Re: Physical fitness and evolution
From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 06/24/04
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Kin Selection contradiction?"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg law"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:29:24 +0000 (UTC)
in article cbc9qf$272e$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at edser@tpg.com.au
wrote on 6/23/04 9:06 AM:
>> PW:-
>> The adaptations that occur in response to cardio training are harder to
>> explain. These include increased capillaries, more mitochondria, and
>> numerous others. However, none of these seem to have a downside. Being
>> fitter in a cardio sense always seems better than being unfit (unlike the
>> situation with muscle vs fat).
>
> GH:-
> Actually, these adaptations generically result in a shorter lifespan. They
> improve your performance in the meantime, but they also cause you to live
> faster (metabolically) and senesce sooner.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, even lifespans appear to have been evolved, i.e. even
> how long you live is a Darwinian adaptation so the commonly
> held Spencerian view of „survival of the fittest‰ taken to
> mean the fitter live longer to increase their
> fitness is untrue. What is still missing within Neo Darwinian
> discourse is an _objective_ measure of _Darwinian_ fitness.
> Darwin never used any explicit view of fitness but he does
> employ just an implicit view of it. When he suggests that what
> matters is the number of young you raise then he is implicitly
> suggesting that those that are naturally selected
> raise the most young to fertile adulthood. This implies both
> a total fitness count and a finite time frame to complete
> each fitness total. I contend that Darwinian
> fitness is exactly:
> _______________________________________________________
> Box 1
> The total number of fertile forms reproduced
> by each parent within one population.
> _______________________________________________________
>
> I also argue that this can be easily proven by reverse
> engineering the above definition, i.e. by setting up a
> natural population (not just a model simulation) whereby
> the total fitness of each parent is artificially kept
> equal within one experimental population. Epistemologically,
> any unique verification (a verification only provided
> by just one theory compared to all the others on the table)
> when reversed, must provide a valid point of refutation
> for that theory. This principle is proven, here.
>
> The predictions for the above experiment are:
> 1) All Darwinian natural selection will be halted.
> 2) Only random gene freq. changes will be observed
> within the population.
> 3) Just random variation without selection must produce
> the dissipation of all parents within the population
> and must eventually reduce each parents Darwinian fitness.
> Thus random sampling error cannot cause evolution without
> selection but selection can cause evolution without
> random sampling error (the process of genetic drift).
> 4) Only a single level of selection is required to
> test evolution by natural selection, i.e. all multi
> unit theories of evolution by natural selection are:
> (i) not the Darwinian theory of evolution
> (ii) can be removed using Occam‚s Razor because
> they are not proven to be necessary.
> (iii) most (if not all) are non testable, anyway.
> This means they cannot be verified or refuted
> within _nature_, i.e. more than just a simplified
> heuristic simulation of nature is required.
> 5) Darwinian fitness is an _absolute_ fitness measure per
> Darwinian selectee within one population because it is
> one finite total count of something. It is only
> Darwinian fitness that is compared on just a relative
> basis to conclude which selectee is fitter than another
> and thus, which selectee is naturally selected.
> 6) If the Darwinian totals of every selectee was
> known then the evolutionary history of a population
> could be reconstructed.
> 7) The Neo Darwinian definition of evolution as
> any gene. freq. change in a deme is not correct
> and must be changed to any non random gene freq.
> change in a deme.
>
>> PW:-
>> So why does your body lose these adaptations to exercise when the exercise
>> stops? What is the environmental advantage of becomong unfit when we don't
>> exercise? Why doesn't your body just implement the adaptations to exercise
>> even if you aren't exercising?
>
> GH:-
> You should be careful in your use of the word "unfit" in this context,
> because physical fitness and Darwinian fitness are very different things. I
> think I basically answered your questions above. Your Darwinian fitness is
> improved by reducing your metabolism to a slow idle when it is not being
> used to increase your Darwinian fitness through action.
>
> JE:-
> All of us must be much more careful in
> our use of „fit‰ or „unfit‰, in
> _any_ evolutionary theory context
> so as not to misuse it.
>
> Would Dr Hoelzer deny or confirm that
> his use of the term „Darwinian fitness‰
> refers to the definition I provided in
> Box 1.
I meant it in a very general way, so it is completely consistent with the
definition in Box 1 without excluding other definitions.
Guy
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Kin Selection contradiction?"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg law"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
