Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

Man tits ?

All tits. But good supplementary point.

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with LBJ. I don't think even Darwin ever claimed natural selection to be the only mechanism of evolution. Even during the 10 years between publishing Origin and another book proposing a second mechanism.

And Phil is still talking complete nonsense, but I expect he is well aware of this.
 
All tits. But good supplementary point.

Not that I'm trying to pick a fight with LBJ. I don't think even Darwin ever claimed natural selection to be the only mechanism of evolution. Even during the 10 years between publishing Origin and another book proposing a second mechanism.
Such as? BTW I'm not particularly interested in what Darwin claimed. I'm interested in what the state of evidence is today.

One of the beauties of the theory of evolution by natural selection is its simplicity. It is:

Organisms reproduce in a way that produces variety in their offspring. That variety is then passed on to the offspring's offspring. Varieties that are fit survive, while those that are not fit do not survive. As environmental selection pressures change, so the varieties that are most fit change.

And that's it.

Are you suggesting otherwise?
 
Such as? BTW I'm not particularly interested in what Darwin claimed. I'm interested in what the state of evidence is today.

Sexual selection. And molecular evolution (which has moved on a good bit since I was studying it) has definite influences on evolution, as do embryological developmental quirks such as gentlegreen alludes to.

Then there's cultural evolution etc. etc. but that's probably going a bit off-topic.
 
Sexual selection is natural selection. It is simply one form of environmental pressure.

The other things you mention are also simply aspects of natural selection.
 
Darwin started the ball rolling in terms of looking at how life exists on this planet as we understand it today, his theories as are old hat as is thinking that magnets have supernatural powers.

Times move on, humans have moved on, just like religion, things move and change with greater understanding.

The only thing that is quite sad about Phil's argument is that he seem to think science moving forward can be related to a belief in something that is just muttering of ancient tribesmen from the desert......
 
Once you learn the basics of DNA it becomes bleeding obvious - that and watching a few generations of fruit flies - not that I ever did the experiments myself - but I worked with someone who played with fruit flies in the office at work doing an OU degree in the late 70s ...

Of course, perhaps they didn't actually land on the moon and there's no such thing as DNA.
 
Sexual selection is natural selection. It is simply one form of environmental pressure.

The other things you mention are also simply aspects of natural selection.

I guess maybe you're on the cusp of boldly rewriting evolutionary theory. It's also possible you don't understand the terms you are using. I'll keep an eye out for the article in Nature, anyways. ;)
 
I guess maybe you're on the cusp of boldly rewriting evolutionary theory. It's also possible you don't understand the terms you are using. I'll keep an eye out for the article in Nature, anyways. ;)
Sorry, but it is you that is wrong here. Find me an evolutionary biologist who doesn't consider sexual selection to be an aspect of natural selection.
 
Let's go back to the beginning, 8ball. I've given you my definition of the theory of evolution by natural selection. How is your understanding of it different?

You appear to me to be falling into the same trap as dwyer by not understanding quite what is meant by the word 'fit'.
 
Oh, the old peacock's tail dilemma - as opposed to those species where successful males aren't so encumbered ...
 
Oh, the old peacock's tail dilemma - as opposed to those species where successful males aren't so encumbered ...
Yes. Sexual selection. There are lots of examples of it. It is natural selection where one of the selection pressures is the sexual preference of females for particular features, itself of course something that has evolved. Evolution can go off at strange tangents, all of which can be explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection.
 
Birds of paradise, evolutionary pressures are removed by living on an island and variations run wild.

And get those bower birds - spend all their time on the ground drawing attention to themselves - presumably there aren't too many predators ?
 
Birds of paradise, evolutionary pressures are removed by living on an island and variations run wild.

Just another example.
Not removed. Changed. ;)

Also, as Gould always stressed, one shouldn't underestimate the role of chance and serendipity in evolution. Particular species are the product of a particular history of selection pressures. Many changes may be 'exaptions' whereby a particular feature comes about as a byproduct of another result of a particular genetic change. Neoteny as an example Gould gives for the likely explanation of the nakedness of humans. It is not to our advantage to be naked. It is to our disadvantage if anything - far better for us to be covered in a fine fur like horses. But the delayed onset of maturity has given us far more plastic brains, able to learn throughout life - and this is the product of that neoteny. Nakedness is also a product of neoteny, a disadvantage that has come about due to the fact that the advantages of a clever brain out weigh it.

Gould, Dawkins, Dennett. Three examples, two scientists and a philosopher, who would agree with me about this.
 
Darwin was from a time after Newton, are you going to to say Newton was wrong?

His ideas have been expanded, improved, proved and accepted.

Same with Darwin.

Yes. I was using the term 'natural selection' in the sense Darwin meant. Seemed like the best way to use the term on this thread. Often the 'survival' and 'reproductive' fitness elements get lumped together these days, but that wasn't the case in Darwin's time, and it is not universally used that way now (I've heard the term 'ecological selection' used sometimes to make a neater distinction with 'sexual selection').

LBJ's personal ideas about what the terms mean sound like some kind of academic hobby horse that I'm not terribly interested in. Though it would be fun to hear how man-boobs enhance survival or reproductive success without some interesting contortions or redefinitions.
 
LBJ's personal ideas about what the terms mean sound like some kind of academic hobby horse that I'm not terribly interested in. Though it would be fun to hear how man-boobs enhance survival or reproductive success without some interesting contortions or redefinitions.
You need to read Gould. ;)

Man boobs don't have to enhance reproductive success. They can simply be a by-product of something else that does and not be too much of a disadvantage to be selected out of the population.

This isn't an academic hobby horse. Far from it. AFAIC it's about understanding evolution properly.

In the specific case of moobs, I would actually suspect that they are peculiar to our culture and way of life. Do any men who grow up in hunter-gatherer societies develop moobs? Lots of aspects of appearance such as stature and body fat are the product of diet and environment - where particular genetic differences within the population may be expressed with, say, moobs developing in some men but only in that way of life.

Again, though, nothing to contradict what I gave earlier as a definition of evolution by natural selection, merely one aspect of environmental change.
 
You need to read Gould. ;)

Man boobs don't have to enhance reproductive success. They can simply be a by-product of something else that does and not be too much of a disadvantage to be selected out of the population.

This isn't an academic hobby horse. Far from it. AFAIC it's about understanding evolution properly.

Everything is natural selection even when it's not.
This is a good theory - no one's going to be falsifying it anytime soon, that's for sure.
 
Such as? BTW I'm not particularly interested in what Darwin claimed. I'm interested in what the state of evidence is today.

One of the beauties of the theory of evolution by natural selection is its simplicity. It is:

Organisms reproduce in a way that produces variety in their offspring. That variety is then passed on to the offspring's offspring. Varieties that are fit survive, while those that are not fit do not survive. As environmental selection pressures change, so the varieties that are most fit change.

And that's it.

Are you suggesting otherwise?
All I can do really is quote myself at you. It's not perfectly worded, but it gives the essence of what I'm saying.

Yes, of course genetic drift is a part of it. It is an aspect of the ways in which selection pressures can change - and can lead to extinction in many cases!

You're making out that somehow what I'm saying is outside mainstream thinking. It isn't. If you've already read Gould, I suggest you reread him.
 
Yes. I was using the term 'natural selection' in the sense Darwin meant. Seemed like the best way to use the term on this thread. Often the 'survival' and 'reproductive' fitness elements get lumped together these days, but that wasn't the case in Darwin's time, and it is not universally used that way now (I've heard the term 'ecological selection' used sometimes to make a neater distinction with 'sexual selection').

Do you actually know what you are talking about?

Why do you keep harping back to Darwin, Einstein wouldn't have bothered going back to Newton.......

Things move on....
 
All I can do really is quote myself at you. It's not perfectly worded, but it gives the essence of what I'm saying.

Yes, of course genetic drift is a part of it. It is an aspect of the ways in which selection pressures can change - and can lead to extinction in many cases!

You're making out that somehow what I'm saying is outside mainstream thinking. It isn't. If you've already read Gould, I suggest you reread him.

Genetic drift fits under the 'natural selection' umbrella now? :D
Go on, bung epigenetic inheritance in too...

Your definition seems to bear little resemblance to the arguments you've been making, you've even conflated 'fitness' with survival yourself.

edit: anyway - I'm not saying you're completely clueless about evolution, but the way you define terms seems a touch eccentric. Have to go - need to try to get to the gym while I can still fit through the door...
 
Of course epigenetic inheritance falls in there too. The mechanism by which variation is produced doesn't alter the process by which selection takes place.

There's lots of Gould on the net to choose from. Here's one article where he's addressing a slightly different point, but I would hope that the quote would show what his general stance was:

Darwin's independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, "improved design," but not "improved" in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, improved meant only "better designed for immediate, local environment." Local environments change consistently: they get colder or hotter, wetter or drier, more grassy or more forested. Evolution by natural selection is no more than a tracking of these changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better designed to live in them: hair on a mammoth is not progressive in any cosmic sense. Natural selection can produce a trend that tempts us to think of more general progress—increase in brain size does not characterize the evolution of group after group of mammals. But big brains have their uses in local environments; they do not marked intrinsic trends to higher states. And Darwin delighted in showing that local adaptation opted produces "degeneration" in design—anatomical simplification in parasites, for example.

My bold.
 
the way you define terms seems a touch eccentric.
I define the term 'natural selection' in exactly the same way as Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, Darwin, John Maynard Smith, and a whole host of others.

Where I am perhaps controversial is in the way that I think that Gould and Dawkins actually largely agreed with one another, while Gould himself thought that they didn't. By my reading, all Gould ever did was to extend and enrich the idea of natural selection.
 
I think that's exactly what he did. From Darwin's Autobiography:

"In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species."

Based on that quotation, it would appear that you were correct when you said

Darwinism emerged as an ideological counterpart to the early capitalist economics of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus.
 
Back
Top Bottom