Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?

On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:28:28 -0800, backspace wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:33 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But sometimes it is simpler to just use survival as a surrogate for
relative reproductive potential. The reproductive potential of a Tay-
Sachs individual is zero no matter what *current* environment that
individual is raised in.

The reproductive potential of a streptomycin
sensitive bacteria is zero in an environment containing high enough
concentrations of strep.

Other than noting that no bacteria reproduces in high concentrations
of streptomycin how was their reproductive potential measured ?

BSpace:

See:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/

Reading these two notes helps to understand the kind of discussions
that appear in this n.g. It was news to me. Evidently there's a hot,
bloody ongoing debate within the biol-evol community about necessary and
appropriate levels-of-description for biology processes.

Did you get through the whole article on units of selection? Did you
get to this part: "It makes no sense to treat different answers as
competitors if they are answering different questions." You and
backspace have not done much except attempt to change the landscape of
the questions in order to evade the anwers you were given.

Call these two
the Cytosolic-olians and the polypeptid-arillians -- my impression is the
conflict is more about agenda and social_power than science -- but, YMMV
so read the articles and find your own conclusions.

Really. Would you care to expand on these ideas? Where specifically in
the two articles does it mention, or even imply, any type of agenda?
Where, specifically, in either article is there mention, or
implication, of "social power"? (And could you please tell us what you
mean by that?)



Anyrate, looks like "talk.origins" as a social venue belongs to the former
group C-olians , which explains much smarmy, 19th century kant and
an utter refusal to even confront the requirement for a bio-polymer level
attack on evolutionary questions. It's a matter of social clan, not a
matter of pushing scientific boundaries.

You have never successfully explained why your demand for "a bio-
polymer level attack on evolutionary questions" is actually a
requirement. You've run from that question several times. If you think
you can answer it now, please, be my guest.



So don't have-a-cow when your prodding elicits the same, drab responses.

Are you a sock-puppet of backspace? Just wondering. He gets the same
responses because he asks, endlessly, the same silly questions. As I
wrote in a different post, one symptom of mental illness is repetitive
behavior coupled with the expectation of different results.

Chris



nss
******

.

Quantcast