Welcome back...
To my knowledge this has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is Gould et al's explanation of data related to the rate of change in response to stressors.
That is one aspect, it is not the whole, I might have made a mistake regarding what I have read about that.
However, Lets carry on.
Evolution, fundamentally, is a non-directional process. While "Survival" is the ultimate benefit, survival is not a driving force. Evolution is a passive process in which deficits are removed.
That goes against every Adaptation model, (Evolution is not just Adaptation, at least not in Theory), However, Also note, that Adaptation is more then just Natural Selection.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
Now According to this, Natural Selection is a Directive Force, or a Maintaining Force.
IE: It will force a Life Form into a New Direction to Survive, or it will Force a Life Form to maintain as it is to survive.
Now I may be confusing what you mean by a Passive action, as everything says that Natural Selection is a very aggressive, active and exacting process.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
Co-Evolution relates to the interdependence of two systems. As I also pointed out, I do not wish to limit this stressor-stressee to solely biotic systems.
We have already agreed upon this. As far as I know, Co-Evolution means all environmental stressors, from the type of earth you walk on, to what you are going to eat, to what is going to eat you, to how hot or cold it is in the area.
IE: Caustic Evolution.
This is crucial and perhaps I misread your original points, but there is no definition of evolution that I am aware of that implicitly or explicity states evolution to be a "directional" process of any sort.
The directive of Natural Selection is Survival, the Premise of Adaptation is Survival.
All Adaptations are to increase the fitness of a life form to survive. They are not all necessarily genetic modification however.
Even co-evolution only relates as far as the stressor-stressee mutual relationship.
You are correct, and does not allow for mutations that have no bearing on the overall survival of the life form, IE: Eye Color of modern humans. However, it is still based on the Genomes Survival itself, IE: Does it get passed on, or does it pass away.
I this case, if only blue eyed people had offspring, the Genome for Brown Eyes dies out, it did not survive.
It is rational to assume that those factors which select against certain features will result in the proliferation of features that are the opposite of those selected against.
Perhaps you will need to find me a reference in which evolution is capable of "directing" something beforehand.
Please enjoy the link.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
This is not what happens. Evolution, fundamentally, has only those inputs of genetic mutation, genetic drift, genetic flow and a passive filter to select against them.
Maybe my biggest problem here is, the use of the term Passive Filter.
Two species that carry between them a "co-evolutionary" relationship are linked in such a way that (let's take for example a lion and a gazelle), the lion is the environmental stressor that selects against slow gazelles or gazelles without sufficient visual acuity to note the presence of the lion. The faster gazelles are, themselves, a selective force against lions incapable of catching faster gazelles (the lion has to eat).
Yes. But this does not look passive. It is directed, the Lion needs to Eat (To survive), and Gazelle needs to Survive (Not Get Eaten), they both will develop means to overcome each others defenses or offensives. This the very foundation of Evolution and Adaptation.
Note how this is not the same as saying Lions make faster gazelles. Faster gazelles make faster lions. It will likely turn out that way, but that is a subtle and very important key difference in how evolution is acting.
Why it is not the same?
The Lion applies stressors to the Gazelles, thus the Gazelles need to Adapt (Develop) an Escape from Lions, the gazelles either Adapts or Die in this Case, as the Gazelles Adapt to overcome the Stress the Lions place upon them, the Lions equally need to adapt to overcome the Stress that the Gazelles now place upon them. They act upon each other, as such, they force Adaptations to occur and thus Evolution marches on.
The Stressor of each other action upon each other forces each one of them to develop adaptations to survive. This is the primary aspect of Evolution.
Now Genetic Drift is a passive change, only if it does not pass though the filter of natural selection.
The predator-prey relationship is a system of selection factors against mutations that are detrimental.
As well as ensure the passing on of beneficial ones, neutral ones, that offer no greater chance of survival may or may not pass on, but, the traits that will increase fitness of survival are pressured to pass on in this case.
So by the evidence we have, we know it more then just the removal of detrimental traits, as it also enforces the survival of beneficial traits. Thus is one aspect of Adaptation at its simplest form.
Adaptation is not simply Natural Selection, that is a very important thing to remember for this discussion.
To give an example, as it relates to our discussion, take Lucys Feet:
Lucy may have adapted flat feet from her migration habits to find forgeable food. In this sense, she may have been born with a high arch to her feet, but, because of her environment and necessity of travel, her feet became flat.
We can not tell one way or the other at this point. However, what we do have is that her feet were flat. That is what the evidence says. So that is what we have to work with.
Now this form of Adaptation is written into the Genetic code for this happen, but if it happens it does not become a new genetic trait that will be passed on to the offspring.
Another Example: If you worked a desk job, your hands would become suite for the desk job, nimble fingers for working at the keys, etc. this is a product of what you do with your hands, not a genetic trait of the hands themselves. If you changed your job and went to work mixing concrete your hands would become harder, stronger, tougher, and more resistant to damage over time. However these changes do not modify the genetic code of the hands themselves.
Your offspring would not inherit the traits your hands had due to your profession, but only what genetic traits you had at birth, as the variant in your hands to become as they became was a written variable to allow for you to adapt to your environment.
That is why Adaptation is not just Natural Selection.
Now, This type of environmental personal adaptation can become genetic code in a way, such as, if we had a group of humans that went from desk jobs to labor jobs, only those that had the genetic code to allow for their hands to change the most to accommodate the environment stressors would survive, this they would pass that code on to their offspring, and such the offspring would have the genetic adaptation trait that their hands would accommodate hard manual labor and become strong and resilient, with work.
This is the basic premise of the insects immune to pesticides, some of them had a genetic variant that allowed their immune system adapt to the pesticide, and they would pass this trait on to their offspring. Thus the next generation, some would still die from the pesticide, but those that possessed the adaptation qualities to survive would live, until all of them possessed this trait. But this is Genetic Drift.
There is no conception of evolution that I have ever heard of, read about, or learned in any paleo or bio class that meant that there was some "force" driving "toward" any particular goal.
Survival seems to the main Theme, the ability to best suit and fit your environment.
Even evolution has an Objective, even if it as simple as Not Die out
But let's look at all the facts on the table and no theory here.
The only things that life can and are proven to do:
1. Reproduce (imperfectly)
2. Die
It will die, eventually. The only question is, when and what it will do before it dies.
The span between Birth and Death is the major factors of Evolution, Life will be weeded out by Stressors, so only that which s best suited for its environment will survival to reproduced.
The only inputs available to cause any change are genetic factors (mutations, drift) and the only way for these factors to carry forward is through reproduction. If the animal is incapable of reproducing before it dies the mutations it carries or the reproduction-based variability (sexual reproduction as opposed to assexual which will not vary the genetic compositon) will not be passed along.
Yes. Absolutely !
Again, not to be overly pedantic, but indeed "survival" is the ultimate benefit, but evolution, no matter what model currently accepted by biologists, is not a driving directional force. It is a system by which detrimental features are selected against and removed. This will mean that those that make it through the filter will be capable of survival in that environment and will succeed.
I think the problem we have, is that I am trying to explain that it is a two way filter, and you are saying it is a one way filter. However, we might have an agreement.
Maybe if we looked at it this way: Whatever does not benefit the life from to survive will not pass the filter. The only variable unaffected by this filter are traits that carry no bearing on survival.
It does not, however, mean that the Angraecoid orchid did anything to force AFrican moths to grow longer proboscii, what it means is that the orchids with deeper flowers were a selection against moths with short proboscii (presumably moths with long proboscii could still work with shallower flowers).
Ok, I think there is a problem here. Think about this, the African Moth needs to eat, the Moth eats these flowers, the flower has very deep petals (Maybe developed to catch more moisture from the rain of something). The Deep petals of the flower acted upon the moth as a stressor, as such, only the moths with the longest proboscis could eat the flower. Now you may be right, they did not force the moth to grow the longer, but it did provide a force upon the moth to either find a way to eat the flower, or die off. This is selected the trait that will be allowed to pass on, and as such, those moths that did not have long enough ones, would die off, or eat something else. Now, we have seen that life will generate things to survive, like Fruit Flies when their diet changed to meat, developed the proper enzymes to digest meat. So, what do we say then?
Or the fact that Life on this planet Breaths Air?
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/07/01/backwards_probability_and_creationist_fl
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=5632
Lamarkism is the process you may be thinking of. In Lamarkism it is the efforts at adapting to an environment undertaken by a life form that help future generations survive. This is largely discredited.
There is some truth to his claim. If a life from does not have a means in its code to allow it to survive, then it will die out.
Unless this Code for allowable adaptation is tested by stressors, it will not become a part of life group, it will be a random trait, only though stressors will the effects of genetic drift act upon this variable in code to make it a common trait among the life group.
However, I do not agree with this Lamarkism Theory as a whole, If that is what it seems I have implied, then I am sorry, maybe I have over complicated my approach.
Evolution is a passive process in which factors can only be eliminated, not developed for a particular purpose. Even co-evolution to my knowledge falls under this term. Co-evolution is the relationship, but still dependent upon the fundamental core of evolution's mechanism.
I think my problem is the idea of Passive in this sense.
Thus, as it stands, what ever develops must pass though the filter of external stressors, to validate its continuance in existence. What is Important to its Survival will develop, what is not, will be removed.
That is all I have been looking at, this is why I listed the Advantages as they relate to the External Stressors upon the Human life.
Now all Adaptations focus only upon fitness for survival, as such, any adaptations that do occur will occur for the benefit of fitness of survival, that is the very nature of Adaptations. However not all Evolutionary (As per the Theory) changes in life group will be for survival IE: Genetic Drift.
Have I explained my stance, and are we on a level platform again, or do we need to discuss this out further?
I would like to add that, Although I accept Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection, I do not accept randomly occurring mutations as a viable means of evolutionary progress of animal life forms. Mainly because I do not see any evidence that shows in animal life where Mutations can occur that are not harmful. (Hybrids are not Mutations, they are Genetic Drift)
If you have evidence of positive mutations happening in animal life, then I would be more then happy to accept that, but we agreed that for this discussion, we only have the evidence.
I would hate for us to be failing to have this platform by which we can discuss this topic. So if we need to work out this issue, then let us work it out.
God Bless
Key.