Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107995 wrote:

... yes, this is a hard line to draw ... on the one hand, to draw such a line at all seems to segregate humankind from the creatures - we're in danger of losing sight of our continuity with nature ... on the other hand, we cannot deny the qualitative step changes in human thought and society that have been witnessed within just the few thousand years of human history (as instigated by the written word, the printing press, computers, the internet, twittering, etc. - superficially incremental technological advances that snowballed out of all proportion ) - indeed, (cultural) evolution seems to be undeniably punctuated ... so when was the ethical knowledge line crossed and how quickly? ...

It is a hard line to draw, and only humans can draw it! That is precisely the point: there is indeed continuity between man and nature, but we alone are capable of such judgement. A predator might know the difference between a monarch and a viceroy but only because it is the difference between living and dying, and the predator is the descendant of those who were able to distinguish them. A human can tell the difference because it is something interesting to know, or because it is something we choose to find out. And this is a 'difference that makes a difference'. In other respects, we are just the same as the predator - but we have the luxury of choice, born of self-awareness. Because we are not just creatures of necessity, freedom is possible.

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;108017 wrote:

Did the lion eat the fecundity ?

The ones that get eaten don't reproduce. Make sense??

memester;108017 wrote:

Biased Gene Conversion falsifies that.

Not in the slightest. There are other meiotic phenomena that can differentially affect heritability. Doesn't change the fact that this has ZERO to do with whether the biased genotype is advantageous or not under circumstances of selection. Nor does it change the fact that selection, when present, will overwhelm non-selective means of population genetic change. When people look at haplotype maps, genetic sweeps are always the result of selective events and not from some GC or AT disparity. In fact if it were such a big difference, you'd wonder why there are some organisms out there with predominantly AT genomes and others with predominantly GC ones, you'd think that they would regress to GC predominant because it has three hydrogen bonds per base pair and is ultimatelyt more stable.

And this whole issue would be well-illuminated for you if you read into the mathematical modeling of transgenic mosquito populations that have been engineered to be incompetent carriers of malaria. You cannot replace a standing natural population with a neutral genotype. You need to completely overwhelm the wild type population by a selective disadvantage for this introduced genotype to become predominant with any expedition -- otherwise it will basically follow Hardy-Weinberg kinetics and not go anywhere.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108009 wrote:

How is it that you determine that it is the Viceroy moving toward either, rather than the others moving toward Viceroy ? Said to be the MOST distasteful of the three ?

... here's the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis: that all three species are unpalatable argues for co-mimicry ... in the regions that have been studied, there is a close resemblance between the Viceroy in that region and locally dominant Monarch/Queen ... the resemblance appears to be due to variations in the coloration of the Viceroy ... thus, the hypothesis is that the Viceroy may be genetically more variable with respect to coloration than either the Monarch and the Queen and thus in the process of co-mimicry has moved further toward the locally dominant Monarch/Queen than either has moved toward the Viceroy ... that the Viceroy resembles the dominant Monarch in one region and resembles the dominant Queen in the other but it is not claimed that the Monarch resembles the dominant Queen in the second region (nor vice versa) is consistent with this hypothesis ... one test that could be used to quickly (relatively speaking) falsify this hypothesis would be to perform a study on regional variation across the Viceroy, Monarch, and Queen - if the regional variation of the Viceroy is greater than that of the Monarch/Queen, this would be consistent with the hypothesis; if not, the hypothesis is falsified.

The second (and less ambitious) hypothesis is simply co-mimicry ... again, it is indicated by the fact that all three species are unpalatable and the obvious resemblance between the Viceroy and the locally dominant Monarch/Queen ... and again, in co-mimicry both species move toward each other ... but in contrast to the more ambitious hypothesis above, the Viceroy and the dominant Monarch/Queen move toward each other in equal amounts ... however, what is left unexplained by this hypothesis is why the Monarch hasn't moved to resemble the Queen to the degree that the Viceroy has in the regions where the Queen is dominant, nor why the Queen hasn't moved to resemble the Monarch to the degree that the Viceroy has in the regions where the Monarch is dominant.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;108019 wrote:

The ones that get eaten don't reproduce. Make sense??

No. It's nonsense. They may have already reproduced. They may reproduce younger, age faster, and get eaten after reproduction. That may be an evolutionary advantage.

Quote:

Not in the slightest. There are other meiotic phenomena that can differentially affect heritability. Doesn't change the fact that this has ZERO to do with whether the biased genotype is advantageous or not under circumstances of selection.

exactly ! Biased Gene Conversion falsifies the assertion that it has to be advantageous to be selected for.

---------- Post added 12-03-2009 at 11:20 PM ----------

paulhanke;108021 wrote:

... here's the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis: that all three species are unpalatable argues for co-mimicry ... in the regions that have been studied, there is a close resemblance between the Viceroy in that region and locally dominant Monarch/Queen ... the resemblance appears to be due to variations in the coloration of the Viceroy ... thus, the hypothesis is that the Viceroy may be genetically more variable with respect to coloration than either the Monarch and the Queen and thus in the process of co-mimicry has moved further toward the locally dominant Monarch/Queen than either has moved toward the Viceroy ... that the Viceroy resembles the dominant Monarch in one region and resembles the dominant Queen in the other but it is not claimed that the Monarch resembles the dominant Queen in the second region (nor vice versa) is consistent with this hypothesis ... one test that could be used to quickly falsify this hypothesis would be to perform a study on regional variation across the Viceroy, Monarch, and Queen - if the regional variation of the Viceroy is greater than that of the Monarch/Queen, this would be consistent with the hypothesis; if not, the hypothesis is falsified.

The second (and less ambitious) hypothesis is simply co-mimicry ... again, it is indicated by the fact that all three species are unpalatable and the obvious resemblance between the Viceroy and the locally dominant Monarch/Queen ... and again, in co-mimicry both species move toward each other ... but in contrast to the more ambitious hypothesis above, the Viceroy and the dominant Monarch/Queen move toward each other in equal amounts ... however, what is left unexplained by this hypothesis is why the Monarch hasn't moved to resemble the Queen to the degree that the Viceroy has in the regions where the Queen is dominant, nor why the Queen hasn't moved to resemble the Monarch to the degree that the Viceroy has in the regions where the Monarch is dominant.

Bed Time Stories. Who has proven that the Viceroys have moved EITHER WAY ?

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;108024 wrote:

no.

Whatever. Stop being intentionally concrete, and read up on reproductive fitness. If you have two phenotypes, and one of them results in increased fecundity, then that one is advantageous -- whether it's because the more fecund population can outrun lions or survive a drought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

memester;108024 wrote:

exactly ! Biased Gene Conversion falsifies the assertion that it has to be advantageous to be selected for.

Ok, your problem is a misuse of terminology then. This is NOT "selection."

Gene frequencies can change in populations for MANY reasons. Biased Gene Conversion, I'm sorry to say, is one of many, so there's nothing unique about it. If I have a room with 10,000,000 random Americans, and I pick 100 of them at random to go start a colony on Mars, then this will ALSO produce a differential gene frequency in subsequent generations compared with the ancestral population. It's not that it's advantageous or disadvantageous -- it's just that the allele frequencies in the founding population differed from the parent population. Meet founder effects: MUCH more important on a population level than biased gene conversion.

Founder effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift is the other big one.

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what, at an individual level one allele is more heritable than another for molecular and not selective reasons? That poses no problems at all in the face of the above. It also doesn't speak to the relative advantage or disadvantage of the alleles, which is ultimately what matters to selection.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;108028 wrote:

Whatever. Stop being intentionally concrete

Now you are to tell me what to do ?

Quote:

and read up on reproductive fitness.

Nice. I have to read up. How is it determined by you, that it is I who am WRONG ?

Quote:

If you have two phenotypes, and one of them results in increased fecundity, then that one is advantageous

No.

Quote:

-- whether it's because the more fecund population can outrun lions or survive a drought.

ah, Selection on population level comes in now, eh ?

Quote:

Ok, your problem is a misuse of terminology then.

No, misuse of terminology is YOUR problem.

Quote:

Gene frequencies can change in populations for MANY reasons. Biased Gene Conversion, I'm sorry to say, is one of many, so there's nothing unique about it.

Because there are many things that can change frequency, does not say that Biased Gene Conversion is not unique, and besides, some problem with logic or comprehension makes you believe that "uniqueness" was my claim for BGC. It's not a claim I made. Something is being selected on a chemical preference basis, not on advantageousness. Period.

1 Reply

@richard mcnair,

[complaint: excessive biological argumentation for philforum]

0 Replies

@memester,

I get taught by my family that crime and violence pays.

I get killed at 15. Nothing to do with genes, not to do with any recognized kind of phenotype, either. Only to do with learning this or that way to get ahead.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108024 wrote:

Who has proven that the Viceroys have moved EITHER WAY ?

... Viceroys? Smile

... that is, if Viceroys are just Viceroys and it is Monarchs and Queens that move toward Viceroys, what explains the regional variation in Viceroys between the Monarch-dominant region to the Queen-dominant region? ... and if it's Monarchs and Queens that are the mimics (and Viceroys don't mimic at all), why haven't Queens moved toward Monarchs in the Monarch-dominant region (and vice versa)? - after all, if they're the mimics, it would seem to be much easier for them to co-mimic each other (because they can meet half-way), than to go to all the trouble of mimicking the uncooperative Viceroy! ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;108037 wrote:

... Viceroys? ... that is, if Viceroys are just Viceroys and it is Monarchs and Queens that move toward Viceroys, what explains the regional variation in Viceroys between the Monarch-dominant region to the Queen-dominant region? ... .

Variance, across regions, is expected, mimicry or no mimicry.

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108038 wrote:

Variance, across regions, is expected, mimicry or no mimicry.

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories Smile

...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;108042 wrote:

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories ...

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

If the palatability test for Viceroys shows 40 and for Queens it's 70, why would Viceroy tend to start to go toward a more palatable butterfly ?

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108043 wrote:

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

... that one of the butterflies in a co-mimicry relationship happens to be more distasteful than the other is unremarkable - what would be remarkable would be if both were exactly equally distasteful ... that co-mimicry has nothing to do with deception has already been established - and so if that's the point you're wanting to make, then I think we've beat this horse past its death Smile

...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;108045 wrote:

... that one of the butterflies in a co-mimicry relationship happens to be more distasteful than the other is unremarkable - what would be remarkable would be if both were exactly equally distasteful ...

It's not that it is remarkable...what is questionable, is why you should keep insisting that the Viceroy is a mimic.

If it's more distasteful than the Queen, why would it be pushed toward being more Queen-like ? Logically the Queen would be pushed toward the Viceroy...in the form that the Viceroy has, in that region

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108051 wrote:

It's not that it is remarkable...what is questionable, is why you should keep insisting that the Viceroy is a mimic.

If it's more distasteful than the Queen, why would it be pushed toward being more Queen-like ? Logically the Queen would be pushed toward the Viceroy...in the form that the Viceroy has, in that region

... okay, let's work through a simple model ... let's assume that 75% of the predators that attempt to eat a Viceroy will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Viceroy again ... let's also assume that 50% of the predators that attempt to eat a Queen will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again ... finally, let's assume that there are equal numbers of Viceroys and Queens ... now, if the Viceroy does not resemble the Queen, then every predator in the region will attempt to eat a Viceroy at some point in time, with lots of Viceroy casualties ... however, if the Viceroy resembles the Queen, then with a 50-50 chance a predator will try to eat a Queen before it tries to eat a Viceroy ... since 50% of those predators (25% of the total population) will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again (to include Viceroys), this means that 25% of the predator population will never attack a Viceroy in the first place (fewer Viceroy casualties!) ... Queens fare slightly better - 37% of the predator population will never attack a Queen in the first place ... it's a win-win situation ... therefore, co-mimicry pays even if the two co-mimics are not exactly equally distasteful ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;107872 wrote:

...Shannon's theory of information uses entropy as its basis...

An interesting read on Shannon. He was not concerned with meaning whatsoever. His contribution was calculating maximum throughput, and in the process, developed a calculation for the measurement of entropy. Not convinced it was the "basis" of his work, rather than a notable agent to address in effective communication.

paulhanke;107872 wrote:

... to maximize information one implicitly maximizes entropy ...

We can't maximize information. It is what it is and nothing more. We can only maximize the efficiency in which it is transmitted, communicated, and received. This efficiency is directly proportionate to the degree that entropy is minimized.

paulhanke;107872 wrote:

Wiener's theory, information is "negentropy"...

An interesting read on Wiener too. Negentropy is akin to foreknowledge. It is beneficial to every transmission. For instance, the first time I heat up a hot pocket in the microwave, I must look at the instructions (60 seconds, 1500w, turn once, cool 3 minutes). But now, I already have that information, and that negentropy (foreknowledge) saves me time by not having to review the instructions again. I can just stick it in and get to eating faster than if I'd to read the instructions again. Negentropy is our friend.

paulhanke;107872 wrote:

...your truth/deception dichotomy ... the Viceroy butterfly...is imitative...in such a way,... deceive predators - this is a truth of nature,...

Might you confuse a "truth" of nature with an "observance" of nature? Have you any reference that the Viceroy "knows" he is a Viceroy, and is intentionally deceiving a predator into believing something else? Have you any reference that predator views Viceroy and Monarch in the same context as humans?

May we consider that Viceroy is simply being a Viceroy... and that a presumptuous predator is no reason to claim a deceptive Viceroy?

0 Replies

@memester,

memester;108035 wrote:

I get taught by my family that crime and violence pays.

I get killed at 15. Nothing to do with genes, not to do with any recognized kind of phenotype, either. Only to do with learning this or that way to get ahead.

Phenotypes regarding alturistic behaviour (such as your willingness to indulge in crime or avoid it), teachability (such as your ability to follow the criminal lessons your parents advocate), loyalty to authority figures in early life (the inherant, but varying, desire of most children to regard familiar adults with respect) and so on are at work in such a scenario.

And what led to your death? Criminals don't all die at 15. Were you too slow to run from the rival gang, too stupid to realise a conspiracy was being levelled against you by your own bosses, too fired up to drop your gun when the cops had you cornered, poor eyesight led you to miss with your first shot, metabolism not able to cope with the drugs? What?

So "nothing to do with genes" is wrong - even if their influence is fairly subtle in this regard.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 07:34 AM ----------

memester;108043 wrote:

That explanation ignores the fact that Viceroys are the more distasteful... just because Viceroys are spread across both territories does not imply that they are mimics.

what does imply it, or rather, promotes the tendency to infer it, is the fact they have been the scientific classical deceptive suspect for many years.

If the palatability test for Viceroys shows 40 and for Queens it's 70, why would Viceroy tend to start to go toward a more palatable butterfly ?

Some birds who eat Monarchs know to degut them before doing so.

Perhaps the mimickry developed before the degutting behaviour?

Thus the mimickry is now a relatively vestigal legacy of something that was once very beneficial, perhaps?

I don't know much about the butterflies - to be honest - but this sort of thing seems plausable.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;108080 wrote:

Phenotypes regarding alturistic behaviour (such as your willingness to indulge in crime or avoid it), teachability (such as your ability to follow the criminal lessons your parents advocate), loyalty to authority figures in early life (the inherant, but varying, desire of most children to regard familiar adults with respect) and so on are at work in such a scenario.

No. You are hereby opening the door, to allow bringing in "having a brain" as argument for genetics - being born as a necessary genetical component; all trash-bin worthy inclusions.
to argue that because every creature that is alive, is alive because of genes, and therefore I was killed because of genes- that is a ridiculous argument. It breaks all evolutionary argument the same way, not just mine.
Skinner showed NOTHING. It was all genes.

as well, your argument goes further than about genes. why stop there ? from your argument, in the end it's because we have ATOMS. Smile

It was because of Big Bang, not my learned behaviour.

I will set this example, not you. I was adopted from a family with perfect societal record of obedience and intelligence. I had high IQ, was not killed because I was stupid or slow. I was killed by automatic gun in a skilled ambush.

Quote:

And what led to your death? Criminals don't all die at 15.

Nobody said all criminals die at 15. I strongly implied that my behaviour of theft and violence led to my death .

1 Reply

@memester,

memester;108114 wrote:

No. You are hereby opening the door, to allow bringing in "having a brain" as argument for genetics - being born as a necessary genetical component; all trash-bin worthy inclusions. To argue that because every creature that is alive, is alive because of genes, and therefore I was killed because of genes- that is a ridiculous argument. It breaks all evolutionary argument the same way, not just mine.

I didn't argue that you were killed because of genes.

I showed that your claim that the scenario presented by yourself was devoid of much understanding. Criminals dying young is not a given, and there are mental and physical characteristics (this is different from "has a brain") may influence one's choice to become a criminal, and one's ability to be good at it.

So even if your scenario was accurate - and it isn't - it still doesn't exclude genetic factors.

Quote:

as well, your argument goes further than about genes. why stop there ? from your argument, in the end it's because we have ATOMS.

Well ... yes.

I suppose.

In so far as it seems it's all because of an expansion of space time and energy coalescing to matter.

To go back further you have to use assumptions devoid of much science.

Which is anyone's right - I suppose - though it's not what I like to do.

Quote:

I will set this example, not you.

OK.

Quote:

I was adopted from a family with perfect societal record of obedience and intelligence. I had high IQ, was not killed because I was stupid or slow. I was killed by automatic gun in a skilled ambush.

Nobody said all criminals die at 15. I strongly implied that my behaviour of theft and violence led to my death .

And I explained three factors associated with adopting a criminal lifestyle that may well be explained through genetics.

Alturism being the most interesting one, but the tendancy of children to respect their earliest rolemodels is probably the most easily understood and profound.

Now, social factors obviously contribute far far more - but to say it's "nothing to do with genetics" is wrong.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;108054 wrote:

... okay, let's work through a simple model ... let's assume that 75% of the predators that attempt to eat a Viceroy will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Viceroy again ... let's also assume that 50% of the predators that attempt to eat a Queen will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again ... finally, let's assume that there are equal numbers of Viceroys and Queens ...

Are these reasonable assumptions to use in examination of mimicry ?

How about let's look at another scenario too. Let's say that 99% of bird which eat a Viceroy will not eat that "look" of butterfly again.
Of Queens, 1% of birds eating it will never eat that "look" of butterfly again. And to the final assumption: does 50/50 fit with mimicry theory better or worse than other ratios of mimic /mimicked ?

Quote:

now, if the Viceroy does not resemble the Queen, then every predator in the region will attempt to eat a Viceroy at some point in time, with lots of Viceroy casualties

That is assuming that predators cannot learn from others' experience. Or from parental presentation of acceptable foods. That's a big assumption.

Quote:

... however, if the Viceroy resembles the Queen, then with a 50-50 chance a predator will try to eat a Queen before it tries to eat a Viceroy ... since 50% of those predators (25% of the total population) will never attack a butterfly that looks like a Queen again (to include Viceroys), this means that 25% of the predator population will never attack a Viceroy in the first place (fewer Viceroy casualties!)

You neglected to mention what happens with the 50 % who LIKED the Queen. They then try Viceroy, and like Viceroy a lot, too ! Maybe even more than Queen. Maybe less.

This is all ASSUMING, that "first try" results determines the permanent behaviour.

We CAN assume that first try of food is from parent's beak. And it is GOOD. Of course !

Also you are assuming that first try is always a matter of the draw: that seasonal fluctuations of both species are THE SAME. Perhaps, though, in the nesting time (first try), only ONE or THE OTHER is available.

Also, it has been shown that confusing "reward" giving , can raise number of attempts.

Quote:

... Queens fare slightly better - 37% of the predator population will never attack a Queen in the first place ... it's a win-win situation ... therefore, co-mimicry pays even if the two co-mimics are not exactly equally distasteful ...

No, not shown at all. Even assuming those all those things which are not safe to assume.

[post edited] In this case, assumptions all in place, it DOES NOT SHOW co-mimicry is win/win, it shows LOOKING alike is win for Queens.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 12:23 PM ----------

Dave Allen;108123 wrote:

I didn't argue that you were killed because of genes.

I showed that your claim that the scenario presented by yourself was devoid of much understanding. Criminals dying young is not a given

Again, you are showing confusion about my example purpose and claim.

Aside: of course you did not argue about genes and "killed". Ya argues about genes and learned behaviour. Smile

I claim this is a ONE TIME example of learned behaviours and the ensuing result, showing the result of deletion of me.

Are you claiming, by any chance, that learned behaviours cannot have scientific results showing cause/effect, independant of genes ?

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 12:39 PM ----------

Now if we look at an example where 99 % do not like Viceroy, and 1% do not like Queen.

Advantage for the Viceroy to change toward Queen looks ? :perplexed:

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 01:24 PM ----------

paulhanke;108042 wrote:

... agreed - but the "talent for mimicry" hypothesis explains why the variation in two contiguous regions should exist and also why it is the way it is ... the "Viceroys don't mimic" hypothesis does not ... in science (and philosophy?), the hypothesis that better explains the facts is taken to be the the better hypothesis ... but the facts laid out so far are rather thin, so there's no real reason to take one hypothesis over the other - as you say, bed time stories ...

yes, the hypothesis EXPLAINS why it COULD exist, if using a better example than this CLASSICAL example, but not that it SHOULD exist in this example, or any example in particular.

And no, definitely DOES NOT explain "why it it is the way it is".

As to the variance of the Viceroy over geographical zones; variance of a species over geographical zones and between isolated zones is THE USUAL, without mimicry necessarily involved.

2 Replies

Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know