Classism is Inenvitable

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to correct myself, on a technical level you are still wrong, since even with perfect migration new traits can still arise via mutation, which could permeate throughout the population.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to correct myself, on a technical level you are still wrong, since even with perfect migration new traits can still arise via mutation, which could permeate throughout the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could, yes, but it is highy unlikely. Natural selection is, ultimately, a probability game.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone).

[/ QUOTE ]


The bolded phrase is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with. With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.'

To the extent that this: "A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in." is correct for any given species you are reinforcing my point...one of the basic requirements for natural selection is compromised, limiting the rate of natural selection, and eventually obviating the inevitability of "classism".

However, even among humans, unfettered migration is a relatively recent phenomenon on an evolutionary scale. There are still many isolated species that will continue to evolve and even more speciation is likely in some populations.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.'

[/ QUOTE ]

No one allele has to be likely to be dominant, only that the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same.

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with

[/ QUOTE ]

During sexual reproduction only one out of many possibly combinations is produced, as long as there are differences within the population Natural selection can occur.

All that is required for natural selection is Variation + time.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.'

[/ QUOTE ]



No one allele has to be likely to be dominant, only that the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same.

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with

[/ QUOTE ]

During sexual reproduction only one out of many possibly combinations is produced, as long as there are differences within the population Natural selection can occur.

All that is required for natural selection is Variation + time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again with the "can" or "could". Yes, there could be natural selection with only variation and time. But the rate of natural selection and the probability of it occurring at all are greatly diminished by migration. Relating my earlier quote with your "the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same.", migration drives the gene pool to the average of the species, ie that inequality is not met..the probability of the frequency of alleles staying the same dominates.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

"small populations drift more rapidly than larges ones" does not prove that "no or extremely limited migration" is a requirement for natural selection.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes it is

[/ QUOTE ]

From your link:

"An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation."

When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

"small populations drift more rapidly than larges ones" does not prove that "no or extremely limited migration" is a requirement for natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

In isolation, no. Read the rest of the it and try to apply logical thought for a change.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In isolation, no. Read the rest of the it and try to apply logical thought for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typical. I'm going to start a catalog of your "you're stupid and I don't need to provide an argument" responses.