Where is evolution taking us?

[skepticalbip]

That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it.

The moths that were born with the darker shades on the normal distribution of hues for the species had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again, their offspring that were in darker shade of hue distribution had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again and again the darker hued moths were more successful in passing on their genes through reproduction, shifting the whole normal distribution to darker hues.

If not for natural selection (part of the evolutionary process) selecting for the successful reproduction of those moths that were darker in coloration, the species would not have changed to a darker hued moth.

This seems to me to be a case of genetic drift rather than random mutation, but it is still the process of evolution.

It was successive reproduction with natural selection favoring the darker hues that caused the change. The shift to darker hues was not not due to longevity.


This reminds me of an old one liner joke about evolution... "If your parents didn't have children then chances are you won't either."

You don't have even the slightest understanding of the evolutionary process, I mean not even a clue.

What you wrote above was ignorant and embarrassing.

The moths born with darker colours did not have a better chance of reproducing. Their chances of reproducing where exactly the same as the lighter coloured moths.

The only difference between the two was that lighter coloured moths had a greater chance of being spotted and eaten by predators, ie, non survival. Didn't you even read what I wrote.

Exactly. The lighter moths that are eaten by hungry birds so they do not have a chance to reproduce and pass on their genes to offspring because they will not have any. Meanwhile the darker moths that aren't eaten do reproduce and pass on their genes.

The light and dark colours would have had the same number of offspring per head.

After the clean air act of 1956 the soot disappeared from the trees and the numbers of dark and light coloured moths balanced up again to what it had been before the industrial revolution. So much for your Nonsensical claim of successful reproduction.

Right. The trees lost their coating of soot and the original color of the bark returned making the darker moths easier to be spotted and eaten before they could reproduce at the same rate as the light moths. Evolution now favored the lighter moths so the genetic drift was reversed through the same process of passing on the trait of lighter coloring generation after generation.

Also you seem to think that this was two different species of moths. It wasn't. It was one species. It is noteworthy because it is a good illustration of evolutionary change in a species driven by natural selection.

You really are clueless on these matters.

As I said earlier, "That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it."

 

[Keith&Co.]

West, exactly what do you think 'selecting for reproductive success' means?
It seems to me that you think it's something to do with how many eggs laid per clutch? Or having triplets instead of single kids in a litter?
Could you define what you think it is that needs to be rejected?

That might help clear things up, rather than accusations of the density of ignorance on the forum.

 

[West]

You don't have even the slightest understanding of the evolutionary process, I mean not even a clue.

What you wrote above was ignorant and embarrassing.

The moths born with darker colours did not have a better chance of reproducing. Their chances of reproducing where exactly the same as the lighter coloured moths.

The only difference between the two was that lighter coloured moths had a greater chance of being spotted and eaten by predators, ie, non survival. Didn't you even read what I wrote.

Exactly. The lighter moths that are eaten by hungry birds so they do not have a chance to reproduce and pass on their genes to offspring because they will not have any. Meanwhile the darker moths that aren't eaten do reproduce and pass on their genes.

The light and dark colours would have had the same number of offspring per head.

After the clean air act of 1956 the soot disappeared from the trees and the numbers of dark and light coloured moths balanced up again to what it had been before the industrial revolution. So much for your Nonsensical claim of successful reproduction.

Right. The trees lost their coating of soot and the original color of the bark returned making the darker moths easier to be spotted and eaten before they could reproduce at the same rate as the light moths. Evolution now favored the lighter moths so the genetic drift was reversed through the same process of passing on the trait of lighter coloring generation after generation.

Also you seem to think that this was two different species of moths. It wasn't. It was one species. It is noteworthy because it is a good illustration of evolutionary change in a species driven by natural selection.

You really are clueless on these matters.

As I said earlier, "That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it."

Debating with you is like debating with a young earth creationist. You deny reality like they do. Your argument is so absurd I'm sure you're trolling.

The reproductive rate between the 2 sets of moths was the same.

The ONLY rate that differs between the 2 is the death rate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The reproductive rate between the 2 sets of moths was the same.

The ONLY rate that differs between the 2 is the death rate.

And the reproductive rate of dead moths is...?

 

[West]

The reproductive rate between the 2 sets of moths was the same.

The ONLY rate that differs between the 2 is the death rate.

And the reproductive rate of dead moths is...?

Well done Keith&co that is exactly what I have been saying all along for most of this thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the reproductive rate of dead moths is...?

Well done Keith&co that is exactly what I have been saying all along for most of this thread.

Oh, good. I thought you were missing that.

So, it IS about their reproduction. The total lack of it. The complete failure to pass on their genes to the next generation means that the next generation is selected for those who DID reproduce.
It kept looking like you were arguing AGAINST reproduction as a means of selection.

 

[skepticalbip]

Exactly. The lighter moths that are eaten by hungry birds so they do not have a chance to reproduce and pass on their genes to offspring because they will not have any. Meanwhile the darker moths that aren't eaten do reproduce and pass on their genes.

The light and dark colours would have had the same number of offspring per head.

After the clean air act of 1956 the soot disappeared from the trees and the numbers of dark and light coloured moths balanced up again to what it had been before the industrial revolution. So much for your Nonsensical claim of successful reproduction.

Right. The trees lost their coating of soot and the original color of the bark returned making the darker moths easier to be spotted and eaten before they could reproduce at the same rate as the light moths. Evolution now favored the lighter moths so the genetic drift was reversed through the same process of passing on the trait of lighter coloring generation after generation.

Also you seem to think that this was two different species of moths. It wasn't. It was one species. It is noteworthy because it is a good illustration of evolutionary change in a species driven by natural selection.

You really are clueless on these matters.

As I said earlier, "That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it."

Debating with you is like debating with a young earth creationist. You deny reality like they do. Your argument is so absurd I'm sure you're trolling.

The reproductive rate between the 2 sets of moths was the same.

The ONLY rate that differs between the 2 is the death rate.

Personal attacks are rather juvenile. Please try to address the subject. You could start by explaining what you think evolution is because I now have no idea what you believe since your posts are all over the map.

Dead moths do not reproduce. Those moths eaten before reproducing have a reproductive rate of zero.

Individuals do not evolve. They can be born with some mutation or unique combination of genes that gives them a survival advantage but, unless it is successfully passed on to their offspring through reproduction and spread through the gene pool through many more successful reproductions, it dies with them and does not result in an evolutionary change in the species' gene pool.

You also seem to be missing the whole idea of natural selection and all that implies.

 

[West]

Well done Keith&co that is exactly what I have been saying all along for most of this thread.

Oh, good. I thought you were missing that.

So, it IS about their reproduction. The total lack of it. The complete failure to pass on their genes to the next generation means that the next generation is selected for those who DID reproduce.
It kept looking like you were arguing AGAINST reproduction as a means of selection.

No the discussion if you had actually read it, was about what prevents an animal from reproducing.

What are the types of selection and show me who ever said reproduction was a type of selection (besides you).

'Evolution by reproduction'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You could start by explaining what you think evolution is because I now have no idea what you believe since your posts are all over the map.

I'm trying to figure that out, too.
Near as i can tell, he's saying that the dead moths would have made as many babies as the ones that lived, so that shouldn't be a consideration when one tries to explain why so many of one type of moth showed up in the next generation.

But...
It's like a cruise ship. When it leaves the dock, everyone that on board is on board. The purser doesn't care if you missed ship's movement because you slept in, or because you've locked your keys in the rental, or because you died horribly in a traffic accident just outside of the port's gates. He only cares about the people tha showed up, not the ones that would have.

When moths start competing for resources, only the ones that showed up in that generation matter. Which means that only those whose parents lived long enough to reproduce matter. Which means the reproduction of the previous generation is crucial to determining who's going to be in the next generation.

The fact that one color of moth delivered significantly fewer moths to the next generation is how evolution works... Something selected them out. Took away their cruise tickets.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No the discussion if you had actually read it, was about what prevents an animal from reproducing.

Okay, can you go back to what you think 'reproductive selection' means? Can you define what you're objecting to?

 

[West]

No the discussion if you had actually read it, was about what prevents an animal from reproducing.

Okay, can you go back to what you think 'reproductive selection' means? Can you define what you're objecting to?

It's ok, you've already agreed with my position.

I also know from past experience that if I said the sky is blue you'd try to argue that it isn't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, can you go back to what you think 'reproductive selection' means? Can you define what you're objecting to?

It's ok, you've already agreed with my position.

Which one? Yours are incoherent. Or, maybe. I'm not sure what you're objecting to, so i'm not sure wha tyou think i'm agreeing with. Or why.

I also know from past experience that if I said the sky is blue you'd try to argue against that.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying. You don't think differential reproduction is a key to selection or evolution and you're willing to point fingers and cackle at the idea.
What do you think selection for reproduction MEANS?

 

[West]

It's ok, you've already agreed with my position.

Which one? Yours are incoherent. Or, maybe. I'm not sure what you're objecting to, so i'm not sure wha tyou think i'm agreeing with. Or why.

I also know from past experience that if I said the sky is blue you'd try to argue against that.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying. You don't think differential reproduction is a key to selection or evolution and you're willing to point fingers and cackle at the idea.
What do you think selection for reproduction MEANS?

Thats not what we were discussing. Go back and read the thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Go back and read the thread.

I am reading the thread.
When you post:

'Evolution by reproduction'.

What, exactly, do you think people are saying with those three words?
Tell me, so i can understand the joke.

 

[West]

I am reading the thread.
When you post:

'Evolution by reproduction'.

What, exactly, do you think people are saying with those three words?
Tell me, so i can understand the joke.

I've already told you what to do. You discuss what you want.

 

[George S]

I am reading the thread.
When you post:

'Evolution by reproduction'.

What, exactly, do you think people are saying with those three words?
Tell me, so i can understand the joke.

Right. No joke here.

There are differing strategies for reproduction. Generate just a few offspring but protect those few while they grow to adult. Generate lots of offspring and ignore them.

In either case, species that generate variety (sexed species) can generate their own variety instead of relying on mutations (asexual) to change slowly over time as environment slowly changes. This might be stretched into "Evolution [aided] by [sexual] reproduction."

"Evolution by [perfect] reproduction" is laughable. Variety is required.

 

[Kharakov]

In either case, species that generate variety (sexed species) can change slowly over time as environment slowly changes. This might be stretched into "Evolution [aided] by [sexual] reproduction."

Horizontal transmission of genes occurs in bacterial populations.

It's tangential, but this just made me think of instinctual response, passed on by reproduction (sexual or otherwise), and responses passed to one another horizontally through language. It seems the noosphere allows rapid horizontal transmission of information, and the speed of information transfer increases over time.

Sometimes you get someone with good information, who just lacks the necessary social grace to pass on information in a pleasant way. Perhaps they have Aspergers, or some other debilitation (teenager syndrome), that causes them to act offensively. Then again, if a plumber smells like shit, butt fixes your house, are you gonna complain? Not unless you can find a cleaner plumber, or feel like doing the work yourself.

"Evolution by [perfect] reproduction" is laughable.

It be funny. If you have a single entity, of infinite interior complexity, and copy it an infinite amount of times, and set up rules for interaction between the copies, with the goal of generating unique interactions between the differing copies of the infinitely complex individual, you can create an evolutionary scenario.

 

[Malintent]

Oh, good. I thought you were missing that.

So, it IS about their reproduction. The total lack of it. The complete failure to pass on their genes to the next generation means that the next generation is selected for those who DID reproduce.
It kept looking like you were arguing AGAINST reproduction as a means of selection.

No the discussion if you had actually read it, was about what prevents an animal from reproducing.

What are the types of selection and show me who ever said reproduction was a type of selection (besides you).

'Evolution by reproduction'.

This exchange seems to have started the flame war. I would like to call out where they left the rails...

you were arguing AGAINST reproduction as a means of selection

show me who ever said reproduction was a type of selection (besides you)

West confused "means" with "type". Like confusing "hammer" with "pointy metal fastener"

Both parties agree that there is selection involved in reproduction (who gets to reproduce is selected for). Also, imperfect replication creates variety, such that there is varying selection pressures (impact)... which I also think both parties agree on... so move on.

 

[Never]

Moderation Note

Several posts were split to the Up in Flames area as a derail. All participants please keep in mind the The Rules] under the TOU, specifically #7. Please address the content of the post rather than the poster.

 

[West]

I am reading the thread.
When you post:What, exactly, do you think people are saying with those three words?
Tell me, so i can understand the joke.

Right. No joke here.

There are differing strategies for reproduction. Generate just a few offspring but protect those few while they grow to adult. Generate lots of offspring and ignore them.

In either case, species that generate variety (sexed species) can generate their own variety instead of relying on mutations (asexual) to change slowly over time as environment slowly changes. This might be stretched into "Evolution [aided] by [sexual] reproduction."

"Evolution by [perfect] reproduction" is laughable. Variety is required.

Well said George S.