Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... 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.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

Did the lion eat the fecundity ?

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

Originally Posted by memester

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.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

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.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... 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 ?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by memester

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)

Originally Posted by memester

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.

[memester]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Whatever. Stop being intentionally concrete

Now you are to tell me what to do ?

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 ?

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

No.

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

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

Ok, your problem is a misuse of terminology then.

No, misuse of terminology is YOUR problem.

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.

[jeeprs]

[complaint: excessive biological argumentation for philforum]

[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.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by memester

Who has proven that the Viceroys have moved EITHER WAY ?

... 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? ... 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! ...

[memester]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... 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.