Technical Ben wrote:Izawwlgood. I'm happy to accept the two are different. But I need assistance in seeing how they are. So the speed of reproduction is different to the reproductive success. Sorry if I'm having difficulty grasping what the difference is.
You need to look up the word 'fecundity
'. I'm serious; this conversation cannot continue until you do so.
Technical Ben wrote:How do I observe that these selections apply to the extent to either 1) remove all of the specific genotype from existence in all populations (thus I can confirm evolution is correct in describing how species disappear) and 2) add new genotypes that did not exist in the population already (so I can confirm evolution is correct in describing how new species appear)?
By understanding the basics of Evolutionary Biology, and reading about all the examples of observation of evolution.
Again! You're mistaking 'selection' for 'mutation'. Selection does not make new genotypes, mutation makes new genotypes. Selection SELECTS for which genotypes are passed on.
Technical Ben wrote:I can have a population with a variation. I give it a genotype which I represent with a number. We give it a value of 1 to 5. The variation can be added to or subtracted from as a mutation. I can add up to 5, or reduce to 1. I can have a population consisting only of genotype 1, or a population including all types (1 to 5). Now, I can let reproduction change the size of the populations, they can also inherit mutations etc. I can let the environment select from this population, with a requirement for a certain value or range of values. I get a selection against fitness here? I can visualize how the numbers, variations, populations, inheritance would progress here.
Is that a correct example? If I then consider each genotype above to be unable to interbreed, I end up with separate species. I end up with extinction if the genotype does not match the environment. However, what if I set up two experiments of the above, one with a starting point of one species only given the value 1, and the other where I start with 5 species (1 to 5)? How do I look back over the set of species, to tell which experiment started with the variation at the begging (then continued to meet the environment and selective pressure) and which started with no variation (then met the environment and selective pressure)?
This analogy is weirdly wrong in a way I'm having trouble looking at. Please look up 'Punnett Square
' to get on board with how we talk about genotypic variation and inheritance, maybe? I'm not really sure what your mutations are doing, other than turning genotypes into other genotypes, which they don't really do, as you have it. But yes, assuming genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have known fitness functions, you can indeed model them.
The problem with this analogy is the way you think mutation works, but yes, you could track the population over time then.
Technical Ben wrote:It's asking how I can measure the difference in a system that starts with variety and continues, and one that starts with none and increases it.
By looking at the fossil record. We've said this to you numerous times. Or by looking at how prevalent a given gene sequence is in a given population; if it's in everyone, it's probably older! If it's only a few people, it's probably younger, or spontaneous!
Technical Ben wrote:
Ok, this is where I'm not understanding. A value of the number of successful reproductions can also be taken as a total of the number of successful reproductions of the species over time, can it not? "Number of successful reproductions + time between reproduction = total success"? Or is it that a slower reproduction rate can be selected for, because some environments favor slower reproduction (cold or seasonal areas. an example being a 7 year arctic moth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynaephora_groenlandica
)? If that is where I've gone wrong, I'll be happy to change from "reproduction speed == reproduction success" to "any factor effecting reproduction success == reproduction success".
Fecundity. Look it up, and reread my previous posts response to your confusion. Reproduction success is the definition you want (as this is basically the definition of fecundity)
Technical Ben wrote:I know some of the definitions of speciation. But if speciation refers to evolution, does it help me know what evolution is? I'd have to ask what both are, as one requires the other in it's explination. How do I understand one or the other from a starting point? I can consider speciation, but under what observations? If speciation is not variation (I agree it's not), how do I confirm the observance of it in a population is new? How do I confirm that I have an origional population progressing to a new speciation, and not a mixed population of 2 species progressing to one species? As said, not to be argumentative, but to look at how to demonstrate, derive or observe the fact. Just as it's easy to state something is true, but to provide a proof requires more questions and more work.
Respectfully, you do not seem to understand the definitions. And your lack of understanding does not indicate that the problem is a lack of proof.
You seem to be very caught up in how YOU can observe something. Lets get something straight; it doesn't matter if you go into the field and start looking for these things, because you don't know what you're looking for. You can't come into a lab, be shown some sequencing data, and expect to understand how selection pressure on mutations in a given environment give rise to citrate consumption. You are a layman, and until you understand the field, you WILL have to accept some of these statement sans nuanced data backing them up. Because this whole discussion, we've been explaining things to you, and our explanations are based on conclusions that have been reached from observation.
But sure; you can observe speciation by either observing that two populations no longer breed, or by finding mutations in one population that are not found in another. For example, Alu transposon insertion at locus ### (I can't remember what locus it is) has been used to track human populations, because it is a fairly recent insertion.
Technical Ben wrote:No, how do I confirm how it got it's diversity. I observe it has diversity. I observe it has some "hands" in a card game. How do I know how many hands in the game it had previously? How do I know what rules it got them by? I can observe the current game (current diversity). I'm asking how we go about observing the past hands so as to say "we know the rules that the game is played by". I can conceive any number of theoretical ways to get to this hand (or deck). I consider evolution a possible way. How do I go about confirming this is the most fitting? Would I not check we had enough hands dealt, enough selections, enough cards etc? The numbers are very important, as some are too low a probability to consider possible, some are so high it's foolish to not consider them factual.
You should really ditch this analogy.
So, you've been made aware of a theory that explains how the hand size can become diverse, and you are aware of methods for that diversity to occur. Show me where the numbers are 'too low a probability to consider possible'.
Basically, you've set up a poor analogy, that you've been told isn't terribly representative, and you posit that in your analogy some things don't fit, and now you think it's the theories job to explain away the inconsistencies in your analogy?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.