Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution May Yield Most Abundant Traits, Not Best
Medical News Today ^ | 7/18/2008

Posted on 07/18/2008 1:34:27 PM PDT by Soliton

Evolution may provide us with the most abundant phenotypes (observable genetic characteristics) rather than the fittest, according to a new theory published on July 18 in the open-access journal PLoS Computational Biology. That is, natural selection may be optimal for choosing the most fit organism of the moment, but evolutionary biologists question if the process leads to the optimal organisms in the long run. Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, led by Drs. Matthew Cowperthwaite and Lauren Ancel Meyers, propose a new theory: life may not always be optimal.

(Excerpt) Read more at medicalnewstoday.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: countdown2zotstasy; evolution; extinction
If there is a designer, it ain't THAT intelligent!
1 posted on 07/18/2008 1:34:27 PM PDT by Soliton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Duh. Summary of article. Improbable genome configurations are less likely than probable ones.


2 posted on 07/18/2008 1:38:54 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Rabbits would be a good example. They can be scared to death pretty easily.


3 posted on 07/18/2008 1:40:19 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting conservative isn't for the faint of heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Do you realize that this article refutes naturalistic evolution?


4 posted on 07/18/2008 1:45:30 PM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Do you realize that this article refutes naturalistic evolution? Thanks for the ammo. ;-)


5 posted on 07/18/2008 1:47:33 PM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Aye. I used to have two rabbits. They're ridiculously fragile little beasts. Of course, they compensate for their individual frailty by breeding like... well, you know.

A lot of people who don't really understand evolution get really hung up on the idea of "survival of the fittest" - which is a nice slogan, but not really a statement of scientific principle. The trick is to look past the fitness of the individual and look instead at the fitness of any particular gene. And since a gene's "fitness" is defined pretty much exclusively by its rate of self-propagation, the gene that replicates itself the fastest wins - even if that gene produces individual organisms that die faster than their brethren who lack said gene.

Another slogan in biology, less well-known than "survival of the fittest", puts it well: A man is simply a sperm's way of making more sperm.

6 posted on 07/18/2008 1:47:58 PM PDT by Omedalus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

I wonder how much grant money they wasted to state the obvious? A thought exercise with some elementary probability would yield the same conclusion.


7 posted on 07/18/2008 1:51:05 PM PDT by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheWasteLand
I wonder how much grant money they wasted to state the obvious? A thought exercise with some elementary probability would yield the same conclusion.

The same thought crossed my mind. They're really not saying anything more profound than Richard Dawkins's "selfish gene" model, which has been around forever. Still the foundation of science is independent repeatability, and if they experimentally verify a "selfish gene" model playing out in real life, then, well, that's far from the worst expenditure of grant money I've ever heard of.

8 posted on 07/18/2008 2:06:36 PM PDT by Omedalus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

“If there is a designer, it ain’t THAT intelligent! “

LOL you just can’t help yourself, can you?

Where’s the Discovery Institute video link?


9 posted on 07/18/2008 2:07:08 PM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Not a surprising conclusion. For example, being an aggressive violent unmerciful human being might be a short-term positive in terms of natural selection, but ultimately these are not the best traits for the long-term survival of humanity. The thing is, societal behavior can change drastically over much shorter time periods than thought necessary for substantive genetic selection. It has only been 60-70 years since Nazi death camps, for example. What we learn about behavior (e.g. being merciful, ‘doing the right thing’) is passed on not by changes in our genes, but by what we teach our children. Somewhat off topic, but worth thinking about.
10 posted on 07/18/2008 2:17:11 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12
Where’s the Discovery Institute video link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI

;)

11 posted on 07/18/2008 2:27:10 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Do you realize that this article refutes naturalistic evolution? Thanks for the ammo.

Good luck with that!

12 posted on 07/18/2008 2:28:56 PM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, study, learn, then express an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Omedalus
and if they experimentally verify a "selfish gene" model playing out in real life, then, well, that's far from the worst expenditure of grant money I've ever heard of.

A computational model is far from real life - witness Dr. Hansen and his Global Warming charade. I suspect the researchers' model is not terribly sophisticated, which is probably why their conclusion is so banal.

Genes do not reproduce on their own - they require an organism and it is that organism which reproduces or not.

In order to test whether a gene is passed on, the entire set of genes and all their interactions and combinations within the organism must be accurately modeled. This in and of itself is a difficult problem. Additionally, there are a large number of such organisms competing (inter and intra species) within a given environment, which itself is constantly changing (naturally I might add, with another dirty glance at Dr. Hansen).

Thus, one must accurately model all the interactions and combinations of all the genes in all the organisms and then apply a fitness test against a changing environment.

It is a difficult thing to model accurately.

13 posted on 07/18/2008 2:39:16 PM PDT by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Natural selection is not always about an ascendency in complexity. A species of colourful moth may die out in favour of dull, grey ones, in urban areas, for example.

In “survival of the ‘fittest,’” the word ‘fittest’ is not always referring to physical prowess.

If a lioness mates with a lion with a genetic disability, and if enough of the offspring are viable to out-compete the rest of the gene pool, then that disability becomes an apparent asset. Of course common observation shows us that such a pairing would be significantly disadvantaged, and thus, the genes with the disability, prone to dying out.

But not always. Life is not a one-variable test. It does not do one-word answers, always.

In humans, the scenario is far more complex because of the value most humans have put in creativity over all else. Even here, there are contradictions. If apparently successful mating pairs wilfully curtail their population in terms of the number of offspring they have, then the mating pairs that don’t follow this pattern of reproduction will outbreed the former, and in the end, become the apparently more successful set.

Another factor complicating the human scenario, is socialism. By rewarding the less fortunate, means of elimination by natural selection are rendered void. But since the variables available to tweak human success are so numerous, even these members have a huge scope for improvement and success. Cruel? Of course! However we humans as a species try to curtail cruelty because of our dependence on one-another, thus bringing into play the factor of empathy. A culture that values mindless violence will not be conducive to success.

Life is tested frequently, and often. What we see around us are the results of the tests upto that instant, and not beyond.


14 posted on 07/18/2008 2:39:31 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Omedalus
Another slogan in biology, less well-known than "survival of the fittest", puts it well: A man is simply a sperm's way of making more sperm.

I once patiently explained to my son that a cat was merely a device for turning cat food into cat poo. He was not amused.

15 posted on 07/18/2008 2:42:56 PM PDT by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
Not a surprising conclusion. For example, being an aggressive violent unmerciful human being might be a short-term positive in terms of natural selection, but ultimately these are not the best traits for the long-term survival of humanity. The thing is, societal behavior can change drastically over much shorter time periods than thought necessary for substantive genetic selection. It has only been 60-70 years since Nazi death camps, for example. What we learn about behavior (e.g. being merciful, ‘doing the right thing’) is passed on not by changes in our genes, but by what we teach our children. Somewhat off topic, but worth thinking about.

Exactly.

Because, the empathy that society reserves towards its individuals, is a function of the empathy each individual reserves towards one-another. We are extremely dependent on society, and thus, the importance of empathy within successful societies.

If our man Tom goes about looting and murdering anyone he sets sight upon, all through his life, then society's guarantee for the safety and reproductive viability of his offspring, will be compromised. His behaviour, thus brings punishment, in the long term, for his genetic lineage.

We are kind towards others because we innately desire that kindness to be returned not just to ourselves, but more importantly, to our progeny, for whom we may not always be available to protect. This is what has kept the human animal, social.

16 posted on 07/18/2008 2:52:19 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Omedalus
The trick is to look past the fitness of the individual and look instead at the fitness of any particular gene.

Well said.
17 posted on 07/18/2008 3:38:52 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting conservative isn't for the faint of heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel

*snert*

I just told my catz that, but they didn’t even move. It’s sunset nap time, you know.


18 posted on 07/18/2008 4:20:07 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

19 posted on 07/18/2008 4:57:51 PM PDT by winstonwolf33 ("Do you believe everything you hear on TV? "--Shaun of the Dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel
I once patiently explained to my son that a cat was merely a device for turning cat food into cat poo. He was not amused.

A cat is merely the cat poo's selfish way of making more copies of itself.

20 posted on 07/18/2008 9:29:03 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson