since we don't know, we might as well pretend
> that it is all textbook evolution by natural selection and worship at
> the alter of the ToE?
I'm sorry, but it's difficult to respond to incoherent claims. Can you
make yourself clearer?
>>In fact, noisy evaluations are useful in evolving solutions that
>>generalize well to previously unforeseen situations. Perhaps that
>>happens in biology as well.
>
>
> Perhaps, not.
>
>
>
>>>We'll either hash it out with random incremental mutation, or we
>>>will find whole code sets which seem to be placed into unrelated
>>>Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been placed
>>>"plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
>>>changing environment.
>>
>>Here you fork off into mere fantasy.
>>
>>
>>>Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone
>>>put words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and
>>>special circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
>>
>>Why is it a problem, again?
>
> It is a problem for unbelievers. Not all worship at the Cult of the
> Mutant Monkey bunker.
Still trying to figure out just what it is that you think is a problem.
Can you help?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:27:42 -0700, derdag wrote:
>> Hypothesized: a genetic change to the coloration of a population of
>> snowshoe hares, resulting in dark coloration in winter, rather than the
>> white coloration they enjoy now.
>
> I'm letting this slide in the attitude of fair sportsmanship for now.
Are you? Let's see...
>> By your statement above, the members with the dark coloring - despite
>> being more visible to predators - would be at *no* disadvantage to their
>> white-colored counterparts. They would have equal probability of
>> survival, despite lack of camouflaging coloration.
>
> OK. You haven't successfully attributed that hypothesis to me
Err... I quoted, with attributions, exactly what you said and provided a
response to it. The original was attributed to you, the response,
obviously, to me - where's the problem?
> you did try. Most readers know you as a filthy liar attempting to show
> that I said something when it is You who said something.
It was pretty clear who said what, I thought.
>> Perhaps you want to re-think the restriction on selection to that which
>> is advantageous; traits can be selected against just as readily as they
>> can be selected for.
>
> Perhaps you're ignorant enough to try this, but don't attribute it to
> me.
I didn't. I did suggest that since _you_ put forth the strictly one-sided
view, as quoted, that you might try to examine it from both sides.
> I'm finished with this reply. You aren't slightly honest. Bye
Hmm. By offering a perfectly polite rejoinder to your statements and
examining them as offered, I'm not being honest?
How odd.
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
derdag
wrote:
Hey, John~~
Yeah. Derdagian Paradox. Scientific problem. Nice ring to it.
We have evidence of snowball earth, warming and cooling periods, high
COO levels, reducing atmosphere, O2 increases, reptilian population,
mammalian emergence into the prominents in the context of fauna and
all types of variation "environmentally." Traits, which are
phenotypic expressions of genotypic change, are the only thing tested
by environments through the natural selection process. genotypic
change isn't necessessarily tested, because it may not be expressed
phenotypically. When a change works in the instant environment, it
produces progeny which may be fit to survive more aptly. Only those
can be passed on and through success, plus more random genetic change
and phenotypic expression, can be selected.
Show us some novel "random" "incremental" "selected" changes that
revert a species back into a configuration 'phenotypically' like a
previously expressed morphology which seemed fit for a previous cycle
through some kind of similar environment in the past where the
organism existed with past features, but different genetic code.
We do not see species lines disposing of 'once useful code' and
randomly developing novel answers for each time that the species finds
itself in an environment which is like one from millions of years
ago. Pretend that man is the only species which can travel great
distances, into hostile climates within one lifetime. Also, assume
that the climate of a particular place on the globe can experience
nearly instantaneous change in environment.
derdag
wrote:
> derdag wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 6:49 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>
> >>In article <1177275825.654952.114...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> writes:
>
> >>> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> >>>phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> >>>environment.
>
> >>Or disadvantage, as the case may be.
>
> > NO. Only advantagous changes promulgate as "speciation" per the ToE.
> > The unselected variation is extinct. General Biology 101
>
> No. Advantageous changes are not speciation. Speciation is the evolution
> of reproductive isolation between populations. Biology 101.
Disadvantageous changes are not selected. Unless the disadvantageous
change for the immediate environment is living in an environment at
the time when the environment changes to FAVOR such a phenotypic
expression, selection favors the normal variety.
>
> >>>As the environment continues to transform in terms of competition
> >>>and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness for "that"
> >>>transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's call this
> >>>the derdagian paradox.
>
> >>Changes in the environment that "evaluates" fitness does in fact
> >>result in noisy fitness evaluations. In genetic algorithms we find
> >>that that isn't a problem unless the noise becomes so excessive that
> >>selection is randomized.
>
> > Perhaps the randomization represents (ten) variations which compete on
> > long term basis in ten niches; or, it isn't random variation selected
> > by the environment. Since we don't know, we might as well pretend
> > that it is all textbook evolution by natural selection and worship at
> > the alter of the ToE?
>
> I'm sorry, but it's difficult to respond to incoherent claims. Can you
> make yourself clearer?
Probably, not.
I'm not willing to assume that all ten variations haven't already been
present in nearly working order within the genome of that type of
organism's code, from the beginning.
I can believe it if it is decoded, but not on faith alone.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>In fact, noisy evaluations are useful in evolving solutions that
> >>generalize well to previously unforeseen situations. Perhaps that
> >>happens in biology as well.
>
> > Perhaps, not.
>
> >>>We'll either hash it out with random incremental mutation, or we
> >>>will find whole code sets which seem to be placed into unrelated
> >>>Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been placed
> >>>"plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
> >>>changing environment.
>
> >>Here you fork off into mere fantasy.
>
> >>>Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone
> >>>put words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and
> >>>special circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
>
> >>Why is it a problem, again?
>
> > It is a problem for unbelievers. Not all worship at the Cult of the
> > Mutant Monkey bunker.
>
> Still trying to figure out just what it is that you think is a problem.
It isn't really a problem. I don't believe the ToE means anything.
It is "Every Change", and no discriminating mind can accept that.
> Can you help?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
derdag
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:27:42 -0700, derdag wrote:
> >> Hypothesized: a genetic change to the coloration of a population of
> >> snowshoe hares, resulting in dark coloration in winter, rather than the
> >> white coloration they enjoy now.
>
> > I'm letting this slide in the attitude of fair sportsmanship for now.
>
> Are you? Let's see...
Obviously.
>
> >> By your statement above, the members with the dark coloring - despite
> >> being more visible to predators - would be at *no* disadvantage to their
> >> white-colored counterparts. They would have equal probability of
> >> survival, despite lack of camouflaging coloration.
>
> > OK. You haven't successfully attributed that hypothesis to me
>
> Err... I quoted, with attributions, exactly what you said and provided a
> response to it. The original was attributed to you, the response,
> obviously, to me - where's the problem?
Here's how readers can be certain: You claim that 'I" had previously
denied that no disadvantage would come to dark rabbits in the arctic,
which is your hypothesis, posted in reply to my post. How is that a
quote of my post? No. The problem is precisely this: You aren't
honest. I don't have to play your troll bait.
>
> > you did try. Most readers know you as a filthy liar attempting to show
> > that I said something when it is You who said something.
>
> It was pretty clear who said what, I thought.
>
> >> Perhaps you want to re-think the restriction on selection to that which
> >> is advantageous; traits can be selected against just as readily as they
> >> can be selected for.
>
> > Perhaps you're ignorant enough to try this, but don't attribute it to
> > me.
>
> I didn't. I did suggest that since _you_ put forth the strictly one-sided
> view, as quoted, that you might try to examine it from both sides.
>
> > I'm finished with this reply. You aren't slightly honest. Bye
>
> Hmm. By offering a perfectly polite rejoinder to your statements and
> examining them as offered, I'm not being honest?
>
> How odd.
>
> --
> Do not contact me at kbjarna...@ncoldns.com
Boswell
wrote:
I don't know about John, but I have expended much energy bravely
hacking my way through your thicket of tangled verbiage. As near as I
can figure, you think evolutionary theory predicts that species will
revert back to some ancestral species if an environment is encountered
resembling the environment that the ancestral species inhabited. Is
that right? If so, could you provide an example of a species which you
think should be in process of reverting?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:23:40 -0700, derdag wrote:
>> Err... I quoted, with attributions, exactly what you said and provided a
>> response to it. The original was attributed to you, the response,
>> obviously, to me - where's the problem?
>
> Here's how readers can be certain: You claim that 'I" had previously
> denied that no disadvantage would come to dark rabbits in the arctic,
Correct; as your assertion was... here, I'll quote it, verbatim:
"No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
environment."
By your own words, no selection occurs unless there is an _advantage_.
You eliminate, entirely, the very possibility of negative selection, the
elimination of detrimental traits.
Those were your words, quoted exactly. Thus you did, in fact, claim
exactly what I attributed to you, and my exemplar, as a refutation of that
claim, was perfectly in order.
> which is your hypothesis, posted in reply to my post. How is that a
> quote of my post? No. The problem is precisely this: You aren't
> honest. I don't have to play your troll bait.
You made a claim, I provided the refutation of it. If you don't like it,
fine; that doesn't make it a troll or dishonest. Care to try again?
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:13:53 -0700, derdag wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:34 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> No. Advantageous changes are not speciation. Speciation is the evolution
>> of reproductive isolation between populations. Biology 101.
>
> Disadvantageous changes are not selected.
Sure they are; they're selected _against_. Advantageous changes are
selected _for_.
>> Still trying to figure out just what it is that you think is a problem.
>
>
> It isn't really a problem. I don't believe the ToE means anything.
> It is "Every Change", and no discriminating mind can accept that.
Err... no. "Every change" only applies at the level of individuals.
Natural selection works at that level, eliminating those whose traits
are contra-survival, giving an advantage to those whose traits are
pro-survival. Evolution deals with the heritable dynamics of the
population as a whole, one step up from that. It deals not with "every
change", but rather with those changes which are sufficiently beneficial -
or detrimental - as to affect the population as a whole, or at the least
significant portions of it.
derdag
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As stated, the ToE predicts that a species will adapt to an
environment through random, incremental change selected by natural
selection because of fitness to an environment that the individual
organism is residing within. Because of this stated principle of the
ToE, and recognizing that the environment of (a particular geographic
area) has undergone change cycles, we should have seen fossil evidence
of an organism type which has also cycled in its morphological
characteristics by way of independent genetic variations that spelled
out similar physical characteristics.
But, the 'once useful code' is often retained and maintained. Perhaps
the 'now useful code' was retained and maintained, previously, not
novel random invention, presently.
derdag
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:23:40 -0700, derdag wrote:
> >> Err... I quoted, with attributions, exactly what you said and provided a
> >> response to it. The original was attributed to you, the response,
> >> obviously, to me - where's the problem?
>
> > Here's how readers can be certain: You claim that 'I" had previously
> > denied that no disadvantage would come to dark rabbits in the arctic,
>
> Correct; as your assertion was... here, I'll quote it, verbatim:
>
> "No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> environment."
>
> By your own words, no selection occurs unless there is an _advantage_.
> You eliminate, entirely, the very possibility of negative selection, the
> elimination of detrimental traits.
In terms of speciation, selection is the rule. I don't make the
rule. Negative selection eliminates the progeny, and often the
individual. So, that is something that you stated. I have clearly
stated that increasing fitness is what is rewarded by the natural
selection process, in the immediate environment within an individual
which expresses the physical characteristics which provide the
advantages.
So, I still discount the long term notion that negative selection
plays a role in speciation, because it takes progeny and success over
time to allow for speciation. The dead and extinct genetic variation
isn't in play.
>
> Those were your words, quoted exactly. Thus you did, in fact, claim
> exactly what I attributed to you, and my exemplar, as a refutation of that
> claim, was perfectly in order.
bunk
>
> > which is your hypothesis, posted in reply to my post. How is that a
> > quote of my post? No. The problem is precisely this: You aren't
> > honest. I don't have to play your troll bait.
>
> You made a claim, I provided the refutation of it. If you don't like it,
> fine; that doesn't make it a troll or dishonest. Care to try again?
>
> --
> Do not contact me at
I'm heterosexual.
Boswell
wrote:
So you don't know of any particular species that should have
undergone this reversion process? Is it easier for you to think about
these things if they remain sort of vague?
John Harshman
> On Apr 22, 7:34 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>derdag wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 22, 6:49 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <1177275825.654952.114...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
>>>>>phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
>>>>>environment.
>>
>>>>Or disadvantage, as the case may be.
>>
>>>NO. Only advantagous changes promulgate as "speciation" per the ToE.
>>>The unselected variation is extinct. General Biology 101
>>
>>No. Advantageous changes are not speciation. Speciation is the evolution
>>of reproductive isolation between populations. Biology 101.
>
> Disadvantageous changes are not selected. Unless the disadvantageous
> change for the immediate environment is living in an environment at
> the time when the environment changes to FAVOR such a phenotypic
> expression, selection favors the normal variety.
None of which is a response to my correction of your claims about
speciation. And selection favors whatever is advantageous at the time of
the selection; you don't have to say any more than that.
>>>>>As the environment continues to transform in terms of competition
>>>>>and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness for "that"
>>>>>transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's call this
>>>>>the derdagian paradox.
>>
>>>>Changes in the environment that "evaluates" fitness does in fact
>>>>result in noisy fitness evaluations. In genetic algorithms we find
>>>>that that isn't a problem unless the noise becomes so excessive that
>>>>selection is randomized.
>>
>>>Perhaps the randomization represents (ten) variations which compete on
>>>long term basis in ten niches; or, it isn't random variation selected
>>>by the environment. Since we don't know, we might as well pretend
>>>that it is all textbook evolution by natural selection and worship at
>>>the alter of the ToE?
>>
>>I'm sorry, but it's difficult to respond to incoherent claims. Can you
>>make yourself clearer?
>
> Probably, not.
> I'm not willing to assume that all ten variations haven't already been
> present in nearly working order within the genome of that type of
> organism's code, from the beginning.
>
> I can believe it if it is decoded, but not on faith alone.
Still no clue. What ten variations? What code? From what beginning? Are
you denying that mutations happen, or what?
>>>>In fact, noisy evaluations are useful in evolving solutions that
>>>>generalize well to previously unforeseen situations. Perhaps that
>>>>happens in biology as well.
>>
>>>Perhaps, not.
>>
>>>>>We'll either hash it out with random incremental mutation, or we
>>>>>will find whole code sets which seem to be placed into unrelated
>>>>>Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have been placed
>>>>>"plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to adapt to a
>>>>>changing environment.
>>
>>>>Here you fork off into mere fantasy.
>>
>>>>>Do your homework, kids. I'm not going to sit here and let anyone
>>>>>put words into my mouth and spam your trolls with beliefs and
>>>>>special circumstance hypotheses. This is a scientific problem.
>>
>>>>Why is it a problem, again?
>>
>>>It is a problem for unbelievers. Not all worship at the Cult of the
>>>Mutant Monkey bunker.
>>
>>Still trying to figure out just what it is that you think is a problem.
>
> It isn't really a problem. I don't believe the ToE means anything.
> It is "Every Change", and no discriminating mind can accept that.
Still no idea what you think you're talking about. Are you incapable of
explaining yourself, or just uninterested?
John Harshman
I'm sorry. That was just incoherent. I can't make any sense out of it,
and so can't respond to your challenge to evolution, if indeed that's
what it is.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:50:45 -0700, derdag wrote:
>> By your own words, no selection occurs unless there is an _advantage_.
>> You eliminate, entirely, the very possibility of negative selection, the
>> elimination of detrimental traits.
>
>
> In terms of speciation, selection is the rule.
Selection isn't limited to speciation. Nor is it limited to selecting
_for_ traits. It also selects _against_ traits.
>> Do not contact me at
>
> I'm heterosexual.
And I should care why, exactly?
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
Dan Luke
"derdag" wrote:
>
> A transvestite post, aye?
Eh? Are you sure you're in the right newsgroup?
Try alt.support.crossdressing if you're looking for special friends.
> You're pretty special, aren't you?
>
Indeed!
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
derdag
How do you think you rate getting away with the topic diversion away
from the derdagian paradox without addressing the issue of non-random
reinvention of conserved (PCC and HCC) as species endure cycling
environmental conditions through the eons? Non-random is evolution,
just like anything in this belief system.
er...@swva.net
> No selection of genetic change occurs until the change is expressed
> phenotypically and also provides an advantage within that immediate
> environment. As the environment continues to transform in terms of
> competition and climate, the previous change 'which allowed fitness
> for "that" transient new environment' seems to be retained. Let's
> call this the derdagian paradox. We'll either hash it out with random
> incremental mutation, or we will find whole code sets which seem to be
> placed into unrelated Kingdoms of the Tree of Life which could have
> been placed "plausibly" as 'contingencies' for species designed to
> adapt to a changing environment.
>
Hmm, if adaptations are pre-built in, then it would follow that
lineages that had experience the most different environments will have
used up their supply of variation, and would eventually get boxed into
a corner and go extinct. Of course, this happens anyway, since an
envirnment can change to something for which a species doesn't have a
countering mutation in its gene pool.
(snip)
Eric Root
Boswell
wrote:
Why is it that you can't provide an example of a species and a set of
recurring environmental conditions illustrative of this "cycling?"
Could it be that this inability is due to the fact that such
ecological recurrence exists only in your own vague fantasies?
Kermit
Close enough.
> Because of this stated principle of the
> ToE, and recognizing that the environment of (a particular geographic
> area) has undergone change cycles, we should have seen fossil evidence
> of an organism type which has also cycled in its morphological
> characteristics by way of independent genetic variations that spelled
> out similar physical characteristics.
First, the species has likely lost any remnants of the genes which
made it what it was before its present form. Why would you assume that
an improvement from its *current form would be any sort of
backtracking to its prior form? In any event, the specie could *not
"backtrack" if the proper mutations do not show up. Recent adaptations
may have given it new capabilities or new limitations. For any given
environment, we might see millions of multi-celled organisms that are
doing swell. For any given species B derived from species A (if you
can call an earlier form a different species), why would we assume
that "reversing direction in even the smallest degree would be
advantageous.
Let's look at an example. Mammals are derived from fish (over a long
process). A family of mammalian tetrapods (ateriodactyls) moved into
the ocean, and in time assumed a streamlined shape very similar to
some fish (like sharks).
But cetaceans are derived from tetrapods. Because of tetrapod
ambulation, the flukes of the cetaceans move up and down, while the
tails of fish move side to side. This is probably a neutral
difference, but one that is unavoidable given their evolutionary
history. The cetaceans are endothermic and very intelligent. Why
should they lose these very advantageous characteristics? They are
also limited in some ways by their breathing air. But if they
"learned" to breathe water again, IIUIC, they wouldn't be able to
maintain an endothermic metabolism.
Only *very simple (and therefore recent) changes can be, or are
expected to be, reversible. A famous example is the white/dark pepper
moth evolution 150 years ago.
>
> But, the 'once useful code' is often retained and maintained.
No its not. Sometimes a gene is simply turned off, like thick fur in
humans or teeth in birds. But other changes and adaptations are going
on, and soon the old genes cannot be turned back on and still function
properly.
When humans are born with thick hair, they have problems like hair
blocking their ear canals and affecting their hearing, hair in their
eyes, nostrils covered and affecting their breathing, etc. And let's
not even talk about how well chickens accommodate teeth...
> Perhaps
> the 'now useful code' was retained and maintained, previously, not
> novel random invention, presently.
Do you have any examples of this happening?
Kermit
Dan Luke
"derdag" wrote:
> How do you think you rate getting away with the topic diversion away
> from the derdagian paradox without addressing the issue of non-random
> reinvention of conserved (PCC and HCC) as species endure cycling
> environmental conditions through the eons? Non-random is evolution,
> just like anything in this belief system.
You are the one who changed the topic to transvestism, remember? I
originally pointed out that you had posted nonsense. That is on topic, even
if it doesn't gratify your need to involve people in arguing either side of
your false dichotomy.
And BTW, speaking of gratifying your needs, why are you so obsessed with
gender identity issues? You tend to bring them up at the oddest times.
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
Show us some novel "random" "incremental" "selected" changes that
revert a species back into a configuration 'phenotypically' like a
previously expressed morphology which seemed fit for a previous cycle
through some kind of similar environment in the past where the
organism existed with past features, but different genetic code.
<snip>
If I've interpreted your convoluted verbiage correctly, how's this for
an example: Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) probably shared a common
ancestor with handsome fungus beetles (Endomychidae). Lady beetles are
primitively predacious; endomychids are fungivorous. However, one
derived tribe of lady beetles (Psylloborini) has returned to fungus
feeding with concommitant morphological changes. This would seem to
meet your requirements for an example.
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
John Harshman
> On Apr 22, 8:00 pm, derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Show us some novel "random" "incremental" "selected" changes that
> revert a species back into a configuration 'phenotypically' like a
> previously expressed morphology which seemed fit for a previous cycle
> through some kind of similar environment in the past where the
> organism existed with past features, but different genetic code.
> <snip>
>
> If I've interpreted your convoluted verbiage correctly, how's this for
> an example: Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) probably shared a common
> ancestor with handsome fungus beetles (Endomychidae). Lady beetles are
> primitively predacious; endomychids are fungivorous. However, one
> derived tribe of lady beetles (Psylloborini) has returned to fungus
> feeding with concommitant morphological changes. This would seem to
> meet your requirements for an example.
Is that what he's talking about? In that case, every reversal qualifies.
How about fish -> tetrapod -> ichthyosaur or whale? How about
terrestrial theropod -> flying bird -> ostrich? Quadrupedal archosaur ->
bipedal dinosaur -> quadrupedal dinosaur? And I believe the winner would
be fish -> tetrapod -> marine lizard (one theory of snake origins)->
terrestrial snake -> sea snake -> terrestrial snake again. (I understand
that some Australian snakes are nested within sea snakes.)
But I doubt that's what he's talking about.
Baron Bodissey
wrote:
It seemed to me what he was going on about, but with Derdag who can
ever be sure?
mel turner
news:hHdXh.523$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
[snip]
> Is that what he's talking about? In that case, every reversal qualifies.
> How about fish -> tetrapod -> ichthyosaur or whale? How about
> terrestrial theropod -> flying bird -> ostrich? Quadrupedal archosaur ->
> bipedal dinosaur -> quadrupedal dinosaur? And I believe the winner would
> be fish -> tetrapod -> marine lizard (one theory of snake origins)->
> terrestrial snake -> sea snake -> terrestrial snake again. (I understand
> that some Australian snakes are nested within sea snakes.)
I thought the interpretation of the evidence was just that sea
snakes seem to have been independently derived at least twice,
from different clades of Australian land-dwelling elapids.
Your version, on the other hand, would be a much more interesting
story. Perhaps it fits the data just as well?
> But I doubt that's what he's talking about.
It seems unlikely even he knows what he's talking about.
cheers
John Harshman
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:hHdXh.523$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> [snip]
>
>>Is that what he's talking about? In that case, every reversal qualifies.
>>How about fish -> tetrapod -> ichthyosaur or whale? How about
>>terrestrial theropod -> flying bird -> ostrich? Quadrupedal archosaur ->
>>bipedal dinosaur -> quadrupedal dinosaur? And I believe the winner would
>>be fish -> tetrapod -> marine lizard (one theory of snake origins)->
>>terrestrial snake -> sea snake -> terrestrial snake again. (I understand
>>that some Australian snakes are nested within sea snakes.)
>
>
> I thought the interpretation of the evidence was just that sea
> snakes seem to have been independently derived at least twice,
> from different clades of Australian land-dwelling elapids.
>
> Your version, on the other hand, would be a much more interesting
> story. Perhaps it fits the data just as well?
I don't know any more about it than I've said here, and I don't remember
where I saw that. And I so far haven't been able to find a phylogenetic
tree of Elapidae. ToLWeb is particularly disappointing; it doesn't go
below the level of Serpentes.
>>But I doubt that's what he's talking about.
>
>
> It seems unlikely even he knows what he's talking about.
And he apparently has no interest in explaining. That's creationists for
you.
er...@swva.net
Whales vaguely resemble fish, but they got they way by developing new
variation building upon where the already were genetically, and not by
going back to actually being fish.
Eric Root