JavaScriptDonkey wrote:stevecook172001 wrote:[Of course it's's all based on bleeding random mutation JSD. Did you really think I needed telling that.
Perhaps not but you don't seem to understand what it means. That simple knowledge should scream at you about the constant change in progress. The history of extinction (over 99% of all evolved species) should tell you about the relative importance of any one species.
However, the extent to which new forms proliferate is very much dependant on restraining factors within the existing eco-system as well as within the non-organic environment.
So that's you agreeing that species consume resource and breed to the max and to whatever limits are extant.
#And the thing to remember about the restrictions originiating from the rest of the eco-system is that they are dynamic.
That's just another way of saying that change is constant which is in direct opposition to the magic balance theory.
Thus, under such conditions, random mutation that operate within those eco-system restrictions or, even, sustain them will tend to be naturally selected.
There is no 'tend' about it Steve. Species that run out of resources die and those that are left do their best to utilise all the resources for themselves.
No creator, no designer, no intention of any kind required so you really can stop with the aunt sally of accusing those who do not subscribe to your simplistic reading of Darwinism as being fluffy tree huggers.
This is not simplistic Darwinism. This is fundamental Darwinism. Darwin was as much fascinated by extinction as by natural selection. He had a regrettable instinct to ascribe extinct species as more primitive but that reflects the society as much as anything else.
Such interconnected, mutually supportive structures are an inevitable consequence of Darwinian selection pressures in a complex eco-system.
No they are not mutually supportive. They are in competition for limited resources. Species may rely on each for survival but that will not stop them competing for the same resource.
None of this is even that contentious in the field of evolutionary biology JSD and, to the extent that it is, it is certainly not on the basis of your schoolboy understanding of evolution.
Ahh, insults. Now I know you're on thin ice
This is now reasonably mainstream research and was, at least partially, what my degree was about.
Quote me then.
JSD. Apologies for the insult. It was born of frustration. I actually went back and significantly edited and expanded that post (in the absence of knowing about your response) and I urge you to re-read it.
I've included the edited post below:
Of course it''s all based on bleeding random mutation JSD. Did you
really think I needed telling that. Of course such random genetic mutation provides the fuel for new forms. However, during the eon's long periods of ecological equilibrium that lie between violent punctuation events, the
extent to which different forms proliferate is very much dependant on
restraining factors within the existing eco-system as well as within the non-organic environment. And the thing to remember about the restrictions originating from the rest of the eco-system is that they are
dynamic. Thus, under such conditions, random mutations that occur within those eco-system restrictions that sustain or even support them will tend to be naturally selected. Such interconnected, mutually-supportive structures are an
inevitable consequence of Darwinian selection pressures in a complex eco-system. No creator, no designer, no intention of any kind required so you really must stop now with the aunt sally accusations of those who do not subscribe to your hopelessly simplistic reading of Darwinism as being fluffy, anthropomorphising tree huggers.
Of course the tree did not "know" what the rodent needed, of course the rodent did not "know" what the tree needed. But, over considerable eons of time time and in an ever more complex eco-system, such inter-connected and inter-supportive relationships build up nonetheless. Which is precisely why I have made the endless point about how this should all be viewed "as if" it implies motives when in fact, life has no motive at all.
I repeat, life is not loving, life is not kind, life is not caring, life is not even selfish or cruel. Life is non of these human constructs. Life just
is and it evolves according to what best fits a given environment. If a given genetic mutation causes a phenotyopic expression that takes the form of causing the organism to stand on its head and stick it's thumb up its arse, you can bet that if such a behaviour causes its reproductive success to rise it will increase in frequency. If, on the other hand, reproductive success is best served in another environment by ripping out the throat of the guy stood next to you, you can bet this will be the dominant form in short order. In other words, life has no "preference" for one strategy over another. Indeed it has no preferences of any kind. To repeat, it just
is. In an environment where the rest of the eco system will punish a given phenotype, you can bet that the alternatives will proliferate. Even if (and this is extremely important to understand) those alternative forms have less potential to proliferate than another form. This is because the other form never gets off the ground and so the strategy that is eventually the dominant one is always only ever the optimal one given all of the eco-system constraints I mentioned.
None of this is even that contentious in the field of evolutionary biology JSD and, to the extent that it is, it is certainly not on the basis of your limited understanding of evolution. This is now reasonably mainstream research and was, at least partially, what my degree was about. Finally, you have singularly failed to address a single aspect of the question posed to you. It would appear that this is because you have failed to understand the question as indicated by the fact you seem to think it is evidence of anthropomorphism when in fact it is evidence of the complete opposite.
I'm going to spell this out from the gene up so there can be no misunderstanding:
The fundamental unit of replication is the gene
Genes have effects in the world known as phenotype effects. From now on, I will refer to them as genotype and phenotype respectively.
Genes are not selected directly, but indirectly according to the replicatory success of the phenotype they have created.
Ultimately, the bottleneck through which nearly all genes must pass is that of sexual selection, otherwise known as meiosis. They must pass through this bottleneck in order to lever themselves into a successive generation of phenotype that will hold them in safe storage until the next bottleneck.
However, only very few genes are actually involved in the business of creating specific phenotypic effects that directly control the process of meiosis. To that extent, most genes must hitch a ride during meiosis. Straight away, it can be seen that any gene that hinders the actions of meiosis controlling genes is going to be severely punished. The way this happens is pretty simple. If a "bad" gene acts in such a way as to compromise meiosis, it will perish along with all of the copies of the "good" genes. However genes exist as copies in many phenotypes and so whilst the good genes may occasionally find themselves in "bad company", each time they do not they get to go forwards through the bottleneck into the next generation. Over time, the "bad" genes get weeded out.
Now the thing to remember here is that the bad genes were not really "bad". They were just doing what genes do. That is to say, they were randomly mutating and those mutations that cause them to proliferate will be become more frequent. It's as simple as that. In the case of these genes not directly involved in coding for controlling the process of meiosis only those that act to "support" the meiotic process will prosper themselves
The next thing to understand about genes is their phenotype effects are
whatever effects in the world that exist as a function of their influence and whose existence has an impact on their future replication success. To that extent, it is an entirely arbitrary distinction to assume all phenotypic effects are limited to the specific physicality of the organism that has been directly grown by the genes' instruction. Such phenotypic effects can, in fact, extend far out into the world beyond the mere immediate physical cell walls of the organism. For example, a termite mound is as much a phenotypic effect of termite genes as are the termites themselves. Also, it might be best to think of the termites in a termite mound a single meta-organism because all of the termites are basically clones. If we want to get more strange, then take a look at cuckoo chicks. They have a gaping red mouth that the host parents find irresistible. Consequently, they feed the cuckoo chick far more than their own chicks. Thus, for the period that the chick is in their nest, their behaviour is at least partially an extended phenotypic effect of the cuckoo genes.
The basic point here is that phenotypic effects of genes are all over the place. Sometimes they are very simple and direct as in the case of bacteria or, more controversially, viruses (some argue that viruses are not actually alive, though I do not subscribe to this view). Sometimes they are complicated and rely on a collaboration between many genes in a collective endeavour to lever themselves down through the generations in giant lumbering survival machines they have built around themselves. These survival machines are more commonly known as organisms. However, phenotypic effects can also occur at a distance from the genes deep in to the environment, both the organic and non organic. Obviously, as well as collaborations, genes compete with other genes, both as individual entities and also as collaborative entities. And remember, selection acts on
phenotypes, in the first instance. It is only
indirectly that genes are selected. Phenotypes are nearly always compound entities that are the result of genetic collaboration (the organism being the most blindingly obvious example). Thus, when selection occurs, it is nearly always of gene
complexes (as expressed in a multicellular or, even, extended phenotype of multi-gene origin) and rarely of individual genes.
The central problem with your simplistic view of endless competition is that it cannot even explain the existence of
organisms without pulling out of a hat an arbitrary cut-off point at which genes may collaborate in the form of compound phenotypic effects only up to and including an individual organism, but no further. However, we already
know that genes have extended phenotypic effects that can be both diffuse and remote.
Life, as soon as it reaches any level of complexity above the most simple replicator
inevitably involves genetic collaboration. Genes don't collaborate because they "want" to, though. They collaborate because those mutations that are collaborative
tend to be more successful. As a consequence of all of the above, there is simply no logical reason why we should not expect to see such collaborative phenotypic structures
at all levels of life
I am not denying the principles of Darwinian selection. I am doing precisely the opposite. I am saying that such principles apply
wherever there exists phenotypic entities (singular, extended, compound or otherwise) of sufficient coherence to be subject to selection pressures and that those selection pressures can select for collaborative as well as competitive structures.
