Evolution and Natural Selection

[Sredni Vashtar]

Originally Posted by snakeroberts

Natural selection says it picks traits based on the external environment, in particular survival. Internal DNA reasons "endogenous" laws are possible for why coexistent traits get picked. But that is not what Natural selection says. I am saying the theory is incomplete but does exists.

I mean, "picks traits based on external environment" is the very simple high level version. Like saying, "Microsoft develops operating systems based on what users want." It's accurate. It just doesn't go into the details.

We know more details than that, but we don't know all the details. I don't expect the details will be as weird as quantum mechanics. Basically nothing is as weird as modern physics.

That is not the same as my thoughts on big bang where I say any set of laws would need to explain themselves ad infinitum. Laws need to be explained in terms of contents, the contents are explained in terms of laws and you get a circular chain. there can never be an ultimate law other than an unbounded one and a recursive selection process, otherwise you believe in magic.

Sorry, I meant the specific big bang and the specific issue of time. Not the turtles problem. Yes I agree there's a turtle's problem.

[Polevault1]

Originally Posted by DeepPurple

...Like rand() in Excel?


I recall more distinction between NS and PE. NS originally implied a relentlessly slow and yet steady pace. PE, on the other hand, had short bursts of adaptations and changes and long periods of status quo.

You are mixing terms. That is the distinction between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Both are driven by natural selection.

[Polevault1]

Originally Posted by tempodust123

thus providing the organism with a somewhat self guided (nonrandom) tool to address changes in environments?
.

Natural selection is nonrandom.

[Polevault1]

Originally Posted by snakeroberts

good discussion but there is a problem. natural selection says its fitness. Thats fine and explains alot but there are free rider traits that cannot be explained other than to say "random" in others magical or more magical than quantum mechanics (at least there are laws in that).

this is the coextensive traits problem introduced by Jerry Fodor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hitchhiking

[The_Polymath]

Originally Posted by TheGillotine

Mutations drive inheritable variations. There's some stuff about epigenetics as well which refers to inheritable characteristics related to how the gene expresses itself rather than changes to the gene itself.

Epigenetics is far more important for a given population viewed in the context of the next generation. Changes over millenia won't exactly affect us...we will be dead.

[The_Polymath]

Originally Posted by Polevault1

Natural selection is nonrandom.

True.

And there is no truly random process in nature in any event. Even chaotic systems have a small underlying order to them that can be quantified.

[Polevault1]

Originally Posted by snakeroberts

I will respond to you since the other guy is clearly a troll, a douche bag, an overly sensitive ninny, or an online intellectual wannabe staking out his turf take your pick, not to mention he threw a fit when I said go back to bible study. Natural selection says it picks traits based on the external environment, in particular survival. Internal DNA reasons "endogenous" laws are possible for why coexistent traits get picked. But that is not what Natural selection says. I am saying the theory is incomplete but does exists.

That is not the same as my thoughts on big bang where I say any set of laws would need to explain themselves ad infinitum. Laws need to be explained in terms of contents, the contents are explained in terms of laws and you get a circular chain. there can never be an ultimate law other than an unbounded one and a recursive selection process, otherwise you believe in magic.

Natural selection says that traits that have a material impact on fitness tend to increase in proportion with each successive generation. It does not preclude other traits from also changing in proportion. As you alluded to, a lot of traits are indirectly selected for because they tend to travel with each other during crossing over and are not very susceptible to recombination.

[Polevault1]

Originally Posted by The_Polymath

True.

And there is no truly random process in nature in any event. Even chaotic systems have a small underlying order to them that can be quantified.

Most of the common interpretations of QM describe random events.

[The_Polymath]

Originally Posted by DeepPurple

...Like rand() in Excel?


I recall more distinction between NS and PE. NS originally implied a relentlessly slow and yet steady pace. PE, on the other hand, had short bursts of adaptations and changes and long periods of status quo.

Rand () is a poor RNG in any event.

[The_Polymath]

Originally Posted by Polevault1

Most of the common interpretations of QM describe random events.

This is not strictly correct.

There is nothing random about the motion of electrons or any other subatomic particles until you are trying to observe it. Their behavior is completely determined by the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation gives the time evolution of a wave associated with the system.

This wave is interpreted as the distribution of probability amplitude and according to this theory if you take a large ensemble of identical systems, then the results of some particular experiment may differ from system to system, but their relative abundance will be completely governed by the Schrodinger equation.

So if you take one system and ask "where would I find this particular particle?" quantum mechanics cannot give you a perfect answer, but will say "there is a large probability that you will find it at x=something". Your experiment may or may not give this answer, but that does not mean it is random. Because had you done the experiment repeatedly (but each experiment must be done after sufficient time gap from the former, better still they should be performed in a different identical system), you will find that quantum mechanics will give you almost exact data about the relative probability of finding the particle at some state or the other.