Re: Environmental uncertainty, autocorrelation and the evolution of survival
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
Authors
C.J.E. Metcalf, D.N. Koons
Abstract
Survival is a key fitness component and the evolution of age- and
stage-specific patterns in survival is a central question in evolutionary
biology. In variable environments, favouring chances of survival at the
expense of other fitness components could increase fitness by spreading
risk
across uncertain conditions, especially if environmental conditions
improve
in the future.
JE:-
The only possible NET fitness (reprepresenting the only fitness that
matters) has always been the total number of adult (fertile) forms
reproduced into one population by each parent i.e. Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF). While increasing survival at the expense of reproduction can spread
risk allowing those in more a difficult environment to reproduce a lessor
number of infertile offspring (smaller fecundity) allowing more to survive
to adulthood, such a fecundity reduction can only be selected for if it
INCREASES TDF> This is because only this can test that increased survival
HAS successfully spread risk. The NET RESULT must be mean net gain in TDF
(which is per parent per poplation) for that environment. TDF represents the
only refutable Darwinian fitness maximand available to evolutionary theory.
In other words not all "fitness components" remain equal, where all of them
represent nested sets within independent and therefore competing units of
selection. What constitutes competition by default (natural selection) can
only occur between nested sets, i.e. _not within_ nested sets. If Darwinian
units of selection remained fitness dependent then they would only be able
to serve and not compete against their own unit of selection (the nested set
which repesents one Darwinian unit of selection within a population of
same). Only via Darwinism does the unit of selection remain refutably
simple, i.e. monocentric (as just fertile adult forms competing by default
via their TDF's, per population). This is because only monocentricity allows
a refutable (constant) frame of reference: the TDF maximand. Within Neo
Darwinism, units of selection remain to this day, non falsifiable so they
can only be proposed as heuristically polycentric. Heuristics cannot validly
compete against empirical reality withion the sciences (even if heuristics
can validly do so within mathemtaics). All Neo Darwinistic polycentic
theories represent uncorrected oversimplifications of monocentric Darwinism
within which gene fitness epistasis (non additive gene fitnesses) has been
_artificially_ deleted (for the ease of gene centric model building). Untile
these models are corrected for this oversimplification they remain, misused.
Both the magnitude of environmental variation and temporal
autocorrelation in the environment might therefore affect the evolution of
survival patterns.
Despite this, the influence of temporal autocorrelation
on the evolution of survival patterns has not been addressed. Here, we use
a
trade-off structure which reflects the empirically inspired paradigm of
acquisition and allocation of resources to investigate how the
evolutionarily stable survival probability is shaped in variable,
density-dependent environments. We show that temporal autocorrelation is
likely to be an important aspect of environmental variability that
contributes to shaping age- and stage-specific patterns of survival
probabilities in nature.
Source: The Royal Society
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/a1127732tr4936g4/>
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
JE:-
Unless TDF was explicitly included within the model it can only represent an
uncorrected irrefutable model of Darwinism. This is because TDF was and
remains the only Galilean frame of reference (constant and therefore
refutable frame of reference) that evolutionary theory can provide. The only
possible way to refute evolutionary theory is to enforce TDF to remain equal
for each parent within one population for as long as possible.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Mosquito, bed net/window screen, and evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Mosquito, bed net/window screen, and evolution
- Previous by thread: Mosquito, bed net/window screen, and evolution
- Next by thread: Another piece in the social cooperation puzzle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
