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

[Gottservant]

You're still not making sense. What is an example of negative evolution, in your mind?

A creature adapted for hills, plains and valleys, is less fit than a creature adapted greatly for hills - on the assumption that the greatest creature of the hills wants to mate with him.

Another example might be, a creature who has hundreds of refinements of a particular niche, who then changes his niche to a more encouraging one - he is fitter for the new niche, if he eliminates his refined adaptations for the previous niche (and focuses on refinements, for the current niche).

Another example might be, developing an adaptation by way of mutation and then discovering that you will survive without the influence of the mutation, because you negate the refinements most connected with it (without reverting to the influence of the mutation).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're not making sense?

The fittest of the fit, is fitter?

Animals are choosier, if anything??

No, what I said was simple English and easily understandable. It's not my fault that you don't understand basic evolutionary science and biology to understand it. But I'll do my best to parse it down for you.

Being choosy about a mate is something that only humans are able to do because we have the mental capacity to see more than just the basic necessities for survival. Other animals don't have that mental capacity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A creature adapted for hills, plains and valleys, is less fit than a creature adapted greatly for hills - on the assumption that the greatest creature of the hills wants to mate with him.

Another example might be, a creature who has hundreds of refinements of a particular niche, who then changes his niche to a more encouraging one - he is fitter for the new niche, if he eliminates his refined adaptations for the previous niche (and focuses on refinements, for the current niche).

Another example might be, developing an adaptation by way of mutation and then discovering that you will survive without the influence of the mutation, because you negate the refinements most connected with it (without reverting to the influence of the mutation).

No, you're still not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[Gottservant]

No, what I said was simple English and easily understandable. It's not my fault that you don't understand basic evolutionary science and biology to understand it. But I'll do my best to parse it down for you.

Being choosy about a mate is something that only humans are able to do because we have the mental capacity to see more than just the basic necessities for survival. Other animals don't have that mental capacity.

Hubris.

Animals have blood? water?

The Devil - the serpent - spoke? Balaam's donkey spoke?

 

[Gottservant]

No, you're still not making any sense whatsoever.

I give you three examples and you say "they are ubiquitously wrong" - without attempting to qualify in what way they are wrong?

There is no limit to how adapted you can be, if there is no negative?

The choice to occupy an easier, lighter niche, is not adaptive in its own right??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hubris.

Animals have blood? water?

The Devil - the serpent - spoke? Balaam's donkey spoke?

It's not hubris. It's fact. Humans have a larger mental factor than virtually all other animals. The fact that we're communicating, as we are, on the internet, shows that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I give you three examples and you say "they are ubiquitously wrong" - without attempting to qualify in what way they are wrong?

There is no limit to how adapted you can be, if there is no negative?

The choice to occupy an easier, lighter niche, is not adaptive in its own right??

I didn't say they were ubiquitously wrong, and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth, I said that you weren't making sense.

There is, biologically, no real upward limit to evolutionary adaptions, mainly because many mutations are rendered as passive, as in, not doing anything until they are activated by certain outside pressures dependent on environment.

You need to stop looking at evolutionary adaptations as something that creatures choose to do. 9 times out 10, the adaptations are forced on the animals through circumstances outside of their control through changes in environment. Which, if you'd made an attempt to study evolutionary science, would be something you'd already understand.

 

[Gottservant]

I didn't say they were ubiquitously wrong, and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth, I said that you weren't making sense.

If I'm not making sense, and you are the judge, how has my not making sense, empowered you (As that judge)?

There is, biologically, no real upward limit to evolutionary adaptions, mainly because many mutations are rendered as passive, as in, not doing anything until they are activated by certain outside pressures dependent on environment.

Deliberately culling adaptations is more effective, than waiting for chance.

You need to stop looking at evolutionary adaptations as something that creatures choose to do. 9 times out 10, the adaptations are forced on the animals through circumstances outside of their control through changes in environment. Which, if you'd made an attempt to study evolutionary science, would be something you'd already understand.

You allow an animal to be forced, but not a force to be animal?

The problem is, you allow an animal to be tested by greater and greater selection pressure, but not allow subtraction - subtraction which would allow the animal to be indifferent to selection pressures that do not have enough to shape the species greatly.

How do animals become great at what they do, if you continue to insist that they mutate first? You realize that the degree to which a creature can compete has more to do with Evolution, than spreading your Evolutionary nest egg??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I'm not making sense, and you are the judge, how has my not making sense, empowered you (As that judge)?



Deliberately culling adaptations is more effective, than waiting for chance.



You allow an animal to be forced, but not a force to be animal?

The problem is, you allow an animal to be tested by greater and greater selection pressure, but not allow subtraction - subtraction which would allow the animal to be indifferent to selection pressures that do not have enough to shape the species greatly.

How do animals become great at what they do, if you continue to insist that they mutate first? You realize that the degree to which a creature can compete has more to do with Evolution, than spreading your Evolutionary nest egg??

Gottservant, I'm not going to reply to anything you've said here, because it's still clear that you do not understand anything about evolution.

Seriously, leave this forum for a while, go online and actually read some of the many thousand easy to read documents on the theory of evolution.

And stop thinking of evolution as something like a religion, deity or even a being. It's not. Evolution is a fact of nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Positive Evolution: adding adaptations, to the species.

Negative Evolution: subtracting adaptations, from the species.

I don't see anything significantly wrong with these statements. By negative adaptions being subtracted, I assume you're talking about evolution removing deleterious features (prior adaptations, perhaps) from a population.

I see nothing wrong with these, but both are just "evolution". Evolution can work by "rewarding" beneficial features (or adaptations) and "punishing" harmful ones. (I put those in quotes, because these are not personified forces, but just the impact of the environment on survival.)

Positive Evolution pros: greater variety, more consistent pressure.
Positive Evolution cons: less certainty, possibly overkill.

Negative Evolution pros: stronger essentials, less provoked.
Negative Evolution cons: possibly over repeated, less enthusiastic.

This doesn't make any sense.

So you see, there are reasons for both. The manner in which it is a choice, remains open to question - but if they exist at all "positive" or "negative" they can be adapted to: there is no exclusively consequent adaptation, in most cases.

IT. IS. NOT. A. CHOICE!!!!

Evolution is mindless. It does not have a purpose.

It's just populations of creatures being advantaged or disadvantaged because of their genetic expression within the environment where they are living.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Deliberately culling adaptations is more effective, than waiting for chance.

That's called "artificial selection". It is the primary mechanism for traditional plant and animal breeding. Humans have been doing this for at least 10,000 years. It's where most of our food species come from in their modern form: fruit trees, grains, meat/milk/work animals, pets, landscape plants, etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hubris.

Animals have blood? water?

The Devil - the serpent - spoke? Balaam's donkey spoke?

I'm not sure what blood and fables have to do with either this topic or your "counterargument".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A creature adapted for hills, plains and valleys, is less fit than a creature adapted greatly for hills - on the assumption that the greatest creature of the hills wants to mate with him.

This seems to mix natural selection with sexual selection - which does happen, but so what?

Another example might be, a creature who has hundreds of refinements of a particular niche, who then changes his niche to a more encouraging one - he is fitter for the new niche, if he eliminates his refined adaptations for the previous niche (and focuses on refinements, for the current niche).

Many creatures lose previously advantageous adaptations when they change to a new niche, e.g. many creatures have lost legs or eyes they once had because they became disadvantageous. This is generally viewed positively because it gives them an advantage in their new niche.

Another example might be, developing an adaptation by way of mutation and then discovering that you will survive without the influence of the mutation, because you negate the refinements most connected with it (without reverting to the influence of the mutation).

I can't make sense of this - how about giving a hypothetical example?

 

[Gottservant]

This seems to mix natural selection with sexual selection - which does happen, but so what?

Many creatures lose previously advantageous adaptations when they change to a new niche, e.g. many creatures have lost legs or eyes they once had because they became disadvantageous. This is generally viewed positively because it gives them an advantage in their new niche.

I can't make sense of this - how about giving a hypothetical example?

A hypothetical example, might be that you discover both your parents had an outdated adaptation, which you are able to simply update: on the assumption that you will get more choices of mate - by simply beginning with negation of your parents adaptations, in that respect.

That is a negation.

A negation does not necessarily debilitate, an individual.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A hypothetical example, might be that you discover both your parents had an outdated adaptation, which you are able to simply update: on the assumption that you will get more choices of mate - by simply beginning with negation of your parents adaptations, in that respect.

That is a negation.

A negation does not necessarily debilitate, an individual.

But you can't negate adaptations your parents have because they will pass on to you, because the child always carries the mutations from their parents, either as passive or active genes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A hypothetical example, might be that you discover both your parents had an outdated adaptation, which you are able to simply update: on the assumption that you will get more choices of mate - by simply beginning with negation of your parents adaptations, in that respect.

That is a negation.

A negation does not necessarily debilitate, an individual.

Evolution, in general, doesn't work that way. 'Outdated' adaptations are not necessarily deleterious and the vast majority of creatures are not aware of such things, they just live with what they've got.

The relatively few organisms with high-level cognition may be able to work-around what might otherwise be deleterious adaptations to some degree, but that simply means that their flexibility makes the potentially deleterious adaptations less deleterious, or neutral. Unless the majority of individuals in the population had similar adaptive flexibility, the potentially deleterious adaptations would not persist in the population; and if they did have the same flexibility, those adaptations would be less deleterious, or neutral, in the population.

A heritable adaptation is not, of itself, deleterious, neutral, or beneficial; its influence is contingent.

 

[Gottservant]

I have got a concrete example:

if every subsequent development - to a species -, was more of a fad (such that you had a series of "fads" on the basis of, a particular change in allele frequencies) - it would make sense to negate the evolution that was propelling their advent.

this would enable you to focus "evolution" on things that were not "fads".

how would you deal with "fad" after "fad", if you couldn't negate a given "evolution"? Or are you just counting on the evolutional wave to do what it hasn't already??

Take a look at the monkeys that got rewarded with a banana if they climbed to the top of a ladder; the reward was taken away and new monkeys introduced, and they still climbed the ladder, because that was the culture - they did not evaluate the old behaviour as a danger to their evolution, but rather an example of their status: now their behaviour has been reported, as a joke (not adapted)!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have got a concrete example:

if every subsequent development - to a species -, was more of a fad (such that you had a series of "fads" on the basis of, a particular change in allele frequencies) - it would make sense to negate the evolution that was propelling their advent.

this would enable you to focus "evolution" on things that were not "fads".

how would you deal with "fad" after "fad", if you couldn't negate a given "evolution"? Or are you just counting on the evolutional wave to do what it hasn't already??

Take a look at the monkeys that got rewarded with a banana if they climbed to the top of a ladder; the reward was taken away and new monkeys introduced, and they still climbed the ladder, because that was the culture - they did not evaluate the old behaviour as a danger to their evolution, but rather an example of their status: now their behaviour has been reported, as a joke (not adapted)!

Making no sense, whatsoever, as per usual.
Evolution and adaptation are not 'fads'. They are biological responses to changes in environments and pressures on an organic population.

Seriously: LEARN THE SCIENCE!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have got a concrete example:

if every subsequent development - to a species -, was more of a fad (such that you had a series of "fads" on the basis of, a particular change in allele frequencies) - it would make sense to negate the evolution that was propelling their advent.

this would enable you to focus "evolution" on things that were not "fads".

how would you deal with "fad" after "fad", if you couldn't negate a given "evolution"? Or are you just counting on the evolutional wave to do what it hasn't already??

Take a look at the monkeys that got rewarded with a banana if they climbed to the top of a ladder; the reward was taken away and new monkeys introduced, and they still climbed the ladder, because that was the culture - they did not evaluate the old behaviour as a danger to their evolution, but rather an example of their status: now their behaviour has been reported, as a joke (not adapted)!

I don't know what you mean by a 'fad' in evolutionary terms. Can you explain? A particular change in allele frequencies doesn't spread through the population unless it is advantageous or effectively neutral.

Can you explain the relevance of the monkey experiment you describe? Do you have a reference for it? your present description is too vague to comment on.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know what you mean by a 'fad' in evolutionary terms. Can you explain?

A "fad" is any adaptation, that is not life critical.

Can you explain the relevance of the monkey experiment you describe? Do you have a reference for it? your present description is too vague to comment on.

Look up "monkey ladder experiment". I may have confused 'rewarding with a banana', with 'punishing for a banana' - sorry.

The point is the same, there is a cultural shift, which in other circumstances would be irrelevant (if the monkeys were released from the experiment into the wild: they would need to exercise negative Evolution).