|
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas Explain, Spock. |
Dylan wrote:
Explain, Spock. It is only logical. Bob Kolker |
On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. Explain, Spock. SotF means that those that are "more fit" are more likely to survive and reproduce. Chance still plays a role -- even the fittest might be struck by lightning before breeding -- but chance isn't the *only* thing that goes into the determination of which creatures reproduce and which don't. I.e., SotF _biases_ the chance. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas |
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote: Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. Explain, Spock. SotF means that those that are "more fit" are more likely to survive and reproduce. Chance still plays a role -- even the fittest might be struck by lightning before breeding -- but chance isn't the *only* thing that goes into the determination of which creatures reproduce and which don't. I.e., SotF _biases_ the chance. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas Do you mean that cave fish that have evolved into blindness are more fit than their ancestors? |
"Dylan" writes:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote: Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. Explain, Spock. SotF means that those that are "more fit" are more likely to survive and reproduce. Chance still plays a role -- even the fittest might be struck by lightning before breeding -- but chance isn't the *only* thing that goes into the determination of which creatures reproduce and which don't. I.e., SotF _biases_ the chance. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas Do you mean that cave fish that have evolved into blindness are more fit than their ancestors? No, that's not what he means. Blind cave fish *might* have lost their sight because blindness made them more fit, e.g. if they were able to redirect some resources previously used for vision. But they might also have lost their sight because their fitness became independent of whether they had sight or not. If a trait does not confer greater fitness, there is an excellent chance that it will disappear because of random mutations. -- Steve Schaffner Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of insight into the topic. Josiah Royce |
On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote: Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. Explain, Spock. SotF means that those that are "more fit" are more likely to survive and reproduce. Chance still plays a role -- even the fittest might be struck by lightning before breeding -- but chance isn't the *only* thing that goes into the determination of which creatures reproduce and which don't. I.e., SotF _biases_ the chance. Do you mean that cave fish that have evolved into blindness are more fit than their ancestors? I'm not sure how you got that from what I posted above. But to try to answer it... given how much of our energy budget we (and presumably other animals) spend on operating eyes and brains, they might well be more fit by the mere fact of no longer spending that fraction of their energy budget on eyes and visual processing. Perhaps a biologist will chip in with a better answer. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas |
Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote: Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, "Dylan" wrote: Bobby D. Bryant wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2005, wrote: survival of the fitest is based on chance. SotF describes a _bias_ to chance. Explain, Spock. SotF means that those that are "more fit" are more likely to survive and reproduce. Chance still plays a role -- even the fittest might be struck by lightning before breeding -- but chance isn't the *only* thing that goes into the determination of which creatures reproduce and which don't. I.e., SotF _biases_ the chance. Do you mean that cave fish that have evolved into blindness are more fit than their ancestors? I'm not sure how you got that from what I posted above. I didn't, I just find the "survival of the fittest" concept fascinating, and I want to learn more. But to try to answer it... given how much of our energy budget we (and presumably other animals) spend on operating eyes and brains, they might well be more fit by the mere fact of no longer spending that fraction of their energy budget on eyes and visual processing. Perhaps a biologist will chip in with a better answer. .. . . . Your answer is helpful. Thanks. |
"Dylan" writes:
Steve Schaffner wrote: "Dylan" writes: . . . . Do you mean that cave fish that have evolved into blindness are more fit than their ancestors? No, that's not what he means. Blind cave fish *might* have lost their sight because blindness made them more fit, e.g. if they were able to redirect some resources previously used for vision. But they might also have lost their sight because their fitness became independent of whether they had sight or not. If a trait does not confer greater fitness, there is an excellent chance that it will disappear because of random mutations. -- Steve Schaffner . . . . Can you give me an example of how blind cave fish could be more fit than their sighted ancestors via redirecting some resources previously used for vision? I'm asking because I'm avidly interested in this, and certain members of a religious discussion group I attend keeps using the term "survival of the fittest" in the sense that Herbert Spencer used it. Blind cave fish is my counter example, but I fear I don't know enough about evolution . . . . The portions of the brain used for visual processing could be turned to other uses, or simply eliminated. Brains use a lot of energy, so any reduction here could be useful. (In practice, unused visual processing centers would probably wouldn't develop much anyway, so the savings are likely to be smaller than one might guess.) Note that in this case, the selection would be for mutations that modified brain development, not for just any mutation that produced blindness. Completely eliminating eyes would probably be beneficial, since eyes are more vulnerable to damage and infection than skin, and they introduce weak spots into the skull. Note that I'm not a real biologist either: I'm a geneticist. -- Steve Schaffner Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of insight into the topic. Josiah Royce |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com