…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
No, no predictions last time. Just an incredible feeling of satisfaction watching the news outlets reporting the results as they came in and watching Hilary supporters sobbing and breaking into tears.
Strike up a victory for diversity and inclusion and rich white guys!
walto,
He doesn’t like to do that, because he likes to be able to change it to suit his next argument. That’s the whole point.
I don’t know about that. But I do know that, if it were me, I’d want to take that argument away from my adversaries…and it seems like a pretty easy thing to do.
One other point. When you’re involved in an issue closely/deeply for a long time, as Allan is with this stuff, it can be jarring to have threshold questions lobbed at you by a “layman.” And you may not know or remember quite how to handle them, having crossed that bridge a long time ago. That just happened to me when I gave a draft of a paper of mine on value theory to a friend who has a lot of background in philosophy but has read little in value theory. His responses have been difficult to handle in part because they question the whole enterprise, while, for me, that bus left the station years ago.
So those questions are like the little kid’s ‘hey–the emperor’s got no clothes on!!’ interruption. It may seem naive, but it also may be true, and, in any case, it’s important to be able to handle such threshold objections at every turn. They’re always relevant: they never go away.
phoodoo,
phoodoo is lying through his teeth. That’s the whole point. You’ll notice that no evidence has been provided to back this claim up, which actually ought to be easy.
‘My definition’ is the conventional one to be found in any textbook on evolutionary theory. I would hardly be changing that definition to suit my next argument, since it isn’t even ‘mine’ in the first place, and the texts seem to be the same every time I look at them. So, these aren’t the cogent objections of walto’s interlocutor; they are IMO deliberate misrepresentations of what I say.
Conversely, Mr Consistency also says that all the definitions are the same. That’s a head-scratcher.
Biological fitness is the mean rate of increase of a replicating entity.
Stick out some quotes where you think I’m changing the fundamental sense of that to suit my argument, and let anyone who cares see whether I am the slippery slimeball you insinuate, or whether you simply have comprehension issues (not, of course, exhaustive of the possibilities, nor exclusive).
There it is, phoodoo. Thanks, Allan.
Useful review, aimed at geneticists whose conception (like that of laymen) is not necessarily in accord with usage in evolutionary biology. Some people struggle to distinguish between specialisms.
I can see a number of opportunities for juicy quote mine here though! I’ll start:
“biologists have offered a staggering number of definitions of fitness …”. 😀
More phoodoo trolling. And of course, here I nibble, with apologies to the disinterested. I mean, why wouldn’t I? Chomp!
If he actually has evidence I ever said that, phoodoo might care to present it here. If he has evidence I change my definition of fitness to suit the argument, then again he might like to present it here. Or, you know, keep lying.
Allan Miller,
Or, you know, you could just post your definition, and stop whining.
phoodoo,
How would posting ‘my definition’ address either of those lies?
Also – scroll up.
Allan Miller,
Well, I guess I will just keep going with the definition that I remember you giving then.
phoodoo,
It literally is one page up … Here, click on this link, lazy-arse.
So this is the latest definition we are using huh?
How does an organism have a mean rate of increase?
phoodoo,
Like I say, feel free to demonstrate the respect in which it differs from any other I have given. That is what you are accusing me of: changing it. Also, contradictorily, not giving it, despite you having ‘remembered’ it.
You seem unable to back up either accusation.
Allan Miller,
Its the latest version you have given.
And its probably the silliest, because organisms don’t have mean rates of increase.
phoodoo,
But your accusation is that I change it to suit the argument, so one definition will not suffice. (Your sample of 1 actually has a mean, incidentally 🙂 ).
So, with that definition as your placeholder, it would be a simple matter to find one or more of the ‘other definitions’ and, as walto is my witness, show me up to be the liar, and you the humble seeker after truth.
I am going to have to ask for a little rigour here though – a link, not a paraphrase.
Allan Miller,
Why should the burden be up to me, you can show where else you have used that definition before now.
Now, please explain, how does an organism have a mean rate of increase? If every organism has a mean rate of one, then every organism has exactly the same fitness. That’s a pretty stupid definition. But it sure does fit with the “what ever exists is fit” mantra.
phoodoo,
Because you are the one making the accusation. If you can’t back it up, I’m fine with that. I’m not going to do the work to back up your accusation, and I don’t have to defend myself against an accusation that, unevidenced, just amounts to gobbing off. And naturally, I would just be selective, so I’m not to be trusted.
You have a golden opportunity to make one of us look stupid.
Allan Miller,
So your definition of fitness is that every organism alive has exactly the same fitness.
Ok, go with that one if you wish.
Your gift of comprehension shines through in your every post.
Hmmm. Still not seeing any support for the charge that I change my definition to suit my argument. I have my Victory Dance tap shoes at the ready …
Allan Miller,
Yes, you have used many definitions. All you have to do to prove me wrong is go back and show where you used this definition before.
I still have my dancing shoes on.
Allan Miller,
But the good news is now you won’t change it again, so when you claim some individuals are more fit than others, all I have to do is point you to your definition, and prove once and for all, all living organisms are equally fit.
phoodoo,
Like I say, not for me to make your case for you. That definition is consistent with all others I have used – which is only to be expected, since it’s in the biological literature, being where I got it from in the first place. At this juncture, I need only declare you a liar. Tappity, tappity, tappity …
And a fucking parrot. Tappity, tappity, tappity …
Um, you just admitted you used other defintions…
Gee that was easy Allan.
So now that you admit I am right:
You have always believed that all organisms have the same fitness?
phoodoo,
Nope. Read more carefully. Tappity, tappity, tappity.
Nope. That’s your dumbass misinterpretation. Tappity, tappity, tappity.
That’s pretty clear.
I am starting to question your sanity, I just want you to know.
I remember from previous conversations that you have this almost pathological fear of admitting you are wrong.
When you say QUOTE: “THAT definition is consistent with OTHERS I have used”, that does in fact mean you have used OTHER definitions. Its an actual admission Allan.
What drugs did you use in your youth?
phoodoo,
I was avoiding stating there that I used exactly the same words, is all, since I probably didn’t. That’s all you can get out of that little word game.
Comes from not being wrong. If you have evidence I am wrong, you could probably do better than over-interpreting my last, casual utterance on the matter. I’m unreliable, remember? Best go to primary sources.
And yet, when I say to you plainly, here in this post, that it is not, that you are misinterpreting my statement ‘other definitions’ to mean they are all different (despite being consistent???), rather than ‘other instances of a definition given’, which was my intent … why do you believe that ‘other me’, and not this one talking to you now?
Allan Miller,
I better bookmark this for the next time Allan changes it.
I have this image of Allan Flatley that I can’t get out of my head! 😯
phoodoo,
(Gah, I’m sure this is fascinating for onlookers).
I’ve already clarified what I meant, there. What was that about a pathological fear of being wrong? You get more pathetic with every post.
I think that’s the first time I’ve heard that one.
Does Allan think alleles are replicating entities? Is a genotype a replicating entity?
Mung,
Allan seems to like to reserve the right to say “That’s not what I meant” whenever he wishes, even when the words are exactly what it meant.
phoodoo,
Don’t we all? There must be some occasions where one’s words, leaving the brain, deserve reconsideration and clarification when reflected back, and it’s not for the reader to insist what the author’s intent was against all protestations.
Are you sure you haven’t stumbled into keiths territory?
Yes, that’s a primary beef I have with keiths.
But the good news is now you won’t change it again, so when you claim some individuals are more fit than others, all I have to do is point you to your definition, and prove once and for all, all living organisms are equally fit.
That definition doesn’t imply that,any more than defining “a person’s height” as “the mean distance between the top of any person’s head to the bottom of that person’s feet” implies that every person has the same height.
{Note to self: Is he really a guy I want to listen to on questions involving relativity theory?}
Oh really Walto. His definition is the mean rate of increase of an entity. How does an entity increase, its an entity for crying out loud.
Here let me help you out a little Walto, here is the definition of an entity:
How the hell can a DISTINCT organism have a rate of increase? For fucksakes, are we disposing of words completely here? Have you been hypnotized by the cult of idiocy? How does an entity increase, by becoming fatter??!
That’s pretty sad, phoodoo. Did you have any schooling at all?
{Edit: This is an ungenerous post, which may even be eligible for guano land. But, I mean, really. Does phoodoo actually not know what is meant by an entity’s “increase” in that quote. I think he’s just pretending. I actually HOPE so.}
walto,
Oh, you know what an entities increase is huh?
An entity is an entity, once it gives birth to something else THAT becomes another entity.
I remember that English is not your first language, does that help explain your understanding problems?
OK I get it. You have no idea at all what the definition that Allan gave could possibly mean. It seems incoherent to you. The words make no sense at all. An increase in an entity must mean that it got fatter.
I get it. You don’t understand.
OK, so we’re squirming about ‘entity’ now? “A thing with distinct and independent existence.”. So, you can’t make another; if you do it’s not the same entity. Gotcha.
Substitute ‘thingy’, ‘hoojamaflip’, ‘wossname’ … Does this materially change the sense of the definition? Maybe this is where the charge of inconsistency comes from – I don’t always use the exact same wording, or talk about a single kind of replicating thingy?
Nonetheless, if that thingy has the capacity to replicate, I’d say it can have a rate of increase – which equates to the number of copies, or offspring, that are made from that … thingy. All replicating thingies have a rate of increase (even those that are on the downward path, gotcha fans – the rate of increase can be zero. Which of course is also true of a rock.).
Is a genotype a replicating thingy? Is an allele a replicating thingy?
Does population genetics measure the mean rate of increase of an organism to figure out what its fitness is?
Mung,
What do you think, Mung?
Population genetics doesn’t really measure anything; it’s a mathematical framework. Given certain parameters, what’s the mathematical expectation, that kind of thing.
I again invite you to consult published literature, though. There’s lots in that reference, if you are genuinely interested, much of it germane to the questions that crop up again and again. If you’re not … I’ve saved myself some bother either way. The fun of picking over every single word I use is limited.
I think they are not, yet we apply the therm “fitness” to them. So there is something lacking from your definition.
Yes, I know this. Glad to find something we can agree on. Fitness is a hypothetical value in a mathematical framework. So stop trying to force it into biology. 🙂
There comes to be more than one of them. One distinct entity becomes two such distinct entities. Then three. Then four. And so on. You can count right?
You can count organisms. And you can count their offspring. And you can count how many of their offspring carry certain alleles (variations of a genetic locus).
If there is something here you don’t understand, please just ask rather than brainlessly declare (like phoodoo) that it’s all nonsense.
Mung,
‘My definition’ is not intended to cover every piece of writing by everyone ever. Nonetheless, it is the case that alleles have rates of increase or decrease, genotypes too, and they are replicated.
What kind of an idiot would regard offspring, or gene copies, and differential numbers thereof, as irrelevant in biology?
Mung and Phoodoo.
Rumraket,
Maybe I was too subtle …
Dunno why it’s too friggin’ hard to just read Orr’s piece, which covers conceptual, mathematical and empirical aspects in more depth. If it turns out I’ve got fitness wrong, or ‘my definition’ is insufficiently inclusive … meh. I’m just a bloke on the internet, you dummies!