Getting Phoodoo to explain is very hard to do. He seems unable to tell us how old the universe | earth | life is and how he knows that.
What is fascinating is that traditional theological explanations for the excellence of biological adaptations based themselves on the observation that organisms were well-adapted to do what they did. A fish was well-adapted to swim, etc. This observation did not differ between creationist and evolutionary camps.
Now phoodoo reveals to us that this isn’t so. In fact, according to phoodoo, making changes in the fish’s phenotype does not make it more or less fit. A one-pound minnow will be just as fit as a one-ounce minnow. Not only does evolutionary biology stand refuted, so does natural theology as well !
Joe Felsenstein: Not only does evolutionary biology stand refuted, so does natural theology as well !
Your inability to not quote the full concept “natural theology” or do the most basic research is tragic. I weep for you. Life must be difficult. If Phoodoo’s helper is reading this, BLESS YOU.
Care to point out which part of the article is wrong, Phoodoo?
*Prediction*: You wont.
But you might learn what ‘natural theology’ is rather than making comments that make you look comically ill informed.
It should be easy to refute as you’ve got more than the summary to work with 😉 The scotch is safe and sound, slowly appreciating. I have better tasting scotches to attend to.
A bluegrass song I recall from the Eighties. Recent performance:
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
No joie de vivre, just endless hours of tedium
With a negative IQ,
You’ll be lonely, sad, and blue
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
You wait for years but inspiration never comes
Thoughts you don’t have remain unheard
‘Cause you can not find the words
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Between your ears a dark and silent vac-u-um
If there’s a void behind your face,
Why not rent out the vacant space
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Why not just lay back and smoke a bowl of opium
If being stupid is your fate,
Well just relax ’cause it’s too late
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Phoodoo
Do you think it is genes which decide which humans have the most babies
Genes don’t make decisions. And you need to take a long view. Any one individual is quite likely to be more or less fecund than another, in a manner in which no particular genetic locus can be directly implicated. Over the long term, however, a consistent differential (if there is one) would be expected to rise above the noise. One bird variety could sire 15 chicks a season, another just 3. To the extent that their fecundity was heritable, it is still by no means a foregone conclusion that the former’s offspring would dominate, based upon a 1-generation sample.
There are just two basic options. Either genes can affect the rate at which they themselves are copied, or they can’t. Which one do you plump for? Warning: choose the first and you are talking (within the particular arena within which the copying occurs) Natural Selection.
Tom English:
A bluegrass song I recall from the Eighties. Recent performance:
… written by the immortal Mark Graham, who also wrote Zen Gospel Singing, No Democracy in Heaven, and other classics. He is also a world class old-timey musician. Resident of Vashon Island, Washington.
As for the discussion of whether genes can affect the survival and reproductiion of the organism, keep in mind that phoodoo made clear that phoodoo’s position is that phenotypes cannot affect the survival and reproduction of the organism.
That’s right folks, a 10 kg hummingbird will be no worse at surviving and reproducing.
phoodoo: do you think smart people reproduce more than dumb people?
To be able to answer that, we need a reliable test of smartness or dumbness. How could we do that? Assess performance in a test perhaps? Sort of like selection?
I once was a Baptist and on each Sunday morn
I’d be in church praying as sure as you’re born
We’d sing there like angels In that good harmony
But sin and salvation are no longer for me
Cuz now I’m a Buddhist, chant my mantra each day
But I miss that hymn singing In that good gospel way
So we’ll sing to old Buddha and the wonders of Zen
We’ll meet in Nirvana, yes we’ll be there then
My old friends don’t like me since I shaved my head
They all talk about me as if I were dead
My good old Zen buddies, they think I’m okay
But I can’t get them singing more than one note a day
As we sit there cross legged eating brown rice and tea
We chant out our mantra in four square harmony
We don’t sing of salvation or heavenly home
It’s Zen gospel singing just om, om, sweet om.
phoodoo: Joe Felsenstein,
You didn’t answer, do you think smart people reproduce more than dumb people?
That’s an artificial selection question, not a natural selection question.
Natural selection integrates the combined effects of all traits, intelligence being just one. I’ve read that most Chinese men are descended from Genghis Kahn. (share his Y chromosome). That suggests what traits are selected. I suspect he was intelligent, among other things.
We could debate any given trait, but phoodoo has issued a general statement that phenotype does not matter for fitness.
That’s just hilarious!
Joe Felsenstein:
We could debate any given trait, but phoodoo has issued a general statement that phenotype does not matter for fitness.
That’s just hilarious!
I think I can give a fair summary of phoodoo’s position.
Selection is based one one of the following.
1. Visible traits that people would recognize as desirable, such as beauty or intelligence or strength or health. The kinds of things animal breeders might prize.
2. Invisible or unnoticed traits that “magically” result in differential reproductive success. Phoodoo would probably argue that this definition is circular. Selected traits are those that are selected.
I think some biologists have set themselves up for this kind of argument by asserting that every trait that persists in a population must be adaptive.
You said “There are of course many studies where people have measured the differences in fitness between animals…” and after you were called on this, you have mentioned totally ZERO studies which show this.
And this is supposedly your field of study!! Now that is frickin funny!!
It is so funny in fact, I still have tears in my eyes so I can’t even read the rest of your dodging and weaving and hand-waving attempts at a smokescreen for this fact. Where do you find the time to come up with this slapstick?
And what happens when he doesn’t Richard? Will you acknowledge that the evolution crowd is full of shit?
In fact Richard, I can remember many motnhs ago Joe saying something about how, “Well, you know its really hard to study animals in the wild, BUT, have a look at these bacteria in these petri dishes, see, see!”
So we already know he will try to weasel out. Do you think smarter weasels have more sex than dumber weasels Richard? I want to ask an expert.
And what happens when he doesn’t Richard?Will you acknowledge that the evolution crowd is full of shit?
I’m game if you are, Phoodoo. Feeling brave?
phoodoo: So we already know he will try to weasel out
No we don’t. You’ve never studied, or applied logic, have you?
phoodoo: You said “There are of course many studies where people have measured the differences in fitness between animals…” and after you were called on this, you have mentioned totally ZERO studies which show this.
Here’s a study on lizards that might interest phoodoo.
You said “There are of course many studies where people have measured the differences in fitness between animals…” and after you were called on this, you have mentioned totally ZERO studies which show this.
And this is supposedly your field of study!!Now that is frickin funny!!
It is so funny in fact, I still have tears in my eyes so I can’t even read the rest of your dodging and weaving and hand-waving attempts at a smokescreen for this fact.Where do you find the time to come up with this slapstick?
No one here asked for a list of studies. You kept asking about particular characters.
Of course there are multiple studies including papers, review articles, and books. Here are a few review articles, just for starters. They cite lots of papers and books about how one measures fitness for different phenotypic characters.
But what you have said is so spectacularly silly it needs no extensive reading. You actually claimed that variations in phenotypes don’t affect fitness ! So a 10 kg hummingbird will do just great. An eagle with wings 1 foot long will fly just fine. No problem with a 1kg minnow, either.
phoodoo: In fact Richard, I can remember many motnhs ago Joe saying something about how, “Well, you know its really hard to study animals in the wild, BUT, have a look at these bacteria in these petri dishes, see, see!”
I did not say that. Provide a link or climb down.
Thanks too to Alan for the sheep and lizard studies.
But again, phoodoo’s assertions are so spectacularly silly that they refute themselves (see above comments).
phoodoo:
I think Joe playing poker analogy is a little inaccurate, its need to be more realistic.
Its like playing poker with no rules beforehand.The winning hand is whatever hand wins.So the best poker player is the one who wins.
Now don’t you think the best poker player will usually win?That’s Joe’s analogy!
I was pointing out that when there is a stochastic process (poker, in this case) with biases in the probabilities, if one has enough trials, those biases make one outcome more probable than another.
Ask your neighborhood casino. They only offer games that have odds that favor the house. Each game is random, but with small biases that favor the house. I (and all sorts of sensible people) were trying to point out that this means that in the long run, you can’t beat the casino.
Tom English: Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
No joie de vivre, just endless hours of tedium
With a negative IQ,
You’ll be lonely, sad, and blue
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
You wait for years but inspiration never comes
Thoughts you don’t have remain unheard
‘Cause you can not find the words
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Between your ears a dark and silent vac-u-um
If there’s a void behind your face,
Why not rent out the vacant space
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Lordy, lordy, I do love that song.
Usta sing it to the kids, and oh how they hated it. Wonder why? Didn’t mean any harm by it. Grandma took their side, too, said it was mean to tease them so.
In the current case, I think a little teasing is more than justified. 🙂
hotshoe_: In the current case, I think a little teasing is more than justified.
Rich knows how to take a joke. 😉
Cataract surgery tomorrow. Hopefully back in a few days.
Typical evolution deflection Alan. Just throw out any thing you can find that has in the title something about fitness, and voila, your have shown something.
Let’s see, one of the so called studies says that they reviewed all of the available literature from 1984 to 1997 and found that most studies were replicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals. And they looked at every study! FURTHERMORE, they add, “there is very little data for behavior or physiological traits”
What Alan?? There are so many studies according to Joe (he can produce any) and the first paper you present says nothing other than there isn’t much data, and what there is small, and unreplicable. And no data for most traits! But hey, your ability to google bluff is duly noted Alan!
The fact that it is so hard for you (and apparently impossible for Joe who works in this field) to come up with anything that says what you want it to, just emphasizes my point all the more strongly. So thank you for this Alan, you make it oh so easy to show how full of it you guys are.
Joe Felsenstein: Ask your neighborhood casino. They only offer games that have odds that favor the house. Each game is random, but with small biases that favor the house. I (and all sorts of sensible people) were trying to point out that this means that in the long run, you can’t beat the casino.
Right Joe, and this is why your analogy is so poor! Because in poker you know the biases ahead of time, and in evolution, EVERY hand is a winner, and then after that you decide its because of a bias!!
Who is the house supposed to be in your analogy? Death? You are so right Joe, you can’t beat death. Evolution always loses.
(Your analogy of course is even worse than this, because in poker you don’t play against any house at all, but its already so funny and wrong, that we don’t even have to go there)
But of course you don’t get this Mr. Statistician.
99% of all species went extinct. In Phoodoo land that makes them ‘all winners’
Richardthughes: 99% of all species went extinct. In Phoodoo land that makes them ‘all winners’
Yeah, that’s a pretty amazing level of ignorance or self-imposed delusion that phoodoo is laboring under.
phoodoo hasn’t figured out that there is a difference between natural selection favoring one phenotype over another, and your ability to detect that in a study which looks at only a modest sample of individuals.
He does seem to be saying that (for some unknown reason) there are no fitness differences among different phenotypes. Astonishing that anyone would say that.
Joe Felsenstein: He does seem to be saying that (for some unknown reason) there are no fitness differences among different phenotypes.
Well, when you definition of fitness is when the phenotype is more prolific, gee, I guess you will find some phenotypes are more abundant than others. Surprise surprise.
Who is the house in your analogy?
petrushka:
Cataract surgery tomorrow. Hopefully back in a few days.
Good luck and best wishes. Among older friends of mine, several have had replacement lenses and the treatment has been completely successful in all cases so I’m sure all will be fine.
phoodoo: Let’s see, one of the so called studies says that they reviewed all of the available literature from 1984 to 1997 and found that most studies were replicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals. And they looked at every study! FURTHERMORE, they add, “there is very little data for behavior or physiological traits”
I can’t find your “quote” in either paper. Could you be more specific?
The niche environment always wins against the players? Huh?
Alan Fox: I can’t find your “quote” in either paper. Could you be more specific?
Can I be more specific than an exact quote in the paper YOU referenced, that YOU provided zero commentary about why it supported your claims?
Ah, gee, Alan, you mean you want to do even less than try to Google bluff?
phoodoo: Well, when you definition of fitness is when the phenotype is more prolific, gee, I guess you will find some phenotypes are more abundant than others.Surprise surprise.
Who is the house in your analogy?
The case considered was of two genotypes (say two alleles in a haploid organism). One has slightly greater probability of surviving to adulthood as a result of their having two different phenotypes. The favored one is the house, the unfavored one is the player.
The math for a player playing against the house is a Gambler’s Ruin problem. Its mathematics is very close to that of the population-genetic model of P.A.P. Moran, which models the processes of natural selection and genetic drift. For discussion of this see Wikipedia’s articles on “Moran process” and on “Gambler’s Ruin”. Note the similarity of equation (2) in the Moran Process article and the probability of winning in “Unfair Coin Flipping” in the Gambler’s Ruin article.
Getting Phoodoo to explain is very hard to do. He seems unable to tell us how old the universe | earth | life is and how he knows that.
What is fascinating is that traditional theological explanations for the excellence of biological adaptations based themselves on the observation that organisms were well-adapted to do what they did. A fish was well-adapted to swim, etc. This observation did not differ between creationist and evolutionary camps.
Now phoodoo reveals to us that this isn’t so. In fact, according to phoodoo, making changes in the fish’s phenotype does not make it more or less fit. A one-pound minnow will be just as fit as a one-ounce minnow. Not only does evolutionary biology stand refuted, so does natural theology as well !
Guffaw of the day.
Tom English,
Theology claims there are differing rates of reproductive results depending on ones genes?
What theology is that?
PS. You guffaw with extreme ease one must conclude.
phoodoo,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
Your inability to not quote the full concept “natural theology” or do the most basic research is tragic. I weep for you. Life must be difficult. If Phoodoo’s helper is reading this, BLESS YOU.
Richardthughes,
Where is the part about “differing rates of reproductive results depending on ones genes?”
Really Richard, if you allow your whole life to be guided by Wikipedia, at least know why.
BTW, Have your sold your $500 per bottle scotch collection to feed any poor kids lately Richard?
Or maybe you have been downing it, and that is why you think your wiki article means something?
phoodoo,
Care to point out which part of the article is wrong, Phoodoo?
*Prediction*: You wont.
But you might learn what ‘natural theology’ is rather than making comments that make you look comically ill informed.
It should be easy to refute as you’ve got more than the summary to work with 😉 The scotch is safe and sound, slowly appreciating. I have better tasting scotches to attend to.
A bluegrass song I recall from the Eighties. Recent performance:
Life Is Hard, But It’s Hardest When You’re Dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
No joie de vivre, just endless hours of tedium
With a negative IQ,
You’ll be lonely, sad, and blue
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
You wait for years but inspiration never comes
Thoughts you don’t have remain unheard
‘Cause you can not find the words
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Between your ears a dark and silent vac-u-um
If there’s a void behind your face,
Why not rent out the vacant space
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Why not just lay back and smoke a bowl of opium
If being stupid is your fate,
Well just relax ’cause it’s too late
Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb
Phoodoo
Genes don’t make decisions. And you need to take a long view. Any one individual is quite likely to be more or less fecund than another, in a manner in which no particular genetic locus can be directly implicated. Over the long term, however, a consistent differential (if there is one) would be expected to rise above the noise. One bird variety could sire 15 chicks a season, another just 3. To the extent that their fecundity was heritable, it is still by no means a foregone conclusion that the former’s offspring would dominate, based upon a 1-generation sample.
There are just two basic options. Either genes can affect the rate at which they themselves are copied, or they can’t. Which one do you plump for? Warning: choose the first and you are talking (within the particular arena within which the copying occurs) Natural Selection.
… written by the immortal Mark Graham, who also wrote Zen Gospel Singing, No Democracy in Heaven, and other classics. He is also a world class old-timey musician. Resident of Vashon Island, Washington.
As for the discussion of whether genes can affect the survival and reproductiion of the organism, keep in mind that phoodoo made clear that phoodoo’s position is that phenotypes cannot affect the survival and reproduction of the organism.
That’s right folks, a 10 kg hummingbird will be no worse at surviving and reproducing.
We look forward to more wisdom like this.
Joe Felsenstein,
You didn’t answer, do you think smart people reproduce more than dumb people?
Neither do you, so shhhh.
To be able to answer that, we need a reliable test of smartness or dumbness. How could we do that? Assess performance in a test perhaps? Sort of like selection?
Zen Gospel Singing
I once was a Baptist and on each Sunday morn
I’d be in church praying as sure as you’re born
We’d sing there like angels In that good harmony
But sin and salvation are no longer for me
Cuz now I’m a Buddhist, chant my mantra each day
But I miss that hymn singing In that good gospel way
So we’ll sing to old Buddha and the wonders of Zen
We’ll meet in Nirvana, yes we’ll be there then
My old friends don’t like me since I shaved my head
They all talk about me as if I were dead
My good old Zen buddies, they think I’m okay
But I can’t get them singing more than one note a day
As we sit there cross legged eating brown rice and tea
We chant out our mantra in four square harmony
We don’t sing of salvation or heavenly home
It’s Zen gospel singing just om, om, sweet om.
That’s an artificial selection question, not a natural selection question.
Natural selection integrates the combined effects of all traits, intelligence being just one. I’ve read that most Chinese men are descended from Genghis Kahn. (share his Y chromosome). That suggests what traits are selected. I suspect he was intelligent, among other things.
We could debate any given trait, but phoodoo has issued a general statement that phenotype does not matter for fitness.
That’s just hilarious!
I think I can give a fair summary of phoodoo’s position.
Selection is based one one of the following.
1. Visible traits that people would recognize as desirable, such as beauty or intelligence or strength or health. The kinds of things animal breeders might prize.
2. Invisible or unnoticed traits that “magically” result in differential reproductive success. Phoodoo would probably argue that this definition is circular. Selected traits are those that are selected.
I think some biologists have set themselves up for this kind of argument by asserting that every trait that persists in a population must be adaptive.
Joe Felsenstein,
You know what is really hilarious Joe?
You said “There are of course many studies where people have measured the differences in fitness between animals…” and after you were called on this, you have mentioned totally ZERO studies which show this.
And this is supposedly your field of study!! Now that is frickin funny!!
It is so funny in fact, I still have tears in my eyes so I can’t even read the rest of your dodging and weaving and hand-waving attempts at a smokescreen for this fact. Where do you find the time to come up with this slapstick?
phoodoo,
So what happens if he provides them, Phoodoo? Will you discount them based on reading the abstract?
Richardthughes,
And what happens when he doesn’t Richard? Will you acknowledge that the evolution crowd is full of shit?
In fact Richard, I can remember many motnhs ago Joe saying something about how, “Well, you know its really hard to study animals in the wild, BUT, have a look at these bacteria in these petri dishes, see, see!”
So we already know he will try to weasel out. Do you think smarter weasels have more sex than dumber weasels Richard? I want to ask an expert.
I’m game if you are, Phoodoo. Feeling brave?
No we don’t. You’ve never studied, or applied logic, have you?
Here’s a study on lizards that might interest phoodoo.
Alan Fox,
And that study links to 6 more.
I think Joe playing poker analogy is a little inaccurate, its need to be more realistic.
Its like playing poker with no rules beforehand. The winning hand is whatever hand wins. So the best poker player is the one who wins.
Now don’t you think the best poker player will usually win? That’s Joe’s analogy!
Here is a study on Soay sheep that also might interest phoodoo.
No one here asked for a list of studies. You kept asking about particular characters.
Of course there are multiple studies including papers, review articles, and books. Here are a few review articles, just for starters. They cite lots of papers and books about how one measures fitness for different phenotypic characters.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.002055
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hoekstra/PDFs/Linnen2010CSHLSQB.pdf
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/hoekstra/PDFs/Kingsolver2001AmNat.pdf
That should keep you busy.
But what you have said is so spectacularly silly it needs no extensive reading. You actually claimed that variations in phenotypes don’t affect fitness ! So a 10 kg hummingbird will do just great. An eagle with wings 1 foot long will fly just fine. No problem with a 1kg minnow, either.
I did not say that. Provide a link or climb down.
Thanks too to Alan for the sheep and lizard studies.
But again, phoodoo’s assertions are so spectacularly silly that they refute themselves (see above comments).
I was pointing out that when there is a stochastic process (poker, in this case) with biases in the probabilities, if one has enough trials, those biases make one outcome more probable than another.
Ask your neighborhood casino. They only offer games that have odds that favor the house. Each game is random, but with small biases that favor the house. I (and all sorts of sensible people) were trying to point out that this means that in the long run, you can’t beat the casino.
Lordy, lordy, I do love that song.
Usta sing it to the kids, and oh how they hated it. Wonder why? Didn’t mean any harm by it. Grandma took their side, too, said it was mean to tease them so.
In the current case, I think a little teasing is more than justified. 🙂
Rich knows how to take a joke. 😉
Cataract surgery tomorrow. Hopefully back in a few days.
petrushka,
Good luck / be well.
Hope it goes according to routine. Best wishes.
Alan Fox,
Typical evolution deflection Alan. Just throw out any thing you can find that has in the title something about fitness, and voila, your have shown something.
Let’s see, one of the so called studies says that they reviewed all of the available literature from 1984 to 1997 and found that most studies were replicated and had sample sizes below 135 individuals. And they looked at every study! FURTHERMORE, they add, “there is very little data for behavior or physiological traits”
What Alan?? There are so many studies according to Joe (he can produce any) and the first paper you present says nothing other than there isn’t much data, and what there is small, and unreplicable. And no data for most traits! But hey, your ability to google bluff is duly noted Alan!
The fact that it is so hard for you (and apparently impossible for Joe who works in this field) to come up with anything that says what you want it to, just emphasizes my point all the more strongly. So thank you for this Alan, you make it oh so easy to show how full of it you guys are.
phoodoo,
Which paper was that, Phoodoo?
Right Joe, and this is why your analogy is so poor! Because in poker you know the biases ahead of time, and in evolution, EVERY hand is a winner, and then after that you decide its because of a bias!!
Who is the house supposed to be in your analogy? Death? You are so right Joe, you can’t beat death. Evolution always loses.
(Your analogy of course is even worse than this, because in poker you don’t play against any house at all, but its already so funny and wrong, that we don’t even have to go there)
But of course you don’t get this Mr. Statistician.
99% of all species went extinct. In Phoodoo land that makes them ‘all winners’
Yeah, that’s a pretty amazing level of ignorance or self-imposed delusion that phoodoo is laboring under.
phoodoo hasn’t figured out that there is a difference between natural selection favoring one phenotype over another, and your ability to detect that in a study which looks at only a modest sample of individuals.
He does seem to be saying that (for some unknown reason) there are no fitness differences among different phenotypes. Astonishing that anyone would say that.
Well, when you definition of fitness is when the phenotype is more prolific, gee, I guess you will find some phenotypes are more abundant than others. Surprise surprise.
Who is the house in your analogy?
Good luck and best wishes. Among older friends of mine, several have had replacement lenses and the treatment has been completely successful in all cases so I’m sure all will be fine.
I can’t find your “quote” in either paper. Could you be more specific?
I’m guessing it’s the niche environment.
Alan Fox,
The niche environment always wins against the players? Huh?
Can I be more specific than an exact quote in the paper YOU referenced, that YOU provided zero commentary about why it supported your claims?
Ah, gee, Alan, you mean you want to do even less than try to Google bluff?
The case considered was of two genotypes (say two alleles in a haploid organism). One has slightly greater probability of surviving to adulthood as a result of their having two different phenotypes. The favored one is the house, the unfavored one is the player.
The math for a player playing against the house is a Gambler’s Ruin problem. Its mathematics is very close to that of the population-genetic model of P.A.P. Moran, which models the processes of natural selection and genetic drift. For discussion of this see Wikipedia’s articles on “Moran process” and on “Gambler’s Ruin”. Note the similarity of equation (2) in the Moran Process article and the probability of winning in “Unfair Coin Flipping” in the Gambler’s Ruin article.