Honest question: do parasites evolve, if their hosts do?

[Shemjaza]

But there may be "positive" selection pressures/one's that favour more achievable mutations, across a population (that can then keep the 'postivity' of the selection pressures "going"?)?

Selection pressures do not cause mutations... they mearly encourage them when they appear.

Whether a selection pressure gives an advantage to to members of a population with a particular trait or a selection pressure presents a danger to members without a trait the end result is the same... the trait selected will statistically become more common in the population and the species will evolve.

The point being, there may be a greater chance to respond to Evolution, across a better distribution of chaotic forces?

It's the chaotic forces of environment and mutation that drive evolution in the first place.

Whether traits are encouraged or discouraged is irrelevant.

 

[Gottservant]

Selection pressures do not cause mutations... they mearly encourage them when they appear.

[...]

Whether traits are encouraged or discouraged is irrelevant.

You seem to be saying two things at once here.

What I want to know is, why can't a selection pressure shift a population in the direction of better Evolution? Why does a selection pressure have to produce a particular outcome?

You seem to be saying "there is no way to prepare, for Evolution" but yet, you prepare (by retaining things you can say about Evolution, that is, sayings that are true about Evolution - you don't keep these sayings because they 'produce' adaptation, so why?)

 

[Larniavc]

the question is, if the host evolves, does the parasite therefore have to evolve?

Great question!

If a mutation in the host population changes the selective pressure on the parasite population it will either adapt to it or go extinct.

 

[Gottservant]

If a mutation in the host population changes the selective pressure on the parasite population it will either adapt to it or go extinct.

It could also prepare the parasite for a different host altogether?

 

[Larniavc]

It could also prepare the parasite for a different host altogether?

It’s possible, but only by coincidence because the parasite population can only react to the current host population.

 

[Shemjaza]

You seem to be saying two things at once here.

I was trying to point out that positive and negative selections pressures are ultimately the same thing.

What I want to know is, why can't a selection pressure shift a population in the direction of better Evolution? Why does a selection pressure have to produce a particular outcome?

The problem is that "the direction of better Evolution" doesn't make sense.

Selection pressures definitely do not have to produce a particular outcome.

Selection pressures just increase the statistical likelihood of particular traits spreading through the population. The pressure doesn't create the traits.

You seem to be saying "there is no way to prepare, for Evolution" but yet, you prepare (by retaining things you can say about Evolution, that is, sayings that are true about Evolution - you don't keep these sayings because they 'produce' adaptation, so why?)

"retaining things you can say about Evolution" does not prepare for evolution.

"Sayings" do not produce adaption.

Evolution doesn't happen to an individual.

 

[Gottservant]

It’s possible, but only by coincidence because the parasite population can only react to the current host population.

So you admit "coincidence" is possible?

 

[Gottservant]

I was trying to point out that positive and negative selections pressures are ultimately the same thing.

Yes, but there are near and far solutions to the problem of adaptations. The whole problem Evolutionists create, is that there needs to be heaps and heaps of time - are you going to object if I say more time can encourage or discourage waiting?

The problem is that "the direction of better Evolution" doesn't make sense.

Think of it as "a greater market share, in available adaptations"?

Selection pressures definitely do not have to produce a particular outcome.

Selection pressures just increase the statistical likelihood of particular traits spreading through the population. The pressure doesn't create the traits.

The pressure shapes the traits, you wouldn't argue with that, surely?

"retaining things you can say about Evolution" does not prepare for evolution.

"Sayings" do not produce adaption.

Sayings encourage memory, memory encourages retention, retention compounds strengths.

It's a continuum, not an exclusive right to claim "this has evolved, the moreso by the purity of the chances taken".

Evolution doesn't happen to an individual.

An individual never reaches "Evolutionary Heaven"?

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but there are near and far solutions to the problem of adaptations. The whole problem Evolutionists create, is that there needs to be heaps and heaps of time - are you going to object if I say more time can encourage or discourage waiting?

Deep time was discovered before evolution.

Evolution would be impossible if we didn't have enough time, but we do.

On the scale of evolution waiting doesn't exist, as waiting implies decisions and individuals, neither of which are relevant to evolution.

Think of it as "a greater market share, in available adaptations"?

That I can accept. The more diverse a population is the more potential it has to deal with any particular new selection pressure.

The pressure shapes the traits, you wouldn't argue with that, surely?

Not particularly.

Sayings encourage memory, memory encourages retention, retention compounds strengths.

It's a continuum, not an exclusive right to claim "this has evolved, the moreso by the purity of the chances taken".

All those are aspects of individuals, so are irrelevant to evolution.

An individual never reaches "Evolutionary Heaven"?

I don't even know that that concept would be.

 

[Kylie]

[my bold]

"The parasite will reproduce" because there is a population of the parasite, to reproduce with?

That's the crucial point for you? That there be parasites molded by the same selection pressure? Pressures?

This is important, because it shows that a selection pressure can have a greater effect on a population, than its mutations?

No, the parasite will reproduce because it has been able to survive the hosts attempts to kill it.

The mutations in the parasite (which are the differences between the parasites of one generation to the next - remember, individuals don't evolve) are the things that are selected for by the pressure of the host trying to kill the parasites.

In other words, if some of the parasites are born and they have a variation which means they are BETTER able to survive inside the host, then they will reproduce more than the parasites that do not have that variation. Over many generations, this variation will become more and more widespread throughout the population.

 

[Larniavc]

It could also prepare the parasite for a different host altogether?

No. How would that even work?

 

[Larniavc]

So you admit "coincidence" is possible?

Of course. Coincidences happen all the time.

 

[Gottservant]

Of course. Coincidences happen all the time.

Ok well "coincidence" is of God.

 

[Gottservant]

No. How would that even work?

A different host could have more compatible selection pressures involved (for the parasite to take advantage of).

As I have said "the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum for that survival"

 

[Larniavc]

Ok well "coincidence" is of God.

No it isn’t

 

[Larniavc]

A different host could have more compatible selection pressures involved (for the parasite to take advantage of).

As I have said "the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum for that survival"

That makes no sense. How could what happens in a different host affect parasite?

 

[Gottservant]

That makes no sense. How could what happens in a different host affect parasite?

If the parasite transitions to a new host.

There is a baseline (the species of the host species), and a nuance (the particular individual of the species).

This demonstrates that the evolution of a specific survival, is different from the optimum survival for that evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

Ok, this is the question:

If parasites evolve when their hosts do, why are both evolutions called the same thing (why are they both called "Evolution")?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, this is the question:

The answer is in your question.

You said yourself they both evolved; so why wouldn't it be called "evolution"?

 

[Gottservant]

The answer is in your question.

You said yourself they both evolved; so why wouldn't it be called "evolution"?

Yes, but one is distinct from the other.

You don't see that identifying which has preeminence, is effectual to the Evolution of both?