Abortion

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Furthermore, LACK of reproduction also "contributes to the process of evolution". Evolution, in the most simple terms, is change in allele frequencies at a population level over time. If one couple chooses not to reproduce, or if they have 50 pregnancies and abort them all, they are STILL "contributing to the process of evolution" by virtue of NOT passing their particular genotype to a subsequent generation.

Your reproductive scenario can only be viewed as a non-event. The default position for the process of evolution IS NOT a static realm, where the option of a non-event is a viable endeavor conducive towards the long-run viability of the processes of evolution. The only thing your claim is passing on is the obvious constraints of a bad breakfast, and the subsequent lack of concentrative ability.

- Post Edited! Please Quote or Multi Quote and remove all but the text you are quoting or responding too leaving the tags in place. Thank you! jk

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Your reproductive scenario can only be viewed as a non-event. The default position for the process of evolution IS NOT a static realm, where the option of a non-event is a viable endeavor conducive towards the long-run viability of the processes of evolution.

Evolution is a genetic event, not some metaphysical toy of yours. So let me put it in simple terms so that you might understand. If you have two subpopulations in a given generation, and one subpopulation is LESS likely to reproduce (whether by choice or not), then that subpopulation's alleles will be LESS represented in the subsequent generation. Thus, the subsequent generation will have DIFFERENT gene frequencies at a population level. That is evolution. Period. So an evolutionary change is the direct result of that subpopulations behavior. That is a "contribution" to evolution. No, they're not contributing their own particular genes -- but again evolution at a species and population level is about FREQUENCIES. They are contributing to the greater frequency of OTHER genotypes in the successive generation.

The only thing your claim is passing on is the obvious constraints of a bad breakfast, and the subsequent lack of concentrative ability.

Is this really necessary? It seems as if being nice is as difficult for you as writing a coherent sentence. My research background is, believe it or not, in evolutionary biology, and I've got a first author scientific paper coming out later this year on that topic (specifically molecular evolution in malaria's erythrocyte-invasion molecules). Oh, and my breakfast was fine, thank you.

[Zetetic11235]

Contraceptive measures are a moot issue, before the zygote forms, there is only material that would otherwise be disposed of/recycled by the body.

It is readily evident that evolution is not omnipotent. Ubiquitous perhaps, but its influence is not unlimited, it must work within the constraints of biological/physical laws. This may seem a frivolous distinction, but omnipotence is a ludicrous metaphysical descriptor which has no place in this discussion.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Evolution is a genetic event, not some metaphysical toy of yours. So let me put it in simple terms so that you might understand. If you have two subpopulations in a given generation, and one subpopulation is LESS likely to reproduce (whether by choice or not), then that subpopulation's alleles will be LESS represented in the subsequent generation. Thus, the subsequent generation will have DIFFERENT gene frequencies at a population level. That is evolution. Period. So an evolutionary change is the direct result of that subpopulations behavior. That is a "contribution" to evolution. No, they're not contributing their own particular genes -- but again evolution at a species and population level is about FREQUENCIES. They are contributing to the greater frequency of OTHER genotypes in the successive generation.

Is this really necessary? It seems as if being nice is as difficult for you as writing a coherent sentence. My research background is, believe it or not, in evolutionary biology, and I've got a first author scientific paper coming out later this year on that topic (specifically molecular evolution in malaria's erythrocyte-invasion molecules). Oh, and my breakfast was fine, thank you.

Your entry-level description of the evolutionary process is unnecessary, because if you actually have the ability to focus and comprehend what was written (please read post again and again) you would not have been compelled to respond in your described manner. In an effort to simplify, I indicated that your reproductive scenario consisting of non-contributable (genetic material) behavior would essentially be viewed by the processes of evolution as a non-event. And to help clarify my distinction, I indicated that by not participating in contributing genetic material is NOT a viable option as it pertains to the evolutionary processes, because evolution requires the dynamic inputs from the related species, and if the entire sub-population of the related species decides not to contribute the required genetic material, well then the processes of evolution are not going in wait (static), and the presence of the related species dissolves into oblivion. That is what I said if you can only focus!

Also, your constant announcements of your auspicious credentials and activities are growing quite boorish, and consequently diminishing any credibility by the self evident responses that you single-handily produce.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Contraceptive measures are a moot issue, before the zygote forms, there is only material that would otherwise be disposed of/recycled by the body.

It is readily evident that evolution is not omnipotent. Ubiquitous perhaps, but its influence is not unlimited, it must work within the constraints of biological/physical laws. This may seem a frivolous distinction, but omnipotence is a ludicrous metaphysical descriptor which has no place in this discussion.

The only frivolous distinction to occur is your continued attempts at describing nonsensical conjectures and their related integration.
The processes of evolution clearly are performed under the given constraints(at any single moment in time) of the Natural World, but the multitude of directions that evolution can precede is quite unlimited, and as far as you are concerned as a living species subjected to the all-encompassing processes of evolution, should it not follow that the influence of this process is viewed as OMNIPOTENT to every selfawared Human Being.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

And to help clarify my distinction, I indicated that by not participating in contributing genetic material is NOT a viable option as it pertains to the evolutionary processes, because evolution requires the dynamic inputs from the related species.

Again, it appears beyond your recognition that evolution is a POPULATION phenomenon. Evolution has to do with changing gene frequencies. Gene frequencies in a subsequent generation are determined both by what IS contributed and what is NOT contributed. If a population has allele X and allele Y, then less contribution of allele X in generation 1 will cause generation 2 to have a higher frequency of allele Y and a lower frequency of allele X. That is evolution.

Also, your constant announcements of your auspicious credentials and activities are growing quite boorish, and consequently diminishing any credibility by the self evident responses that you single-handily produce.

You seem to have very little formal background in evolutionary biology; and while I'm not exactly Stephen Jay Gould, my personal understanding of it is informed by post-doctoral level research in the field. Whether or not you find me boorish is only a statement about your numerous intolerances, which you reveal with your frequent and perfunctory use of words like boorish and contemptuous.

But be that as it may, I appreciate your interest in the subject and I think you'd be quite wise to do some more reading on it -- especially the statistical basis of population genetics (with respect to this discussion), as well as evolutionary forces like founder effects and genetic drift by which evolution happens without selective pressures.

[Zetetic11235]

Your argument is that evolution is unlimited within its limitations and domain of influence, omnipotent is not the correct word. Every single living animal has external bilateral symmetry, that to me deosn't indicate any degree of omnipotentce, simply omnipresence. It is just like gravity, ubiquitous but within bounds.

Furthermore, I would advise against these perpetual ad hominem attacks as most everyone else has been civil enough to abstain from such disgraceful tactics as is necessary for polite and meaningful conversation.

[Ruthless Logic]

Every single living animal has external bilateral symmetry, that to me deosn't indicate any degree of omnipotentce, simply omnipresence. It is just like gravity, ubiquitous but within bounds. (quote)



Asymmetry
One of the exceptions among animals is the phylum Porifera (sponges) which have no symmetry.

P.S. Again, please consider your claims before the vetting process discredits them.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

One of the exceptions among animals is the phylum Porifera (sponges) which have no symmetry.

Yes, I agree. Chordates are all bilaterally symmetrical, but that is only one of many phyla of animals. At any rate, I think his point would still be the same if he picked some trait that was common to all animals.

For instance, all animals are heterotrophs. Or all animals are multicellular.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Yes, I agree. Chordates are all bilaterally symmetrical, but that is only one of many phyla of animals. At any rate, I think his point would still be the same if he picked some trait that was common to all animals.

For instance, all animals are heterotrophs. Or all animals are multicellular.

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed. It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives. Perhaps your efforts would be more appropriate immersed at a Trivial Pursuit Forum, where presenting research-able established facts are the main objectives and consequently rewarded, while the dynamic realm of a Philosophical Forum tends to pursue additional objectives. Philosophy requires---no demands the cognitive ability to merge the rigidity of empirical evidence and/or behaviors, while extrapolating possible implications or insightful measurable observations that help frame or reveal the inherent constraints of the Natural World and the impositions that hold court over the Human Experience.