Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 00:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
"Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty." <fell_spamtrap_in@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d6fmgu$207p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Walter ReMine" <science@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:d63790$mvb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > > I am not sure that discussion of "selection pressure"
> > > and its effects is even fruitful. But many people
> > > discuss it. What am I missing here?
> Perplexed is missing an EPT (effectively philosophy terminating and
> enormously powerful
> evolutionary psychobiology type theoretical) understanding of most
> especially himself but of
> other animals (mainly more brainy ones) as well.
> >
> > I agree. The term "selection pressure" is ill-defined, and serves
> > merely as a magic wand to wave mysteriously over any problem while one
> > incants a Darwinian story.
> >
> You and John have obviously not yet started to apply (infuse) a Tolerance
> Principled
> intellectual attitude to (into) your evoution theoretical thinking!
>
> > A similar term "intensity of selection" was used in Haldane's (1957)
> > paper on the cost of substitution. When properly understood, it is the
> > cost per generation, which equals the 'payment' per generation, in
> > terms of the reproduction rate of the species.
>
> It would have been better written (and conceived) as intensity of "selection
> pressures".
>
> Peter
>
> P.S.
> If Perplexed would happen to read this (despite himself and his far from
> rare 'unaccEPTing attitude' to what I write),
> I hope I did not reinforced his (your) concerns (re selection pressures).
>
> In case Perplexed do read this: May I try provide some comfort, or to calm
> your concern, by pointing out
> that what I would might characterize as an "inEPTly AEVASIVE selective
> unconsciousness" does in effect tend
> to apply more often (and to a greater extent) to the most intelligent of us.
> %-)
Thanks for the cryptic diagnosis, Peter. But if I am to understand it and
trust it, you will have to answer my question. What am I missing here?
Regarding selection "pressure", I was probably guilty of pushing a physical
metaphor too far. I think of pressure (of a gas, say) as non-directional.
Thus I was looking for a non-directional meaning to the term in evolutionary
theory. The answers of Tim and Bob, especially, indicated to me that the
term was meant to be used in a directional sense. There is selective
pressure in a direction; high pressure means large selection coefficients
for or against some trait, and hence rapid response to selection. OK, if
that is what is meant, then I have no objections. I was perhaps rude to be
quite so direct in disparaging the non-directional meaning of the term when
I didn't understand that a directional meaning was intended. But if I am
making some other kind of mistake (easily diagnosed by an EPT sophisticate)
then it still escapes me as to what that mistake might be.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- From: Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty.
- Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- References:
- Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- From: Walter ReMine
- Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- From: Peter F - for EIMC Internetional Ptd. Lty.
- Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Prev by Date: Re: Why are not all of the oceans filled with Sargassum?
- Next by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Previous by thread: Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Next by thread: Re: Selection Pressure - was re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|