|
On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things.
What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves.
|
On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves.
It's not a process? What's a process?
|
why doesn't anyone tell the penny arcade guy to stop snorting? oh god the stream makes me cringe so bad!!
|
On June 04 2017 11:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. It's not a process? What's a process?
Process: A series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
Example: Propagation is the process in which a creature creates progeny.
Natural Selection observes various processes within the life-cycle of a creature, each process has its own end goals, but Natural Selection itself does not have a goal.
|
If anything, natural selection is a (by)product.
|
On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular.
then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs.SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
you could also look into punctuated equilibrium, or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'.
that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years.
|
On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 Show nested quote +The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. Show nested quote +SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years.
How do you get hermaphrodites from an equilibrium between males and females? You have a tendency to make very weird links. And equilibrium between males and females simply means that the ratio is constant, not that everyone is both female and male.
As far as i know, hermaphrodites among mammals are exceedingly rare. They are common among some other species like snails.
Whenever i am discussing with you, i have the feeling that you use words slightly different than everyone else, and thus i don't really understand what you want to tell me, and you don't really understand what i want to tell. You still assume that you understand it, but instead take some weirdified version of what i said + random conclusion jumps that have nothing to do with anything i wrote at all, and respond to that.
|
On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 Show nested quote +The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. Show nested quote +SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years.
For context, what your article concludes is:
On both topics, further research will be valuable.
All four phenomena that Laland and colleagues promote are ‘add-ons’ to the basic processes that produce evolutionary change: natural selection, drift, mutation, recombination and gene flow. None of these additions is essential for evolution, but they can alter the process under certain circumstances. For this reason they are eminently worthy of study.
Which, in general, I agree with. There are many variables that affect how a species can evolve, natural selection being one of many aspects in that evolution. ie, how you replicate, how you pass on genes, and how you adapt to mutations in your genes affects the overall output of your species over time assuming consistency.
|
On June 05 2017 01:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years. How do you get hermaphrodites from an equilibrium between males and females? You have a tendency to make very weird links. And equilibrium between males and females simply means that the ratio is constant, not that everyone is both female and male. As far as i know, hermaphrodites among mammals are exceedingly rare. They are common among some other species like snails. Whenever i am discussing with you, i have the feeling that you use words slightly different than everyone else, and thus i don't really understand what you want to tell me, and you don't really understand what i want to tell. You still assume that you understand it, but instead take some weirdified version of what i said + random conclusion jumps that have nothing to do with anything i wrote at all, and respond to that. that seems to be about right.
when you said equilibrium(especially when you started mentioning systems) i immediately thought of the following analogy:
let cold=men and hot=women; then equilibrium=warm and equilibrium=hermaphrodites(the initial argument was more or less sex based, so then equilibrium should happen on a sexual level imo; no sex would've been fine too i guess).
for 1:1(the ratio) to be preserved, i would've preferred the use of the word balance/balanced but even then it would've been so so.
@Thieving Magpie: i said is controversial so by no means a done deal, but i'm leaning towards it. Darwinism is way incomplete.
also, i think you missed the gist of "observing natural selection". think of observer's paradox: while observing, you affect it, you become it; indistinguishable pieces in a puzzle.
|
What constitutes a stupid question?
|
^^ that made no sense at all (referring to what xmz was saying).
Anyway, lets just look at it from statistics. Now that I had time to think about it, and reason through it. This follows up:
On June 03 2017 17:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 09:12 Sent. wrote:Here's the answer. Fisher’s principle explains why for most species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. Bill Hamilton expounded Fisher’s argument in his 1967 paper on “Extraordinary sex ratios”[1] as follows, given the assumption of equal parental expenditure on offspring of both sexes.
1. Suppose male births are less common than female.
2. A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
3. Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
4. Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
5. As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
6. The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
In modern language, the 1:1 ratio is the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS).[10] This ratio has been observed in many species, including the bee Macrotera portalis. A study performed by Danforth observed no significant difference in the number of males and females from the 1:1 sex ratio.[11] This doesn't really explain the why. If males are more likely to die before they reproduce, then point 3 isn't true at all. I mean, I'm sure he's right, because Fisher was a genius. But it's not trivially so. What follows from the argument is that necessarily, E(#grandchildren|male)*p(male) = E(#grandchildren|female)*(1 -p(male)/ However, there's no real reason why the expected number of grandchildren given a male child should equal that for a female child. E: thanks for the idea for a great netlogo assignment!
These are not data extracted from anywhere, but just a thought experiment to see where the argument that sexes are (almost always) 1:1 in the animal kingdom (not sure about plants).
Lets assume the expected number of children depends on the probability of living to reproduce, and the average number of offspring your sex parents.
So for a species that has risk-prone males who create a harem and the females raise the yong, this could be something like:
p(reproduce|male) = 0.25
avg #offspring|male = 10
and
p(reproduce|female) = 0.6
avg # offspring|female = 2
furthermore, lets set the chance of having male or female offspring at 50:50, then:
E(#grandchildren|male) = 2.5
E(#grandchildren|female) = 1.2
And thus we don't have a stable equilibrium. You can move towards pareto optimality if you have a freek gene that lets you have more male babies, you have an advantage, so:
lets assume the male dominant gene takes over, ad the chance of having male offspring being born rises so that:
p(male) = 0.6. Our equation is still not in balance, however, this will create a pressure on the male population.
over time, there are more males to compete with for the same number of females, and thus less will reproduce. This will either result in smaller harems (less babies per male) or less males with harems (lower chance for reproducing). Lets assume the latter, because it's a "simpler" change, the former is a change in social dynamics of the species, which may have other changes as well.
p(reproduce|male) = 0.1
and thus E(#grandchildren|male) = 1
This means the pressure to have male offspring has disappeared, and now there is pressure to have female offspring.
Thus it does seem quite likely that E(#grandchildren|male) = E(#grandchildren|female) is the only equilibrium state, and given that, there is pressure for p(male) = p(female). This doesn't constitute a formal proof. I'm not quite sure how to show the Pareto boundary in this dynamic system, other than through numerical methods with different starting conditions all converging to the same end condition (or presumably spiralling out of control and the entire population dying). For a proper analysis you'd have to go through all the other cases as well, and the simulation would have to be significantly more complex, but with this I have at least satisfied my curiousity. The rest is for students in an agent-based simulation class 
|
anyone can invent math to fit a purpose; a ha.
the biggest dupe in this 1:1 is that when accounting for evolution/natural selection, only the breeding pairs are taken into account+ Show Spoiler +
Suppose male births are less common than female.
A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
that can't pass for more than a meme.
Edit: in its practicality, it should happen along the lines of The study builds on a classic theory first proposed in a 1973 paper by scientists Robert Trivers and Dan Willard, founders of the field of evolutionary sociobiology. They challenged the conventional wisdom that sex determination in mammals is random, with parents investing equally in their offspring to generate a 50-50 sex ratio in the population. Instead, they hypothesized that mammals are selfish creatures, manipulating the sex of their offspring in order to maximize their own reproductive success. Thus, parents in good condition, based on health, size, dominance or other traits, would invest more in producing sons, whose inherited strength and bulk could help them better compete in the mating market and give them greater opportunities to produce more offspring. Conversely, mothers in poor condition would likely play it safe, producing more daughters, whose productivity is physiologically limited. Other hypotheses make similar predictions — that females who choose mates with particularly "good genes" (e.g. for attractiveness) should produce so called "sexy sons" as a result, Garner said.The hypothesis was reinforced in 1984 in a seminal Nature paper by T.H. Clutton-Brock at the University of Cambridge, who found that among wild red deer, dominant mothers produced significantly more sons than deer who held a subordinate position within the herd .
if good condition = rich then that would lead to an overproduction of males which will disturb the ratio. that is bad for the evolution which in turn makes rich people bad for evolution.
get figured top 1%!.
|
On June 05 2017 20:10 xM(Z wrote:anyone can invent math to fit a purpose; a ha. the biggest dupe in this 1:1 is that when accounting for evolution/natural selection, only the breeding pairs are taken into account + Show Spoiler +
Suppose male births are less common than female.
A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.
Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.
As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.
but when counting the males and females, they factor in the whole population(which includes non-breeding pairs). that can't pass for more than a meme.
I think my post literally addressed everything in your spoiler. In fact, it goes through the reasoning of how such a system reaches equilibrium.
Non-breeding individuals are simply wrapped into the probability to reproduce. There's no voodoo there.
|
read up, the voodoo is that the ratio is 'made' on a per-individual basis; it has nothing to do with groups so even with 60% no breeders(even at skewed ratios 60%male, 40%female), it doesn't matter. the group numbers do not matter, they just fit. almost, if you're trying.
i'm guessing it's a clock somewhere; a circadian clock that just counts things based on contexts.
|
Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the case
I am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it:
The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks
The sex ratio is not 1:1
Other things:
You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species.
There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it.
Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong.
|
+ Show Spoiler [spoilered for not being funny] +On June 05 2017 01:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. + Show Spoiler +What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years. + Show Spoiler +How do you get hermaphrodites from an equilibrium between males and females? You have a tendency to make very weird links. And equilibrium between males and females simply means that the ratio is constant, not that everyone is both female and male. As far as i know, hermaphrodites among mammals are exceedingly rare. They are common among some other species like snails. + Show Spoiler +
Whenever i am discussing with you, i have the feeling that you use words slightly different than everyone else, and thus i don't really understand what you want to tell me, and you don't really understand what i want to tell. You still assume that you understand it, but instead take some weirdified version of what i said + random conclusion jumps that have nothing to do with anything i wrote at all, and respond to that
. No .. this is just one of the taboos you have not yet encountered for real... When a kid is born with both sexes .. usually that kid is destroyed by a doctor/surgeon.. and it becomes one or the other (usually a girl if i got that right).. ..so there are no valid statistics on the subject. Both sex people are lied to until they are "legally" old enough (that is if there is a "medical requirement/need" to disclose the information) and these "aliens" live their lives according to "whatever happen" until then (some live unhappy without even knowing the truth). Only a very rare fringe of people are capable of accepting this horrid state of affairs (parent/medical instances confronted with the choices/things to do, when the kid is "diagnosed" as a 2sex kid), and so the taboo and the "medical procedures" applied will remain that way for a few decades more.. very very sad state of affairs really. Also not to mention.. when a kid has both sex .. in certain countries.. they stone it to death... Furthermore, how rare does it have to get to be ignored? "if my kid was concerned" = that's 1 kid and that's enough to have an issue and stand by those kids.. or at least that is how i see it  tldr: yes there are at least 3 types of humans when you consider "sex organs" .. and yes the two "simple" types would rather never think of making space for any other types ( + Show Spoiler +it is too much for them to accept so they reject the notion entirely ) ; saying that "there are so few of them that it doesn't matter" is so stupid and selfish minded that this is a taboo!
Sorry for not being funny at all.. real world is always horrible and some things just ain't funny
|
On June 05 2017 21:53 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler [spoilered for not being funny] +On June 05 2017 01:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. + Show Spoiler +What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years. + Show Spoiler +How do you get hermaphrodites from an equilibrium between males and females? You have a tendency to make very weird links. And equilibrium between males and females simply means that the ratio is constant, not that everyone is both female and male. As far as i know, hermaphrodites among mammals are exceedingly rare. They are common among some other species like snails. + Show Spoiler +
Whenever i am discussing with you, i have the feeling that you use words slightly different than everyone else, and thus i don't really understand what you want to tell me, and you don't really understand what i want to tell. You still assume that you understand it, but instead take some weirdified version of what i said + random conclusion jumps that have nothing to do with anything i wrote at all, and respond to that
. No .. this is just one of the taboos you have not yet encountered for real... When a kid is born with both sexes .. usually that kid is destroyed by a doctor/surgeon.. and it becomes one or the other (usually a girl if i got that right).. ..so there are no valid statistics on the subject. Both sex people are lied to until they are "legally" old enough and then live their lives according to "whatever happen" until then... Only a very rare fringe of people are capable of accepting that state of affairs (parent/medical instances), and so the taboo and the "medical procedures" applied will remain that way for a few decades more.. very very sad state of affairs really. ps: furthermore, how rare does it have to get to be ignored? "if my kid was concerned" = that's 1 kid and that's enough to have an issue and stand by those kids.. or at least that is how i see it tldr: yes there is at least 3 types of humans when you consider "sex organs" .. and yes the two "simple" types would rather never think of making space for any other types, and saying that "there are so few of them that it doesn't matter is so stupid and selfish minded that this is a taboo! Sorry for not being funny at all + Show Spoiler +real world is always horrible and some things just ain't funny
Funny or not, it also seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Hermaphrodites are a non-issue in mammals.
1) In animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
65,000 out of 1.8million animal species are hermaphroditic, which is kinda small, but it seems like it's an ESS in some animals. However, simberto quite specifically mentioned mammals. I haven't found a single example of a mammal species that relies on hermaphroditism as a strategy in reproduction. It's fairly common in worms, and amongst vertebrates, there's fish that rely on hermaphroditism, and the odd reptile. But my brief googling didn't turn up a single mammal (and no, hyenas are not hermaphroditic).
And 2) regarding humans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures
0.018% of the population has hermaphroditic (or even if we take the very broad and most generous reading, which is a bit nonsensical, it's 1.7%), and almost all of those are sterile. Evolutionary dead ends. True hermaphroditism in humans doesn't exist. As for your assertion about how it is treated: in the western world that is changing. Insofar as I know, intersex falls under the general umbrella of LBTQ rights, which is gaining increasing attention.
|
As for your assertion about how it is treated
Stop using your computer.. find a medical professional and ask him what they are TAUGHT to do.
Sorry but
your own typing makes my point for me:
Insofar as I know, intersex falls under the general umbrella of LBTQ rights, which is gaining increasing attention.
you know nothing about it (nor do i, much really i admit) .. you assume ...
.. you even end on
gaining increasing attention
Any study on the matter takes an irrelevant sample and is a sham
65000 is a meaningless number in a world where data is suited to not address their existence...
Go find the medical manual (as if there was a unique one in this case ..  ) it will i think clearly confirm that medicine treats having both sexual organs as something to be treated..
hence the HUGE number of both sex people that go unknown from anyone but people legally bound to shut up about it...
Don't mind me, i'm addressing the issue head on (nothing against you personally.. you are after all in the majority who does not think this "third" sex stuff exists.. hopefully me typing will change that) 
ps: i'm not being honest enough.. i did the leg work when i heard about it 10 years ago (my wife and i were trying to make a baby) and trust me, we are (10 years later) at the time where this issue has to be showcased so that there is recognition .. not the time to downplay it!
Let me give you my "not safe for work" not even "safe for home" example:+ Show Spoiler [NSFW] +Again, this is disturbing so if you are too young, seek counsel/advice about what you will read (with a friend/relative/parent/whoever) or just don't read it  + Show Spoiler +It could be your kid, and the doctor would say.. well.. it will be a girl .. i will take out the penis you will have to use a "x" on your now daughter so that her organ / + Show Spoiler + / body survives this change that we will make meaning you will have to do it .. + Show Spoiler +technically raping your own kid for years maybe, .. Yeah, i agree this is horror incarnated .. something i would have fought the doctor and the rest of the world on if it happened to my (then upcoming) kid.. AND NO!!! this is not "gaining attention" whatsoever!
|
On June 05 2017 20:36 xM(Z wrote:
read up, the voodoo is that the ratio is 'made' on a per-individual basis; it has nothing to do with groups so even with 60% no breeders(even at skewed ratios 60%male, 40%female), it doesn't matter. the group numbers do not matter, they just fit. almost, if you're trying.
i'm guessing it's a clock somewhere; a circadian clock that just counts things based on contexts.
This is from a very established dude and at least two people have already explained how it makes sense to you in this thread. So I suggest you do the reading up. But as it seems like you're trolling, feel free to type up more random sentences about things you don't understand instead. Seems to be the fashion these days.
|
On June 05 2017 22:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 21:53 fluidrone wrote:+ Show Spoiler [spoilered for not being funny] +On June 05 2017 01:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 00:36 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 09:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 02:49 xM(Z wrote:On June 04 2017 01:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 04 2017 00:58 Uldridge wrote:
Also, for a small, but important nitpick: evolution doesn't necessarily take place over millions of years. It depends on the organism and the propagation method. Selective breeding can cause very rapid speciation, which can in turn cause for a new species to emerge faster. Obviously bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than humans.
Evolution oftenly is presented with littme nuance. Survival of the fittest simply means that certain individual has the genetic/physiological toolset to survive the (new/arisen) environment. This does not mean it's inherently better. It means that it (still) works. The reason you can still see all these different species that are very similar to what they used to be -evolutionarily speaking, even though genetic drift keeps happening over those millions of years- is because their niche (which is related to habitat) is so well chosen, that they don't need adaptation. I'm sure that most diversification comes from a population being too succesful, it needs to find a new habitat/niche or certain individuals would die out. Natural Selection also doesn't self correct or self-Progress. If the propagation method does not make the species extinct then it will simply continue that propagation method until outside variables prevent it from doing so--even if it's cannibalising your mother from the inside out. that part could be argued upon. i'm leaning towards at least self-efficientization(fr) if not some self-feedback of sorts. random and survival do not explain some things. + Show Spoiler +What does that even mean? Natural selection is not a process, it's an observation of things naturally propagating themselves. i can't argue on this because it's to extensive and fairly controversial, also because i don't fully grasp it either but it's around the lines of: http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080#b1 The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.
In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes. that /b part in particular. then, random is not random but preferential(observed cases) and the environment is not the bane of all existence and that a tug of war between the environment and developmental processes(bias) occurs. SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6. you could also look into punctuated equilibrium , or hell, you could even check the chaos theory of evolution for 'ideas'. that's totally off topic though. we were talking about men and women until Simberto came with his hermaphrodites(that would be the men<->women equilibria, right?) after millions of years. + Show Spoiler +How do you get hermaphrodites from an equilibrium between males and females? You have a tendency to make very weird links. And equilibrium between males and females simply means that the ratio is constant, not that everyone is both female and male. As far as i know, hermaphrodites among mammals are exceedingly rare. They are common among some other species like snails. + Show Spoiler +
Whenever i am discussing with you, i have the feeling that you use words slightly different than everyone else, and thus i don't really understand what you want to tell me, and you don't really understand what i want to tell. You still assume that you understand it, but instead take some weirdified version of what i said + random conclusion jumps that have nothing to do with anything i wrote at all, and respond to that
. No .. this is just one of the taboos you have not yet encountered for real... When a kid is born with both sexes .. usually that kid is destroyed by a doctor/surgeon.. and it becomes one or the other (usually a girl if i got that right).. ..so there are no valid statistics on the subject. Both sex people are lied to until they are "legally" old enough and then live their lives according to "whatever happen" until then... Only a very rare fringe of people are capable of accepting that state of affairs (parent/medical instances), and so the taboo and the "medical procedures" applied will remain that way for a few decades more.. very very sad state of affairs really. ps: furthermore, how rare does it have to get to be ignored? "if my kid was concerned" = that's 1 kid and that's enough to have an issue and stand by those kids.. or at least that is how i see it tldr: yes there is at least 3 types of humans when you consider "sex organs" .. and yes the two "simple" types would rather never think of making space for any other types, and saying that "there are so few of them that it doesn't matter is so stupid and selfish minded that this is a taboo! Sorry for not being funny at all + Show Spoiler +real world is always horrible and some things just ain't funny Funny or not, it also seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Hermaphrodites are a non-issue in mammals. 1) In animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite65,000 out of 1.8million animal species are hermaphroditic, which is kinda small, but it seems like it's an ESS in some animals. However, simberto quite specifically mentioned mammals. I haven't found a single example of a mammal species that relies on hermaphroditism as a strategy in reproduction. It's fairly common in worms, and amongst vertebrates, there's fish that rely on hermaphroditism, and the odd reptile. But my brief googling didn't turn up a single mammal (and no, hyenas are not hermaphroditic). And 2) regarding humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Population_figures0.018% of the population has hermaphroditic (or even if we take the very broad and most generous reading, which is a bit nonsensical, it's 1.7%), and almost all of those are sterile. Evolutionary dead ends. True hermaphroditism in humans doesn't exist. As for your assertion about how it is treated: in the western world that is changing. Insofar as I know, intersex falls under the general umbrella of LBTQ rights, which is gaining increasing attention.
There's a moving to refer to rights as an umbrella of LBTQIA (A standing for asexual) (my school which is super progressive maybe adds another letter or two but can't remember.) Most of the stuff I've seen about it though has been about arguing about drivers licenses. Other than that I'm not an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
