Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Survival of the Fittest?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a news article about 400,000 antelopes dying off in a short period of time. Looks like it’s due to some sort of bacterial attack, though they’re not fully sure what caused this massive die-off.

There’s lots of questions that come to mind. Here’s one or two:
(1) How do we define the “fittest”?

Are they the “strongest”, the “fastest”, the most “aggressive”? What are they? Maybe they’re the “weakest.” Maybe they were so weak that they couldn’t forage with the rest of the herds, and so stayed behind and didn’t get infected. So, how do we define “fitness” here?

(2) In the annals of NS, no one has likely ever seen anything like this. The selection factor is 0.5 (half the population has died off). What other small, gradual change could be this destructive? And it seems it all has to do with bacteria. So, are the “fittest” the ones with the best “immune systems”? If that’s the case, with this kind of selection factor at work, you’d expect that the survivors, the ‘fittest’, would have incredibly good immune systems. Yet, something like this huge die-off happened not too long ago (1988). So, if something this lethal leads to hardly any change, then what great change is NS going to bring about when the selection pressure is far, far less.

Again, the “survival of the fittest” doesn’t befall the “strongest,” “fastest”, “most aggressive”, most “anything,” but, apparently to almost any member of the population. If 400,000 out of 800,000 antelopes die, and they’re none for the better, then what does NS do anyway? Have we wildly exaggerated what it is able to do? (Read The Edge of Evolution to find out more)

Comments
PaV @38 writes:
The “chance” of this potential favorable mutation to remain in the population is 1 in 2, or 0.5.
Errr, only if it hasn't replicated. Your math is (hopelessly) wrong. This makes Joe Bruin sad.DNA_Jock
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Box Yes I've read it :) poetry I tell you!
Interestingly, even so-called "simple" cells like bacteria have programmed cell death routines subject to control by signals from other cells.
Evolution didit...... yeah whatever.......Andre
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Andre, //off-topic:// Have you read this article by Shapiro that (also) deals with PCD? He refers to this research. You probably read it already, I just want to make sure.Box
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Roy Because we all know, and so should you that survival of the fittest is a circular argument and it literally goes like this;
Those that are fit survive, and those that survive, are fit.
Surely you know this?Andre
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Roy, We are critics of evolutionISM, not mere evolution. And fitness is defined as reproductive success (due to some physical attribute). That means the fittest are the organisms that have the best reproductive success (due to some physical attribute).
Spot on. Why don't you tell PaV?Roy
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Seversky I think this has been said to death but for the sake of science lets do this again..... For anything to qualify as a scientific theory the following 3 conditions have to be met, I will also list them in order. 1.) Observation 2.) Repeat 3.) Verify Now let me ask you how exactly does the 3 above apply to luck? For once in your life try and work this out instead of sucking on your dogma lollipop.Andre
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Again Nick Matzke comes and pulls one of his signature bluffs! You might not know if evolution is true or not but you can know with certainty that Nick Matzke is an idiot. Here is the conclusion for those to lazy to read; "Owing to the non-exclusivity of the mechanisms of PMS, alongside the likely interference of other selective and neutral forces, we do not believe that it is possible to convincingly elucidate the relative roles of mechanisms of PMS within specific wild populations. A more realistic approach is to attempt to demonstrate whether a particular mechanism of PMS is occurring within a specific system. Doing so will be extremely difficult, not least because appropriate long-term study systems are vital for this. Researchers of contemporary MHC evolution therefore need to carefully consider which mechanisms of PMS can be detected within their study system and which can be ruled out, and interpret their findings accordingly. Technical issues concerning the characterization of expressed MHC variation also need to be carefully considered, as they have not been in much of the MHC literature to date. Nonetheless, with enough appropriate studies, we may be able to determine how often different mechanisms of PMS occur, as well as the different spatial and temporal scales at which they prevail. The accumulation of such knowledge across systems will allow us to evaluate the general importance of the different PMS mechanisms across vertebrates as a whole. Advancements in our understanding of what maintains MHC diversity will also feed into our general understanding of host–pathogen coevolution and the maintenance of genetic diversity." Why does these guys say? In a nutshell? Not what Nick is advocating!Andre
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Thanks EugeneS, I was painting with a broad brush- all survivors that reproduce are the fittest by my broad paint strokes! I should have said "fit" instead of "fittest". Thanks again :cool:Virgil Cain
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Popperian- no one is arguing against mere evolution. Also science requires metrics. No metrics no scienceVirgil Cain
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
Survival of the fittest has no measurable metric. This like the grand theory, it really boils down to a just-so story
The misconception has evolution is the "survival of the fittest" has no metric? Therefore evolution is a just-so story? It's as if your strategy for knowing that evolution is wrong is to refuse to accept anything but misconceptions of it.Popperian
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Seversky- Even Dawkins admits science can only allow so much luck. Your position relies on it making it untestable and out of the reach of science.Virgil Cain
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Survival of the fittest has no measurable metric. This like the grand theory, it really boils down to a just-so story.Dr JDD
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
The OP implies that evolution is the "survival of the fittest", then asks questions about how we could tell if something was the fittest, and therefore should survive under evolution. But, as I pointed out, that is a misconception. Again, if we cannot agree on terms to the degree necessary to discuss the issue, in practice, then why would you expected us to make progress?Popperian
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Popperian: The "answers" I'm talking about are the ones I posed in the OP.PaV
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Since no “answers” are going to be given, then let me point out the problems this hyperselection represents.
We still haven't addressed the misconception that evolution must always advance a population or individual member. Why would you expect progress without addressing that first?Popperian
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Since no "answers" are going to be given, then let me point out the problems this hyperselection represents. Just imagine that some member of the population is working towards some adaptive trait. It has, let us say, one of two needed a.a. bases in the right location. There it is in the population, waiting for the next a.a. to come along by chance, and, lo and behold, it's GONE. Poof! Undone by some virus. The "chance" of this potential favorable mutation to remain in the population is 1 in 2, or 0.5. This same 'halving' occurred 30 years before. Let's say this happens, on average, every 33 years, or 3 times a century. Well, in a thousand years, this means it would have occurred 30 times. Thus, the ability of ANY favorable allele (whatever that means) to survive is 1 in 2^30, or, 1 in 10^9, and, for a 2,000 year period, it would be 1 in 10^18. Now, if a population never exceeds one million in number, in two thousand years, they would have produced (assuming annual breeding and two offspring per pairing) 2 x 10^9 offspring. So, how can ANY "beneficial" mutation ever get anywhere? This, I believe, is why we haven't seen too many "answers" given. Our critics prefer to dance around the subject.PaV
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain @ 23
Seversky- Luck is the antithesis of science.
Luck - in the sense of a random, unpredictable event - is part of the process science studies, not the science itself. Although even scientists get lucky sometimes.Seversky
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
But then again, maybe it's Nick M who was trolling.Mung
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Imagine an hypothetical island where a population of birds of a particular species would be maximized if they nested around the beginning of, say, April. The reason why it's optimal will be due to various trade offs, including climate, the appearance of predators, the availability of food supplies, nesting materials, etc. Now imagine the entire population currently has genes that cause them to nest at this optimal time. That is, those genes are well adapted to maximizing the number of birds on the island - which would could be thought of as maximizing the good of the species as a whole. However, let's suppose this cycle is disturbed by the appearance of a mutant gene in a single bird which causes it to nest slightly earlier, such as the end of March. Let's also suppose that when a bird builds a nest, genes in the population also result in suitable cooperation from a mate, which which would result in a pair of birds matting and having access to the best nesting site on the island. This would be an advantage, which would outweigh the slight disadvantage of nesting earlier. In the next generation, there will be more birds with the March nesting gene, which will provide all of them with the best nesting sites. As a result, there will be a smaller percentage of birds with the optimal April-nesting variety, that will find good nesting sites. This is because the good nesting sites will have already been taken. In future generations, the population will continue to shift toward the March-nesting variant, which could cause the April-nesting variants to go extinct. And if the April-nesting gene arises again, it's holder will have no offspring for the same reason. IOW, the idea that genes are optimally adapted to maximize the fitness of the population is not always applicable. The change just described actually reduced the total population since they are no longer nesting at the optimal time, which has harmed the species. Furthermore, it may have increased its risk of extinction, making it less likely to expand to her environments, etc. As such, an optimally adapted species may evolve in a way that makes it less well off. Now imagine another mutation occurs that results in nesting earlier still, in March. the same progress may be repeated, causing the the earlier nesting gene to take over and causing another population drop. This may continue until the disadvantage of getting the optimal nesting site is outweighed by the disadvantage of slightly earlier nesting. This could be quite far from the original optimal state of the species. Another misconception is that evolution is always adaptive. That is, it always results in progress. Or, at least some kind of improvement in function which it acts to optimize. This is what is being referred to here as "survival of the fittest". But, as the above thought experiment illustrates, this is simply not the case, either. Not only has the entire species been harmed but so have individual birds as they have a harsher life than before due to nesting earlier. So what has been achieved during this period? It has not optimized the functional adaptation of a variant gene to its environment, but the relative ability to propagate itself though the population. From the point of view of the species and it's individual members, the effect of evolution was a disaster. However, evolution does not care in this sense. It merely favors the genes that spread best though the population.Popperian
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
semi OT:
What Sparked the Mammal Explosion? - September 3, 2015 Excerpt: Mammals first appear in the fossil record at about the same time as the earliest dinosaurs (approx. 220 million years ago),,, Mesozoic mammals were long portrayed as tiny, shrew-like creatures, unable to diversify due to severe competition and predation from dinosaurs and other reptiles. However, discoveries in the past two decades have greatly expanded the known diversity of Mesozoic mammals, revealing the existence of specialised gliders, climbers and burrowers, semi-aquatic forms and even badger-sized carnivores that ate small dinosaurs.,, Evidence of extensive ecological differences has been found even between closely-related species, and quantitative analyses of the skulls and skeletons of Mesozoic mammals suggest a diverse range of diets and locomotor modes,,, This period,, also broadly coincides with peaks in morphological disparity (as measured by the average morphological difference between contemporaneous species),, Early mammals, despite living in the shadows of the dinosaurs, were diverse and successful.,, These finds extend the early mammal repertoire to include digging, climbing, gliding, and swimming and show that some non-therian lineages achieved surprisingly large body sizes,,, http://crev.info/2015/09/what-sparked-the-mammal-explosion/
bornagain77
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
VC: Actually, it is not even about the fittest organism (though I agree, the selfish gene concept is obsolete). It is survival of any organism except absolute no-hopers. The natural selection filter is too coarse for the survival of (only) the fittest.EugeneS
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Popperian:
Except, It’s not survival of the fittest organisms. It’s the survival of the genes that play a causal role in being passed on to future generations.
It is survival of the fittest organism. Perhaps the genes allowed the organism to be fit but the selfish gene concept has been shot full of holes.Virgil Cain
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Arthur Hunt- What evidence demonstrates Dutch elm disease- and the trees' response- was due to natural selection? Why isn't the response an example of the trees responding as opposed to waiting for an accidental genetic change?Virgil Cain
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
In the annals of NS, no one has likely ever seen anything like this. This statement seems preposterous. It should at least by qualified to include that this is only to the author's (extremely limited) knowledge. Of course, it seems hard to believe that the author has not heard of things like Dutch elm disease. But one never knows...Arthur Hunt
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
I'm not sure if you are trolling or just ill-equipped for this discussion Mung but I already answered you question.wd400
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Popperian: Except, It’s not survival of the fittest organisms. Whatever. Since when did genes obtain an independent existence?Mung
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
wd400: Directional selection (selection for or against a given allele) removes genetic diversity. You mean natural selection? wd400: Balancing and directional selection obviously exist (right?) You mean natural selection? Which of those two, balancing selection and directional selection, is not natural selection? Heck, may as well include drift in natural selection. I admit some times my remarks are cryptic, but i don't see this as one of those cases. If "natural selection" produces opposite effects, of what use is it as a scientific concept? Balancing selection is natural selection that maintains diversity. Directional selection is natural selection that does not maintain diversity. Same mechanism: Natural Selection. Opposite effects: genetic diversity/loss of genetic diversity. Nick plays the natural selection as semantics word game. Typical Nick.Mung
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Except, It's not survival of the fittest organisms. It's the survival of the genes that play a causal role in being passed on to future generations. Again, knowledge is information that, when embedded in a storage medium, plays a causal role in it being retained. This includes information in books, brains and even the genomes of organisms. Knowledge is knowledge not because of its source but because it solves a problem.Popperian
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Roy, We are critics of evolutionISM, not mere evolution. And fitness is defined as reproductive success (due to some physical attribute). That means the fittest are the organisms that have the best reproductive success (due to some physical attribute).Virgil Cain
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
There’s lots of questions that come to mind. Here’s one or two: (1) How do we define the “fittest”?
The same way it's always defined. Apparently you don't know what that is. Equally apparently, nor do the other evolution critics here. Not even bornagain"Time to call you an organlegger"77. Understand then criticise.Roy
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply