If "Evolving", is adding to your most needed adaptations; eliminating one of your least needed is?

[Hans Blaster]

The point being, at this stage, that there is no probable way of preserving every adaptation: you simply must give up the notion of "onward and upward" Evolution.

This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. It's not about "onward and upward", I don't know that it ever has been. This is a common lay misconception of the theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Look, I have reasoned with you, been rejected by you, treated as if there is nothing sensible but the tiniest of foundations for me to focus on...

...and I have defined something theoretical, that expands the horizon of your theory!

All I am saying is, "in the measure that you think you understand 'Evolution' scientifically, apply the science to the contrary scenario".

I even left open the expectation, that it be identified as you see fit - as a gesture of goodwill?

No, you have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is create these bizarre scenarios that make no sense with regards to actual biology, and you clearly make no attempt to take any criticism on them to heart since you seem to learn nothing about what you are told.

You do not actually seem to have any desire to learn about evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because you say it is not relevant, your hubris remains.

He said it was not relevant because you keep mixing in all sorts of irrelevant philosophy and religious claims into evolution. It mangles the meaning and clogs the discussion.

 

[Gottservant]

What do you mean by merit? Adaptations in evolution occur and are selected for because they help an animal survive in the environment it is in, thus meaning that adaptation is passed down the genetic line because it keeps the animal's young alive.
What form of 'merit' are you referring to?

Fitness of the choosiest

High fitness increases the chance of a mate, without further mutation - at a threshold of adaptability.

You are mistaking a path of continual adaptation, with success (fitness is relative, not circumstantial)

 

[Gottservant]

This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. It's not about "onward and upward", I don't know that it ever has been. This is a common lay misconception of the theory.

Yes, and I have specified - by way of theoretial trajectory - why it is a "misconception": it overlooks that adaptations aren't forever!

 

[Gottservant]

He said it was not relevant because you keep mixing in all sorts of irrelevant philosophy and religious claims into evolution. It mangles the meaning and clogs the discussion.

And yet you say: mutations are "welcome".

Who gave you the right to determine what interpretative tools, were and were not permissible, anyway?

Evolution perpetrates a lie (that macro evolution goes through micro evolutionary changes), therefore: motive is in question, as are the works it justifies in its name.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fitness of the choosiest

High fitness increases the chance of a mate, without further mutation - at a threshold of adaptability.

You are mistaking a path of continual adaptation, with success (fitness is relative, not circumstantial)

You're not making sense.
An adaptation that allows an animal to survive means that it will live to reproduce since it will live to attract a mate and then have offspring and pass down that adaptation to its young. That is what fittest means in 'survival of the fittest'.
And continual adaptation IS success since the animal's lineage has lasted to keep that adaptation in the genepool.

 

[Gottservant]

No, you have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is create these bizarre scenarios that make no sense with regards to actual biology, and you clearly make no attempt to take any criticism on them to heart since you seem to learn nothing about what you are told.

You do not actually seem to have any desire to learn about evolution.

Did Darwin get a degree in Evolutionary Biology, before he coined the term "Evolution"? Or can we expect that he will if he returns from the grave??

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, and I have specified - by way of theoretial trajectory - why it is a "misconception": it overlooks that adaptations aren't forever!

Are you trying to argue that a feature of popular understanding of evolution (onward and upward) isn't actually a feature of evolutionary theory (anymore?) ? Frankly you statements frequently don't make much sense because of the way you use language.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did Darwin get a degree in Evolutionary Biology, before he coined the term "Evolution"? Or can we expect that he will if he returns from the grave??

What does that have to do with what I said?!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did Darwin get a degree in Evolutionary Biology, before he coined the term "Evolution"? Or can we expect that he will if he returns from the grave??

Darwin *didn't* coin the term evolution.

Degrees in evolutionary biology didn't exist in the 19th century at all.

The dead stay dead, so he ain't commin' back.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What does that have to do with what I said?!

Nothing. None of this ever has to do with anything. It's all just inchoate rambling.

 

[Gottservant]

You're not making sense.
An adaptation that allows an animal to survive means that it will live to reproduce since it will live to attract a mate and then have offspring and pass down that adaptation to its young. That is what fittest means in 'survival of the fittest'.
And continual adaptation IS success since the animal's lineage has lasted to keep that adaptation in the genepool.

A creature evolved for snow in winter and heat in summer, is always going to be less adaptable than a creature that prefers heat and hibernates in winter, or a creature that prefers winter and stays in the shade in summer.

You are assuming there is no upper limit to how evolved a creature can be for summer and winter - whereas a preference and a difference one way and another create a niche that is easier to survive in or with.

In terms of how you put things when you think you are talking about evolution: a population that can survive without the maximum possible number of adaptations, passes on "fitness" to the next generation - from which instinct can be refined and refine, without the object of focus being lost? The fitness that is passed on, is a "simpler" fitness, to copy - meaning that more mates can be assessed by the same standard of adaptability (creating creatures that differ less from their successful parents)?

Positive and negative Evolution, that's all I am attempting to get you to grasp??

 

[Gottservant]

It's "economizing".

You take a certain number of similar adaptations, and you eliminate the weaker - leaving more resources going to your strengths and the variations needed (to improve on them, while selection pressure remains the same or close to it).

Economically, its called "tax".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A creature evolved for snow in winter and heat in summer, is always going to be less adaptable than a creature that prefers heat and hibernates in winter, or a creature that prefers winter and stays in the shade in summer.

You are assuming there is no upper limit to how evolved a creature can be for summer and winter - whereas a preference and a difference one way and another create a niche that is easier to survive in or with.

In terms of how you put things when you think you are talking about evolution: a population that can survive without the maximum possible number of adaptations, passes on "fitness" to the next generation - from which instinct can be refined and refine, without the object of focus being lost? The fitness that is passed on, is a "simpler" fitness, to copy - meaning that more mates can be assessed by the same standard of adaptability (creating creatures that differ less from their successful parents)?

Positive and negative Evolution, that's all I am attempting to get you to grasp??

The shocking thing is is that you actually described something that makes sense with regards to evolution.
Yes, animals adapt to their environmental niches, that's a fact.
I am assuming nothing about there being no upper limit with regards to evolution, since there is no upwards with regards to adaptation. As long as the animal survives, then the population it lives in will continue to evolve.

There is no 'maximum number of adaptations', since Evolution isn't like a game of Bucking Bronco where if you evolve one too many adaptations, an animal just... well, let's use explode as a metaphor. Your idea of there being a 'focus' for adaptation is laughable since the single focus for all life is to just live. That's it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Positive and negative Evolution, that's all I am attempting to get you to grasp??

Please stop trying to "teach" us evolution. This last post has the kernels of some reality in it, but it gets jumbled up with other stuff.

What books on evolution have you read? Recently, or at all?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's "economizing".

You take a certain number of similar adaptations, and you eliminate the weaker - leaving more resources going to your strengths and the variations needed (to improve on them, while selection pressure remains the same or close to it).

Economically, its called "tax".

Survival of the fittest. Those that live to reproduce do, and those that don't perish.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's "economizing".

You take a certain number of similar adaptations, and you eliminate the weaker - leaving more resources going to your strengths and the variations needed (to improve on them, while selection pressure remains the same or close to it).

Economically, its called "tax".

Nope. That's not what a tax is. Taxes don't eliminate the weakest economic actors.

 

[Strathos]

Darwin *didn't* coin the term evolution.

Degrees in evolutionary biology didn't exist in the 19th century at all.

The dead stay dead, so he ain't commin' back.

If he did come back to life, he would have to go back to school to learn everything that has been discovered since his day before he could get a degree.

 

[Gottservant]

The shocking thing is is that you actually described something that makes sense with regards to evolution.
Yes, animals adapt to their environmental niches, that's a fact.
I am assuming nothing about there being no upper limit with regards to evolution, since there is no upwards with regards to adaptation. As long as the animal survives, then the population it lives in will continue to evolve.

There is no 'maximum number of adaptations', since Evolution isn't like a game of Bucking Bronco where if you evolve one too many adaptations, an animal just... well, let's use explode as a metaphor. Your idea of there being a 'focus' for adaptation is laughable since the single focus for all life is to just live. That's it.

You mean to tell me, that if you are equally adapted for the right, as for the left, you will never be in a situation where it is impossible to decide?

If you favour left over right, you will always have an alternative.

Say you spent a long time among right handers, and then went to the left: unless you minimized your right handedness to a degree, you would find it hard to mate with left handers?