TN Governor Evolution Bill

No, the argument is that survival of the individual is an aspect of fitness. It isn't.

 

That makes more sense. I was a bit perplexed.

Still not sure I agree with you here fl0at and maybe I am just misunderstanding. How can an organism surviving to reproductive age, or maybe even old enough to help his offspring reach reproductive age not affect fitness?

 

I had a response typed up on my phone, but lost it in the process of posting, so I'm going to try to recap whatever points I was trying to make earlier, so bare with me.

As to semantics, no, I don't think I am arguing semantics. I think I am arguing understanding of the process. Without which, individuals will still seem to think that natural selection selects for survival of the individual, and the individual traits that help that individual survive, and thus evolution cannot occur with regards to traits that limit the survival of the population or individual. And this is simply not true, as you well know.

As to narrow thinking, I feel that you are thinking too narrowly. The idea that is that within the biological reproduction aspect, there exists a method by which mates identify quality mates. It is a natural process, brought about by years of breading, due mostly to long gestational periods. Because females know they have a limited number of offspring they will produce, and doing so requires a vast strain on them and their ability to utilize nutrients available, they choose the best mate possible. As such, the act of mating has already taken into account the idea that the fetus may not survive; it has selected the best mate to give the offspring the best chance. This is not inherent on survivability of the mate, but characteristics for the fetus. In some specie of avian, this is bright, awesome plumage, because parasite infected males have crap plumage, and the female biologically understands that this is a weaker male. Given that gestation is nearly equivalent, this is already naturally taken into account during reproduction. In other words, all those with a long gestation, generally have a long gestation. The individual has nothing to do with it; the fetus has a neutral effect on the gene pool. The genes of the fetus are in the fetus, not in the population. The mother may select against a fetus, biologically, but this is not evolution. And since gestation is generally equivalent across the board for those of the same specie, it really has nothing to do with natural selection, and only to do with mate selection. Which has nothing to do with evolution, or natural selection. So the idea that bad parents don't get many grandchildren, though somewhat true, isn't even true. There are specie of birds that drop their kids off in other specie nests, to be raised by the other specie. They make tons of grandchildren. They aren't great parents.

The fireproof gene, isn't really a gene. It is a result of natural selection, of course, but not a "fireproof gene." I'm not mocking you, at least not intentionally, but the idea is a bit off, and so I'll elaborate. Trees with thicker bark and high sap levels have been selected for, but it went probably like this: fire happens, trees die, those with thicker bark or high/low sap loads that are more fire resistant (high sap is fire resistant? seems rather... contrary to what I thought, considering that sap in a Christmas tree is what causes most fires, but I digress), survive. They reproduce offspring that, if the trait was heritable and I assume it is, also garner greater fire resistance, as a population. Not individuals. I highly doubt it was one tree that had thicker bark. There were probably many trees, and thus the individual trait was not necessary. Instead, after many, many generations, you get an overall thicker bark due to repeat fires that wipe out lesser capable species, create new areas for growth and an increase in nutrient supply due to the decrease in demand from all the dead trees. And, it was likely gradual, thus an individual trees survival was not important, only the genetic population. So lets say we have 100 trees. 10 have somewhat thicker bark. One tree has the thickest bark and has the best fire proof advantage. 75 trees die, the 10 thick remain, leaving the total of 10 thick and 15 not so thick. They all produce 100 kids. The next round of fires knocks out a similar proportion, and already the thickest tree has been out competed, as have the thinnest. The fact that one aspect made an individual (super thick) completely capable of survival has nothing to do with it, as it was still outcompeted by a population of trees with "thick enough" bark. The individual trait does not matter.

As to the intensity of the fires, again, not an individual trait. Individual traits die. Individuals die. The survival of the individual is nothing, only the survival of the gene. We'll come back to this in a moment. But, if I said that some trees are no more dominant than other trees of the same specie, that is not what I meant, and I apologize. What I meant was that all the trees within the same specie have generally the same age to reproduction. Let us say that a sapling does not reproduce, only a 10 year old tree. All trees of the same specie must achieve an age of about 10 years old, this is biologically programmed within the specie. It won't be exactly 10 years, but it will be statistically near enough to come up with some age that fits in the normal portion of the bell curve. Thus, all these trees have the same thing working against them: age, height, whatever, but until that aspect is hit, no reproduction. This is what I meant. And they don't have to be clones, they just have to be in the same species. We see this in humans, with the 9 month gestation period. It is just what it is, sure, some have premature and some have longer gestation, but on the whole, the normal (the maximal point of the bell curve) is 9 months. Sorry if that isn't what I implied, in less wording.

As to the 10,000 years bit, get out of here with 10,000 years. I'm talking about the very foundation of sexual reproduction. We have a primate ancestor, if you believe the hype, and they had status, and their ancestor had status, and their ancestor had status. The biggest, baddest king of the jungle has the most kids. Absolutely. But it has less to do with status than simple reproductive fitness. The biggest baddest king of the jungle who is the king, who has the status, who has the harem... may die tomorrow. If it wasn't genetic, his kids will become the biggest baddest king of the jungle, simply because there was some biological aspect that made him king. The individual did not matter. If it was because of a genetic issue, with bad genes, the "status" means nothing, he will selected against.

Males reproduce sperm at will. They are capable of seeding as many females as will have them. They do not have to be picky with their mate, they just have to mate. Females are not as lucky. They produce a finite number of eggs; they are choosy with whom they mate. There are reasons well beyond status in this respect, though I will grant that those with the best genes typically are at the top of the pecking order. Humans are slightly different; males rape women. When you are in the baddest asshole on the block, you can rape more women and produce more kids. So yes, 10,000 years ago, even 100,000 years ago, I would wager the man with the highest status, and thus the guy capable of kicking everyone else's ass... had a big evolutionary advantage. But it was still not dependent on the individuals survival. His kids might have been biggest asshole, and probably was. But the idea is not that the individual is producing the population. One man having 400 kids does not greatly alter the gene pool over the course of 70 years. His lineage will substantially alter the gene pool. But the main point is this: even if he only has one kid, if that kid has genetics that will be selected for, it will still eventually greatly alter the gene pool. It will just take longer. Thus, individual survival doesn't matter. Eventually, if the trait is positively selected for, the trait will be positively selected for. Redundant, but key.

Changes in a population do start with individuals, sometimes even one individual. But that individuals survival is not important; he will not greatly alter the population himself. But yes, I agree, his future offspring will greatly alter the population. Which is why reproductive fitness, not survival, is the only important aspect. An individual with high reproductive fitness will have, damn near regardless of what happens, at least one bastard child make it in the population. And that is all that is needed, until the next round. And then the next round, etc. Because, eventually, 2 are going to get out. And then 4... 8... 32... 128.. etc.

 

Fitness is reproductive fitness. When you say fitness, you are speaking of reproductive fitness. Thus, the individual has reproduced... or at least had the chance to reproduce. Survival of the individual means nothing. As in the case of, what is it, black widows, the female eats the male.

If fitness required survival of the individual, the female wouldn't eat the male. It would be a detriment to the population. It isn't, because the individual doesn't matter. Only the genetics, passed down from the individual.

 

You're going to have to show me what we're arguing, because I don't see it. It sounds like you are chastising me for saying there are differing individuals within a population.

 

I mean, your bottom line looks like exactly my point. Reproductive success CAN be linked to the ability to reproduce multiple times, through longevity-- thus a positive trait that can be selected for.

 

I don't think (though it has been a long time since ecology) that fitness stops at the very next generation. You are expected to not only produce offspring, but offspring that can grow up to pass those genes on again. This, if your survival protects the mother, fetus, or youth, your survival contributes to fitness.

 

I thought we were debating whether or not fitness includes survival of the individual. Because, I say it doesn't. I thought you were saying it does.

The rest is just fluff.

 

There isn't a lot of protecting the mother, fetus, youth in nature, from a male standpoint. Some male birds that hang out with the nest will misdirect a predator away from the nest. Female birds will as well, which I always thought rather dumb. Who is gonna hatch the egg?

But for the most part, it is a mate and move on sort of thing. The female does what she can to protect and provide for herself. The male pushes off to greener pasture.

The female will raise the young, and lord knows there are several mammals that will pummel you if you screw with their young, but that is because they are the meanest bastards out there, in their experience, and thus get away with it. If they weren't, they probably wouldn't be as "protective."

Other species will simply give up the nest/the young, thinking, "Hell, I can reproduce again, screw these things."

But none of that matters. What matters is that fitness is "reproductive fitness." The idea that the best of the best will produce more offspring that will produce more offspring, that will produce more offspring.

Think of it like this: if you are a stud 12 point buck, during rut, you can bed 8 doe, easy. You knock up all 8, and then head into the bottoms to lay low. You ain't dumb. Those doe go out into the pasture to eat soy beans and every day around 4:30, something spins corn out, and they eat that too. Hell, they've got a growing baby to tend to. They are effing dumb because they just exposed themselves to predators. If the idea is that you'll protect your kids, or your future kids, you don't go exposing yourself to predators. But they do. They gotta eat. But the buck thinks, hell, 8 doe, 4 of my kids probably survive. He's just playing the odds. He doesn't need to protect his women from anything except other bucks. The odds of him getting a sufficient number of kids with his genes into the world is pretty good. The odds of his some of his kids surviving are pretty good. This is just nature. Nothing to do with selection. They'll probably survive.

If he gets killed in the woods, his genes are passed on. Some of those kids are bound to be pretty badass bucks themselves, just based on odds. 50/50 chance of being a male. He knocked up 8, 4 survive, 2 are statistically likely to be males.

Now lets start it all over again:

2 males, pretty badass in their own right. 1 beds 8 doe. The other beds 8 doe. Both are killed. Both have 4 kids. Both have 2 that are males. Now there are 4 badass males.

Let's start it again:

4 badass males, pretty badass in their own right. 1 beds 8 doe. 1 beds 8 doe. The other beds 8 doe. The last beds 8 doe. All four are killed. All four have 4 kids. All four of the 4 kids have 2 males. There are now 8 badass males.

Let's start it again.

Etc.

 

Yeah but if dad is a lucky weakling that was ultra fortunate to survive long enough to impregnate some poor lady, then his kids likely aren't going to be as fortunate and the line stops.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

This assumes that the environment today is the environment tomorrow. What makes one weak today may be a strength tomorrow. (And I use tomorrow as a concept to future, not like... 12 hours from now).

Evolution isn't predictive. It can't be. It just... functions.

After all, do you think you could kick a T-Rex's ass? Yea, the mammals living in caves then couldn't either. But here we are, and there they are. They were strong, mammals were weak. But now here we are, and there they are.

 

Right, but we're T Rex's still around I like Carl Lewis's kids to do better than some flat-footed knock-kneed schmuck's.

 

Absolutely. But there are less of Carl Lewis's kids than not.

Which should remind you that you don't have to outrun Carl Lewis or his kids, you just have to outrun the other bastard. Thus, CL's kids may... or may not... have a selective advantage.

Knock-knee'd kids may eat less, because they are in "stamina mode" for running "not sprint mode," and thus... if they outrun the other bastard, they might not need much food to do it again. The dumb shit that went the full mad dash might need more to do it again. His speed might actually put him at a selective disadvantage.

Ironically, this discussion is a discussion on predator-prey co-evolution, and is a perfect parallel discussion on a real world evolutionary event: The Cheetah vs the Gazelle.

 

So what you are saying is evolution is complicated. Yes, I agree. For example, if food is scarce, having men and women who live a long ass time and whose ability to contribute declines, obviously the trait of longevity would be bad for a particular band of humans as any advantage of more reproduction chances from long living males would be irrelevant.

 

I'm not really arguing with you, I know that you know the basics of evolution, natural selection and fitness. This is not in dispute. You've demonstrated a very firm grasp on the subject. I just disagree with some of the views on individual survival. And that may very well be my fault, in that I might be saying and thinking one thing, and you and kb are saying and thinking the exact same thing, but with different meaning to the terms used.

But as written, and I am far too literal in meaning and interpretation, I disagree. So I'm not arguing, so much as clarifying. And so I'll clarify: I agree that evolution is very complex, and broad and often tricky to hammer down exacts. If it were, there would be little room for discussion on any aspect. I agree with you that longer life produces a higher probability of producing more offspring and thus quickly changing the gene pool, in fewer successive generations, than one or two offspring from a terminated parent.

I also agree that gestation plays a huge role in mate selection, and more reproductive chance by a fertile male will drive selection.

So I don't disagree with anything, really in particular, that you say, just small nuanced views that I think really need clarification. And again, this may be my fault, and I'll take a stab at why I think it may be my fault.

When I say survival of the individual has nothing to do with fitness, I mean that the individual is no longer necessary. The genes have been donated, the donor is now free to either bolster the gene pool with another willing mate, or die. Either way. Both cases result in changing the population.

When I read that you all say it is important in fitness, I read it as saying after reproduction, the individual that donated the genes is important. What I think is meant is that the individual needs to survive up to the point of copulation. Unfortunately, since I am too literal, I do not interpret as such. This is because fitness is reproductive fitness. In order to have reproductive fitness, the individual must have already survived up to the point of reproducing. In other words, survival of the individual has nothing to do with fitness, because it has already survived long enough to reproduce, which is the fitness.

But if the individual doesn't survive up to the point of reproduction, there is no reproductive fitness, and thus no fitness and thus nothing for natural selection to work for or against. If it is born and instantly dies, the genes aren't in the gene pool, and the population's gene pool can't be altered, and thus there can't be evolution.

So I think we are both discussing the same things, with different philosophical interpretations of the meanings of our discussions. But I'm not sure, so I just take what is written, and take it to mean that the individual's survival is important after reproduction, which I disagree with.

Fundamentally, I could see why it could be important, but I think the probability of it actually being important is simply not there. This is because an individual with a mutation unlike any other in the population may die, and not reproduce, thus ending what might have been a very good gene. But since it died prior to reproduction, and the gene was never passed on, technically speaking, there never was evolution in the first place, because evolution works on populations and not individuals.

So I have a hard time taking "survival of the individual" as being important after reproduction, and take fitness to mean reproductive fitness, in which survival of the individual has to already have occurred, in order to reach the reproductive event. But this, I denote as "survival," but not fitness.

Does that clear it up? Because I think you are saying the same thing, just using phrasing that I'm taking too literal.

 

I agree that the probability of longevity being important for animals is low. The larger the organism, the more likely it is though.

 

Well, it could go both ways. A larger organism needs more food to survive. Being able to reproduce longer, produces more offspring, and further depletes the natural resources. As a result, natural selection may select against larger organisms that live a long time and over-reproduce. Or it may not, and the entire population may enter a reproductive decline due to losses of resources, and may go extinct. Or the population may just stay very very low for long periods of time.

Mathematically, I think it very difficult to determine. If male A lives to 70 years old, and has one kid every year starting at 18, he has 52 kids. If they have one kid every year until 70, starting at 18, they have 52 kids, and so on. But if male B has 1 kid per woman, over 10 women, per year, for 10 years, and then dies, he has had a higher reproductive fitness, at least initially. The marathon runner's successive generations might catch up, but then again, they might not.

So I would still say that quantity over longevity wins out, but it is very, very situationally dependent. After all, male A might also reproduce with 10 women, for 52 years, in which case, he absolutely out produced male B.

I would think that male B tends to occur more frequently, in most species. Not all, obviously, but the majority.