Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319
Location: In Cognito

04 May 2019, 3:23 pm

Dan82 wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I can only see how it would be an issue if the species were killing each other or somehow preventing each other from eating, so a higher population would be an advantage.

Please have a look again at Antrax' models 1, 2, and 3. In all of them, rate of reproduction makes a difference without there being another species that is preying o n people. Your assumption is not necessary.



Dan82
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: St. Paul Suburbs, Minnesota

06 May 2019, 2:51 am

Gromit wrote:
Dan82 wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I can only see how it would be an issue if the species were killing each other or somehow preventing each other from eating, so a higher population would be an advantage.

Please have a look again at Antrax' models 1, 2, and 3. In all of them, rate of reproduction makes a difference without there being another species that is preying o n people. Your assumption is not necessary.


His model assumes the lower-producing population is dying at a rate faster than they're reproducing. I'm saying what if they're reproducing slower than they otherwise would, but are still reproducing as fast or faster than they die.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319
Location: In Cognito

06 May 2019, 4:57 pm

Dan82 wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Dan82 wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I can only see how it would be an issue if the species were killing each other or somehow preventing each other from eating, so a higher population would be an advantage.

Please have a look again at Antrax' models 1, 2, and 3. In all of them, rate of reproduction makes a difference without there being another species that is preying o n people. Your assumption is not necessary.


His model assumes the lower-producing population is dying at a rate faster than they're reproducing. I'm saying what if they're reproducing slower than they otherwise would, but are still reproducing as fast or faster than they die.

In models 3 and 5, where Antrax assumes a constant population, everyone has the same probability of death. There is no law of statistics or biology that states a population can't die faster than the replacement rate. If you want to introduce that assumption into your argument, you have to justify it.

I responded to you saying that there has to be competition between species. What does this have to do with mortality rates being greater than birth rates for some populations within a species?



Dan82
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 185
Location: St. Paul Suburbs, Minnesota

07 May 2019, 12:17 am

Gromit wrote:
Dan82 wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Dan82 wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, I can only see how it would be an issue if the species were killing each other or somehow preventing each other from eating, so a higher population would be an advantage.

Please have a look again at Antrax' models 1, 2, and 3. In all of them, rate of reproduction makes a difference without there being another species that is preying o n people. Your assumption is not necessary.


His model assumes the lower-producing population is dying at a rate faster than they're reproducing. I'm saying what if they're reproducing slower than they otherwise would, but are still reproducing as fast or faster than they die.

In models 3 and 5, where Antrax assumes a constant population, everyone has the same probability of death. There is no law of statistics or biology that states a population can't die faster than the replacement rate. If you want to introduce that assumption into your argument, you have to justify it.

This is the definition of not being significant enough of a drag on reproductive fitness. Say completely arbitrarily that a population was increasing at 5% a year, but then there's a mutation that caused some of them to only increase at 2.5% a year. They'd still be increasing in population, but the mutated gene would be halving their growth rate. I don't see how that would be bred out unless there was some kind of direct competition where numbers was an advantage. It's not evolution exactly but it is a competition: the North won the Civil War because they had like four times as many people (and they were better armed, etc.).



ollychan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Apr 2019
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 744

07 May 2019, 11:34 am

a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father .



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319
Location: In Cognito

07 May 2019, 2:56 pm

Dan82 wrote:
This is the definition of not being significant enough of a drag on reproductive fitness. Say completely arbitrarily that a population was increasing at 5% a year, but then there's a mutation that caused some of them to only increase at 2.5% a year. They'd still be increasing in population, but the mutated gene would be halving their growth rate.

The definitions of fitness I have seen were concerned with the proportion of an allele in the next generation, not the absolute number.

Dan82 wrote:
I don't see how that would be bred out unless there was some kind of direct competition where numbers was an advantage.

Resources are finite, so there is a limit to population size. Infinite growth is impossible outside of mathematical models. There are many ways of competing: attracting better or more mates, being better at finding the resources needed for survival and reproduction, being better at hiding or running from predators, having more efficient metabolism, having better resource extraction skills. Many of them have nothing to do with either other species or with killing within a species.

Dan82 wrote:
It's not evolution exactly but it is a competition: the North won the Civil War because they had like four times as many people (and they were better armed, etc.).

So where is the other species that you said is necessary?

ollychan wrote:
a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father .

Sounds very Freudian. Do you have a reference?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,408
Location: temperate zone

08 May 2019, 3:24 pm

ollychan wrote:
a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father .


So do a lot of straight boys too.

Whats your point?

If your point is that that environment produces gay men -then- why hasn't there been a gigantic outbreak of male homosexuality in America's Black ghettos iwhere female headed households are close to being the norm?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,690
Location: Stendec

08 May 2019, 3:45 pm

ollychan wrote:
a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father.
A lot of gay boys drank homogenized milk when they were kids. A lot of straight boys did, too.

:roll: What next, "Refrigerator Mothers"?


_________________
You don't have to be popular to be a good person, but...
You almost always have to be a good person to be popular!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,408
Location: temperate zone

08 May 2019, 6:09 pm

Fnord wrote:
ollychan wrote:
a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father.
A lot of gay boys drank homogenized milk when they were kids. A lot of straight boys did, too.

:roll: What next, "Refrigerator Mothers"?


Well...

You keep your homogenized milk IN … a refrigerator.

And that's why ...we have kids who end up on milk cartons!



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,690
Location: Stendec

08 May 2019, 6:25 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ollychan wrote:
a lot of gay boys have dominant mother and loser father.
A lot of gay boys drank homogenized milk when they were kids. A lot of straight boys did, too.What next, "Refrigerator Mothers"?
Well... You keep your homogenized milk IN … a refrigerator. And that's why ...we have kids who end up on milk cartons!
Right alongside the runaway trains.


_________________
You don't have to be popular to be a good person, but...
You almost always have to be a good person to be popular!


la_fenkis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,591
Location: MN

02 Jul 2019, 9:21 pm

Antrax wrote:
la_fenkis wrote:
Assuming for discussion that homosexuality is genetically grounded we can still appreciate that many traits are polygenic/oligogenic (which I'll just call multigenic), involve the interactions of multiple genes, rather than monogenic. Assuming further that homosexuality is such a multigenic trait it wouldn't be necessary for there to be an advantage to the specific individuals carrying the confluence of genes so long as the population as a whole, which carries the collection of genes that can in some individuals coalesce to produce the trait, does not suffer a significant enough disadvantage to promote the elimination of the involved genes from the population.


I keep seeing this "significant enough disadvantage." On a long enough time scale any disadvantage is significant enough to be eliminated. Instead what you have with multigenetic traits is that the individual genes are net beneficial or at least net neutral when factoring in their beneficial and harmful combinations.



Across similarly long time scales everything else evolves and all the niches change. Things in nature aren't in evolutionary equilibrium with each other with respect to their "niche," they're constantly chasing shifting conditions that change what's optimal. You're thinking with a convergence mindset about a system that never converges.