Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 12-10-2006, 02:14 PM
vhawk01 vhawk01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: GHoFFANMWYD
Posts: 9,098
Default Re: What prevents evolution?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I believe is completely beside the point. Apparently that's the best you can do. I had hoped for more. Oh, well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily for progress, what you believe IS beside the point. But if this isnt about your beliefs, this thread, then what IS it about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily for progress, what you and/or I can PROVE is the point.

(Thanks for helping me clarify that thought. I appreciate that about you, even though we disagree on almost everything.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong and it might be part of the problem. Luckily for progress, what is USEFUL is the point. Its bordering on meaningless whether it is 'true' or 'proven' or not. As long as it works, thats good enough.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 12-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Skidoo Skidoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Overmodulated
Posts: 1,508
Default Re: What prevents evolution?

[ QUOTE ]
So 90% reproductivity with the parents means an average of 90% with each other as well. Say the true range is 80% to 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about right. As the capacity to reproduce with the reference generation approaches zero, its few remaining descendants are no longer fertile amongst themselves either and so die out. If you're implying that those closer to 100% fertility within generations will find each other and so maintain the group, that's not enough. Any net accumulation of errors not corrected for, which selection doesn't do either, leads to the same inevitable outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
Since reproducing requires reproduction, in this question of inheritance it is only sensible to consider the members of a generation who actually reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are fewer such individuals as the generations progress due to the said tendency of the genetic basis of reproductive capacity to diverge. Considering only a fertile subset of each subsequent population doesn't remove the constant erosion to the underlying mechanism. Saying divergence is always being selected against doesn't provide a corrective to random change. It only realizes the consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
(THE ONES THAT COULDN'T REPRODUCE DIDN'T REPRODUCE!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

[ QUOTE ]
This no logical basis for expecting reproductivity within a generation to reduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is: exactly the same process causing reproductive capacity between generations to be reduced.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.