Natural selection challenged?

[Billy T]

Therefore the dogs and the wheat have adapted through natural selection to be fit for the environment in which they are emplaced. The source of this environment is irrelevant: it just happens to be man made.

I guess that is a correct POV for the short term; however, as I stated in post 19, I believe the correct focus is not only on the transfer of "more fit genes" to the NEXT generation, but to "many, many generations" of the future. I.e. what you call "more fit" is often the first step to extinction without even any life form having evolved from that briefly well adapted (or fit creature)

For example, the lap dogs seen in the old painting of French aristocratic ladies were in the short term very well adapted, but now exist no more. I do not think being fit or well adapted, should be associated with transitory fashion etc., but more with the ability to survive for "many, many generations" in the wild, i.e. without having its existence depend upon "fashion support." I have no objection to "co-evolution adaptation" (for example as flowers and bees have) as this is not a transitory fashion preference, but a real mutual symbiotic aid to both mutually adapting partners.

What I am trying to distinguish is "adaptations" that are based on human transitory preference (or "fashion") from "real adaptations" that select for better viability for "many, many generations." I admit that there is no sharp division and that our disagreement is only about the time scales. (In the extremely long term, nothing is well adapted as the environment is changed.)*

Thus in an effort to be more precise, let me suggest that the "environment" to be adapted to for "many, many generations" is one that can be considered "static" as it does not on the average differ during those "many, many generations."

To put this into current context, many think the average temperature of the Earth is changing and some creatures are "adapting" but possibly those changes are not "real adaptations" if the Earth begins to cool again. Hard to be clear where we differ, but I hope you understand. I consider a "real adaptation" one that sends genes into the distant future. For example, the dinosaur genes, although modified, are now in the birds, but the genes of many humanoid creatures are not in man or another life form. The "tree of life" has had a lot of "pruning" - many limbs with many branches have not left any genes in life forms existent today. While these limbs appeared to be "adapting" and forming many different branches on this now cut-off limb, those "adaptations" were not "real adaptation"

----------------------------------
*Back when I was more active against development of nuclear weapons, especially the very destabilizing MIRVed ABM, I often though that on the time scale I am considering for "true adaptations" nature's experiment with a large cortex in the brain was a very mal adapted development. (I was a supporter of the Polaris sub launched ABM as “second best” until all found and accepted non-violent means to settle disputes. Unfortunately, that adaptation is still “many, many generations” away.)

 

[guthrie]

I.e. what you call "more fit" is often the first step to extinction without even any life form having evolved from that briefly well adapted (or fit creature)

That is a point that Creationists and naieve anti-evolution people, not to mention under educated people who think evolution is correct, often overlook. Fitness is by reference to the current environment. The organism has no knowledge of the future, so cannot adapt to what might occur later on.

 

[2inquisitive]

guthrie,

Fitness is by reference to the current environment. The organism has no knowledge of the future, so cannot adapt to what might occur later on.

Sure they do. For instance, bears and snakes have adapted the ability to hibernate due to climate change and food shortages in the winter. My dog still sheads her winter coat in preparation of summer heat, even though she lives in a controlled enviroment inside my house.

 

[Kumar]

Natural selection, if on improving surrvival also improve origional health or distort it? Are we more healthy that so called adam & eve's constitutions?

Whether new mutations, resistances and tollerances add to health or just add to surrvival at the cost of health?

 

[Dinosaur]

Evolution, natural selection, mutation should not be thought of as creating order.

A living creature resists the increase of entropy (until it ages) by utilizing external energy sources. Thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

Even if there were no mutations, natural selection, et cetera, a living creature would maintain (and for while increase order) in itself via utilization of external energy and at the cost of increased entropy (decreased order) external to itself.

 

[Ophiolite]

“ Fitness is by reference to the current environment. The organism has no knowledge of the future, so cannot adapt to what might occur later on.

.Sure they do. For instance, bears and snakes have adapted the ability to hibernate due to climate change and food shortages in the winter. My dog still sheads her winter coat in preparation of summer heat, even though she lives in a controlled enviroment inside my house.

Nonsense. All the examples you have cited are adaptations to conditions in the past. If conditions remain stable, then these conditions will be repeated in the future. The point guthrie made is that future changes are wholly unpredictable.

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

... I haven't read the paper yet...

... but I think that it is far more likely that that "survival/spread of the fittest" could also be seen, thermodinamically, as "superior reproduction of the thermodinamically optimal chain-reaction variants" or something fancier and more correct...

To me seems that fitness advantage can be reasonably seen as a tendency to keep oneself out of thermodynamic equilibrium (meaning death). Exceptions to that, when individuals have shorter lifespan (or shorter thermodynamic disequilibrium period) would be explained with extended fitness, i.e., the total offspring of a certain variant with shorter thermodynamic disequilibrium would have more thermodynamic disequilibrium than the offspring of those with longer lifespans.

If I haven't got thermodynamics wrong, the maintenance in a state of thermodynamic disequilibrium or "internal low entropy" requires compensation in "external entropy"... resulting from that that fittest variants would cummulatively tend to produce more external entropy than less fitter ones.

But that is yet more rephrasing natural selection in terms of thermodynamics than giving another causal explanation other than natural selection, or explaining a deeper cause of natural selection... or at least that's what it seems to me up to now.

 

[Billy T]

... the maintenance in a state of thermodynamic disequilibrium or "internal low entropy" requires compensation in "external entropy"... resulting from that that fittest variants would cummulatively tend to produce more external entropy than less fitter ones.
But that is yet more rephrasing natural selection in terms of thermodynamics than giving another causal explanation other than natural selection, or explaining a deeper cause of natural selection... or at least that's what it seems to me up to now.

Interesting observation and does seem to challenge evolution, except for the fact that evolutionary selection makes zero attempt to look ahead. E.g. the fact that humans are like a cancer on the Earth, destroying many of her finest works and the environment, possibly to such an extent that all life may disappear from Earth* is of no concern to "mother nature."

Even politicians at least look ahead to the next election - Mother nature has zero foresight - does not care if one of her developments makes the Earth sterile*, etc. She just "rolls the dice" and see what comes up and if it can propagate into the next generation. History is full of her "wrecks" that could not. The big cortex creature my be the next wreck, but surely will (and is) taking a lot of others down with it.
---------------------------------
*There is slim change, but definitely not zero chance, that it is already too late to avoid Earth becoming a "Cooler Version of Venus." I.e. a place with very high pressure steam atmosphere as the ocean slowly boil away. (Because of the pressure, the surface temperature will be more than 120 degrees C. Thousands of years will be required to completely remove all liquid water as their heat capacity is so large.)

The way this may happen is if the methane hydrates on the near-shore ocean floor and melting Artic lands decompose in a positive feed-back loop system with greater than unity gain. Some are decomposing now, but the loop gain is well below unity still. The CO2 being released increases the loop gain. Never before in the world's history has fossil carbon been dumped so rapidly into the atmosphere. By observation, it is being dumped much more rapidly than natural processes (mainly by dissolving in the oceans, which dissolve less as they warm - part of the positive feed back) are removing the CO2 released by the "big cortex creature" **- perhaps Mother nature's greatest ever evolutionary mistake.

**That is probably how the anthropologists visiting Earth a 100,000 years from now will call humans, if any of our skulls still remain as fossils.

 

[Billy T]

As a general rule, the people who believe in the "Intelligent Designer" are either just ignorant or not very bright, but there are quite a few exceptions to this general rule. None, however, have put forth a significant challenge to evolution, so I will help them out a little:

Woman live significantly longer than men yet on average have no useful purpose that men could not do after about and average age of 35 to 40. (Caring for children is not inherently an "only-women-can-do-it" task.) Certainly they are of no direct use to evolution for more than half their life. Men in contrast are biologically directly useful to evolution at least twice as long.

Would there not be more opportunities for evolutionary development* and no greater stress on the food supply, 1/3 greater number of useful genes in the gene pool, etc. if two women were born, on average, for every man but they only lived half as long?

In some thread, I told of an experiment testing "selection of the fittest" with fish. A few of the smaller of two types living below a water fall were moved above it and in about 20 years they had selected for later sexual maturity and laid many more eggs, compared to the same small fish still below the falls, who had to lay eggs before being eating by the larger fish, even if only able to lay a few eggs. If fish can optimize / adapt in 20 years why have humans not in 200,000!

As a male, I like the idea of twice as many young women looking for mates.
-----------------------------
*Fertile wombs are the "bottleneck" on the rate of evolutionary "progress." It could easily be doubled with no ill effects and even increasing genetic diversity by 1/3 in the same size population. Why has this not happened in all of human history? Are humans more than 10,000 times less able to adapt than fish?

 

[Billy T]

As evolution´s natural selection is a fact, there are no "significant challenges," just as there are no "significant challenges" to 2+3=5. My post 29 is no exception. It just appears to be a serious flaw in evolution theory (More so, I think, than any others genuine IDers have sugggested. Why I thought I should help them out a little.).

I will wait a few days more to see if anyone explains why there are not twice as many women living half as long. If no one does, I will.

Hint: Assume it was true, then note how quickly the current suituation is genetically restablished with number of men slightly more than women born so that age of sexual maturity they are equal in numbers.)

 

[MetaKron]

Post-menopausal women help improve the chances of survival of the children.

 

[Billy T]

Post-menopausal women help improve the chances of survival of the children.

Do you have any reason to think that men could not do this as well as post-menopausal women, or even that any service they do for children is worth the food and other resouces they consume in 30 or 40 years while totally useless geneticly?

I think you are just stating a common opinion, without any factual basis. If I am wrong, show your evidence.

I will tell the real genetic reason why there are not twice as many young women as men in a day or two more.

 

[iceaura]

There is always the "grandmother effect", as a reasonable explanation: http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/Papers/Hawkes04N&VLahdenpera.pdf.

It so happens that in animals that normally require long childhoods of maternal and community care, there appears to be a large advantage in total reproductive success to a long period of non-reproductive maternal life. People, whales, etc.

 

[Billy T]

There is always the "grandmother effect", as a reasonable explanation...

I do not doubt that grandmothers facilitate survival of their grandchildren and perhaps even the increase the number of children their children have. Since women do live long past their fertile years, it is probably true that on average grandmothers are worth the food and other resources they require.

My main point (trying to be helpful to the IDers) challenging natural selection was why are there not more women than men born. This would provide more opportunities for evolution to experiment / develop etc and as it is not true appears to be a challenge to natural selection. My suggestion of twice as many women with half the life expectancy was made just to keep the total demand for food (and other resources) essentially unchanged. (Keep it a simple argument. Half the life expectancy is not actually part of the challenge.)

The core of the "challenge" is: Why not more women than men to reduce the main "bottleneck" (fertile wombs tied up for 9 months) to rate of "evolutionary developments" ? The 2 to 1 ratio was also just to keep the problem simple.

I will now tell why this is a "false challenge" (as all challenges must be since natural Darwinian selection evolution is a universal fact for all life forms with sex and "genes" just as 2 + 3 = 5 is universally true and can not be successfully challenged.):
Assume that 2 to 1 ratio were the case and consider two women, A & B. A is a normal (under the assumption) Average woman who on averge will give birth to twice as many girls as boys, but B is genetic mutation. Her genetic makeup causes her to have equal probability of Both sexes. To keep things easy assume A and B both have 12 children that live to give grand children: (8Ga is compact notation for 8 Girls born of A, etc.) I.e. their reproducing children are: 8Ga, 6Gb, 4Ba & 6Bb. Thus B has put her genes into the next generation in 50% more boys than A.

Does a set of genes in a boy or the genes in a girl have greater chance of making it into the generation that are the grandchildren of A & B?

Those in a boy is the obvious answer, and I will show why in next paragraph, but first lets understand what this means or proves. It means that there is greater representation of B´s genes in the grandchildren generation and then in later generation an even higher percent of B genes than A's genes. I.e. the assumed 2 to 1 case rapidly evolves by natural genetic mechanism to towards the roughly* 1 to 1 ratio we observe because only 1 to 1 is stable. Excess of either girls or boys at age of sexual activity is unstable.

Now here, as promised, is why genes in a boy make it into the next generation with higher probability than the genes in a girl. The simple reason is that wombs are the bottleneck. Now mater what she does it takes at least 90 months for girl to leave have her genes sent forward 10 times, but in this same period, on average if there are two girls for every boy the boys genes will be sent forward 20 times. As the boy girl ratio approaches 1 to 1 the boy advantage goes to zero. -That is why there can not stably be 2 girls for every boy.

Occasionally a "King Harold" will come along (as at the time of Christ birth and kill boys, or a genetic mutation disposed to make the 2 to 1 girl to boy ratio) but eventual the laws of probability will restore the boy to girl ratio to 1 to 1 during the fertile period as only that is stable. It is as simple as that why the twice as many girls as boys idea is NO CHALLENGE to natural selection.
-----------------------------
*Because pre-puberty boys have higher natural death rate than girls, slight more live births are in fact boys to make boy girl ratio 1 to 1 during their fertile period. It would be very interesting to see if this excess of boys is smaller in regions, such as China, where female infanticide has long been practiced.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now here, as promised, is why genes in a boy make it into the next generation with higher probability than the genes in a girl. The simple reason is that wombs are the bottleneck. Now mater what she does it takes at least 90 months for girl to leave have her genes sent forward 10 times, but in this same period, on average if there are two girls for every boy the boys genes will be sent forward 20 times. As the boy girl ratio approaches 1 to 1 the boy advantage goes to zero. -That is why there can not stably be 2 girls for every boy.

So what about elephant seals?

 

[Athena]

It seems odd that natural selection could be not survival of the fittest, but arrival at the likeliest, but Dewar thinks just that. Recently, for example, he and his colleagues showed that the structure and workings of the ATP synthase enzyme are predictable using MEP theory [8]—that being an efficient generator of cellular fuel and an efficient leveler of energy gradients are one and the same.

I'ma little fuzzy on entropy details. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's free energy, right? Meaning that it's form of energy becoming more disordered.
ATP synthase creates ATP (hence the name, obviously) through a chemical gradient and an electronegative gradient of hydrogen ions across the cristae of mitochondria. Is this not an endogonic reaction? and thus a more ordered product?
I understand it being a "leveler" of energy gradients-thus the facilitated diffusion- but what does that have to do with entropy?
Maybe I just misunderstand the MEP theory?

 

[Ophiolite]

So what about elephant seals?

It was a serious qwuestion BillyT.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Thermodynamics plays a role in evolution, but does not necessarily mandate an end result. A snow flake could be unique despite the water which comprises it.

 

[peta9]

Natural selection is far from perfect. There are so many other factors that affect it both positive and negative. Natural selection can also select in favor of inferior traits if the conditions let it. Just take a good look around at faulty humans of which much of it is can be considered quite gross.

Take for instance people who have poor vision or would be considered legally blind if not for corrective lenses. Do these people have less ability or gifts than others? Maybe this trait evolved from prolonged detailed work or poor diet. Many nearsighted people are very good at detailed or precise work.

Take a great golfer such as Tiger Woods who in the past wouldn't have had a chance because he would be legally blind, he even said so (nearsighted). But he has so many other wonderful qualities or talents.

 

[Billy T]

So what about elephant seals?

Sorry to be slow in reply - my computer crashed and most of my time was trying to rebuild it. I do not know about elephant seals, but assume that they (as is true of many creatures, especially bees) do not have equal population of both sexes during their reproductive period (or you would not be asking the question).

It is true that social system can greatly change/ destroy this equality. A more accurate statement of what produces the equal that does often result is:

Evolution will adjust the number of each sex born so the the probability of both sexes passing their genes down into the next generation is the same.

For example, I think that in a lion pride, there is one male and many females it mates with. Thus, if the lion female give birth to a male, that male is not as likely to pass its genes on as if she gives birth to a female if both males and females were born in the same numbers, which I assume for the moment only.

Consequently, the "mutant female" lion who happens to have genes* that make her give birth to more females than males (a "mutant female" if equal births were normally true) has a better change that her "mutant genes" will be passed down to the next generation and the one after that etc. I.e. in a social setting where only one male mates with many females, then probability will in a few dozen generations make that "mutant female" the "norm" - I.e.the gene pool will adjust such that more females than males are born. I do not know this is the case with lions, but bet it is; however, there are other factors also. For example, the non-alpha males dwelling out side of the pride do occasionally mate in the pride, and may help protect the entire pride. None the less, I would be surprised to learn that a female lion gives birth to as many males as females on the average.
-------------------
* I know that the only the male has both the X & Y so that in the simple minded POV, the female has nothing to do with the determination of the sex of the offspring; however, that is the "simple view." The environment that the sperm swim thru is fatal to most and selective. The egg itself is selective as to which of the dozen or so sperm on its surface will be allowed to enter, etc. - there are probably other factors, still unknown which do allow the female genes to directly influence the sex ratio at birth. Even if there were not, she can give half the genes to the male she give birth to who has both X & Y and send her "better chance" gene down indirectly. -but this is more complicated to explain in detail.

Did I guess what you were asking correctly? If yes, did I answer it OK from your POV?