Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... if that turns out to be the case, then neither of the mimicry theories would be applicable to the case of Viceroys and Monarchs ... and in fact, there is evidence that in some localized regions the Viceroy is moving toward the Queen ... and that's an interesting thing to ponder ... in some regions, the Viceroy appears to be mimicking the Monarch; in other regions it appears to be mimicking the Queen ... could the Viceroy have evolved a high degree of genetic coloration plasticity relative to other butterflies? - that is, could the Viceroy have evolved a genetic "talent" for mimicry? (now we're really speculating! ) ...

How do you know it is not Queen moving toward Viceroy ? You still have the Viceroy "pegged". Is ti now The USUAL suspect or something ?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

Then it's not a deceptive at all; it's clear warning from either species involved. If anything, it's Queens, perhaps being less distasteful, that have the supposed direction to go in, toward Viceroy.

... and that's true ... only the unidirectional version of mimicry is deception; co-mimicry is clear warning ... obviously, I should have chosen a less controversial example ...

[memester]

No, it's perfectly the best kind of example ! Bed Time Stories from Science.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

How do you know it is not Queen moving toward Viceroy ? You still have the Viceroy "pegged". Is ti now The USUAL suspect or something ?

... yes, that's exactly what my last sentence speculated ... if it looks like the Monarch in one region but diverges to look like the Queen in another, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the Viceroy is "the usual suspect" ...

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

Biased Gene Conversion shows this is inaccurate

Not at all. The development and dispersion of polymorphisms by whatever mechanism, and changes in population gene frequencies due to drift, founder effects, etc, (and this INCLUDES biased gene conversion), are all NONSELECTIVE causes of population gene frequency change. Selection acts on the phenotype, whether the novel underlying gene sequence got there because of a GC vs AT bias or a point mutation or whatever.

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... yes, that's exactly what my last sentence speculated ... if it looks like the Monarch in one region but diverges to look like the Queen in another, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the Viceroy is "the usual suspect" ...

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 ?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

Bed Time Stories from Science.

... yep! - they're the best kind!

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Not at all. The development and dispersion of polymorphisms by whatever mechanism, and changes in population gene frequencies due to drift, founder effects, etc, (and this INCLUDES biased gene conversion), are all NONSELECTIVE causes of population gene frequency change. Selection acts on the phenotype, whether the novel underlying gene sequence got there because of a GC vs AT bias or a point mutation or whatever.

But who SAYS selection acts only on phenotype ? And on WHAT BASIS ?

Also, are you dismissing things that can be observed as possible phenotype ?

Are you also limiting selection to the individual ?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

But who SAYS selection acts only on phenotype ? And on WHAT BASIS ?

Because the lion that's about to eat you doesn't know your genotype. It only knows how fast you run. Because the ice age doesn't know your genotype -- it only knows that more furry babies will survive.

What kind of question is it to ask whether selection only acts on phenotype? Selection by definition is differential survival or fecundity, and these are in themselves PHENOTYPES. It is a phenotype of humans that we drown in the ocean, and it's a phenotype of fish that they die on land.

Furthermore, this is about mechanism. Even viruses that integrate into a host genome do not select via targeted alteration of host germline DNA.

Originally Posted by memester

Also, are you dismissing things that can be observed as possible phenotype ?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Any phenotype is subject to selection. Gene regulation is a phenotype -- that's where it gets sticky. But again the physiology produced by gene regulation is what favors survival or not, i.e. what is subject to selection.

Originally Posted by memester

Are you also limiting selection to the individual ?

Yes!! (Individual being defined inclusively, because ability to produce viable offspring that survive to reproduction is critical to this)

EVOLUTION is a population phenomenon. Allele frequencies change in populations. This is evolution. Selection may lead to significant and rapid changes in a population in few generations, but the UNIT of natural selection is the procreation (or not) of an individual genotype, as determined by how the resultant phenotype favors survival and reproduction.

In order for there to be a FREQUENCY, there has to be a numerator and a denominator. The denominator is the total population. The numerator is a big group of individuals.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Because the lion that's about to eat you doesn't know your genotype. It only knows how fast you run. Because the ice age doesn't know your genotype -- it only knows that more furry babies will survive.

Your argument against genotype not being selected against by lions does not address the question.

What kind of question is it to ask whether selection only acts on phenotype?

A perfectly legitimate question.

Selection by definition is differential survival or fecundity

Did the lion eat the fecundity ? That is not the definition of selection. Selection is picking or choosing.

, and these are in themselves PHENOTYPES. It is a phenotype of humans that we drown in the ocean, and it's a phenotype of fish that they die on land.

it's also a phenotype of some people that they do not die in water, and also that some fish do not die on land.

Furthermore, this is about mechanism. Even viruses that integrate into a host genome do not select via targeted alteration of host germline DNA.

that is not addressing the question.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Any phenotype is subject to selection.

Of course. Any dollar of mine is subject to being spent. Or not. It may be saved or may be burned.

Gene regulation is a phenotype -- that's where it gets sticky. But again the physiology produced by gene regulation is what favors survival or not, i.e. what is subject to selection.

Who says so ? On what basis ?

Yes!! (Individual being defined inclusively, because ability to produce viable offspring that survive to reproduction is critical to this)

but other changes are due to chemical selection. Selection.

EVOLUTION is a population phenomenon. Allele frequencies change in populations. This is evolution. Selection may lead to significant and rapid changes in a population in few generations, but the UNIT of natural selection is the procreation (or not) of an individual genotype, as determined by how the resultant phenotype favors survival and reproduction.

Not so. Biased Gene Conversion falsifies that.

In order for there to be a FREQUENCY, there has to be a numerator and a denominator. The denominator is the total population. The numerator is a big group of individuals.

and ?