Hi there,already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has
Hi there,already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has
Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows
Thanks for your time.
What does "adaptation that colludes with the environment" even mean?
collude /kəˈl(j)uːd/ verb verb: collude;
"cooperate in a [...]way in order to[...] gain an advantage[...]."
Possibly. But it's a "just so story" that presses an optimally convenient scheme.
On the other hand, if you invoke that deep in our past our ancestors were fish so we as a
species ought to be able to spawn a descendent species that is fully aquatic, you've
gone too far. Perhaps you can think a bit more about your hypothesis and try to frame
it more robustly.
[...]
Possibly. But it's a "just so story" that presses an optimally convenient scheme.
On the other hand, if you invoke that deep in our past our ancestors were fish so we as aYes Daggett you have it exactly.
species ought to be able to spawn a descendent species that is fully aquatic, you've
gone too far. Perhaps you can think a bit more about your hypothesis and try to frame
it more robustly.
Hi there,already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has
Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows
Thanks for your time.
On 19/10/2023 02:07, Chris Lowland wrote:already been established (in the past). The concept is fairly simple: collusions with a state of environment that already existed in the past, will be faster (and hence more competitive).
Hi there,
After thinking about Evolution for some time, I came to notice that there is a difference between adaptation that colludes with the environment to begin with, and adaptation that colludes with the environment on the basis of a relationship that has
old environments establish known solutions to selection pressure faster).
Do we see animals returning to old territory? Certainly they mark their territory out - but for this purpose?
What exactly triggers a return to old territory, is unknown - but perhaps there is a way to tell precisely *when* the boundary between old and new is crossed?
Perhaps there is a balance that can be struck, between old and new territory - to reduce the cognitive load that Evolution on its own can't balance?
I hope this has been some food for thought: I wonder if you could comment specifically on the notion that this snapback is faster - that to me, sounds logical but I admit I have only trusted it on faith (I have not conducted an experiment that shows
Thanks for your time.
In light of comments elsethread (you've developed your own terminology, >which makes things unclear to others) you seem to have adopted a
position contrary to Dollo's Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility
In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable, >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
Law apply.
[...]
In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it >seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state >could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable, >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the >past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo'sA generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
Law apply.
comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland
doesn't grasp a kernel of truth.
[...]
the pressure to adapt to it is always changing).[...]
In the short term much evolution involves selection among standingA generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it
seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state
could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable, >> >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the
past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's
Law apply.
comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland >>doesn't grasp a kernel of truth. There are artificial-selection
projects which attempt to re-evolve extinct species from related
species, ex. quagga, but their results are approximations at best.
Results from natural selection are necessarily contingent.
While I appreciate circumstances may change, even with familiar selection pressures and environments, it doesn't appear to me that just saying the river changes is enough (you are after all, suggesting that the notion of river will not evolve, because
If I repeatedly return to the river, I am aware that it is wet, but I am much more likely to appreciate that the current takes you somewhere at a certain speed (and further to that, at different levels in different seasons).
The notion is simply that it is much more advantageous to remember your circumstances in relation to Evolution, than it is to assume that Evolution will take care of it (when the time is right).
Can you detach circumstance from instance (of Evolution), is what I am asking? I believe that would make generalised adaptation more virile?
the pressure to adapt to it is always changing).[...]
In the short term much evolution involves selection among standing >variation, as opposed to selection of novel mutations. Given that, it >seems plausible that the alleles responsible for a past adaptive state >could still be present in the gene pool, and if individually selectable, >reversion to the prior environment could cause selection to regain the >past phenotype. In the longer term, the arguments in favour of Dollo's >Law apply.A generalized, philosophical version of Dollo's Law is Heraclitus
comment about stepping in the same river. This is not to say Lowland doesn't grasp a kernel of truth.
[...]
While I appreciate circumstances may change, even with familiar selection pressures and environments, it doesn't appear to me that just saying the river changes is enough (you are after all, suggesting that the notion of river will not evolve, because
If I repeatedly return to the river, I am aware that it is wet, but I am much more likely to appreciate that the current takes you somewhere at a certain speed (and further to that, at different levels in different seasons).
The notion is simply that it is much more advantageous to remember your circumstances in relation to Evolution, than it is to assume that Evolution will take care of it (when the time is right).
Can you detach circumstance from instance (of Evolution), is what I am asking? I believe that would make generalised adaptation more virile?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
wrote:
[...]
You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
their wake evidence of past changes.
A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
--
Can we agree that we're not talking about
wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
Unless I'm confused too.
Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
of what I think you have in mind is: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
moths, darker moths become the majority.
Can we agree that we're not talking aboutThe River is the environment, do you adapt to it or move on? What is your instinct?
wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
Unless I'm confused too.
Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
of what I think you have in mind is:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.
When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
moths, darker moths become the majority.
Yes ok (good input). What I am asking is, if this lighter/darker dynamic continues, does Evolution do anything to improve it?
Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?
It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...Can we agree that we're not talking about
wildlife in an actual river (particularly)?
Unless I'm confused too.
The River is the environment, do you adapt to it or move on? What is your instinct?
Anyway, a disputed and allegedly vindicated example
of what I think you have in mind is: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution>
This is the one with lighter moths and darker moths.Yes ok (good input). What I am asking is, if this lighter/darker dynamic continues, does Evolution do anything to improve it?
When birds can easily see and eat the darker moths,
lighter moths from not-eaten parents become the
majority. When birds can more easily see the lighter
moths, darker moths become the majority.
Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
wrote:
[...]
You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
their wake evidence of past changes.
Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are only stored with reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere else, then uproot it again to plant it back where it was, the plant doesn't need me to chop its roots off, before it can grow as it used to - there is something innate to the Evolution, that amplifies the role of instinct and subsequent nuance, that can't be achieved by attempting more and more change that way.
-------------------------------------A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
--
As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference point is the instinct that guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the species of the moment, denies that the marks of previous selection pressures, tell their tale - regardless of how developed the Evolution has blindly become.
[...]You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.
Chris Lowland wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14 AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
wrote:
[...]
You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily, contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in their wake evidence of past changes.
Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that
changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may
emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are only stored with reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere
else, then uproot it again to plant it back where it was, the plant doesn't
need me to chop its roots off, before it can grow as it used to - there is something innate to the Evolution, that amplifies the role of instinct and subsequent nuance, that can't be achieved by attempting more and more change
that way.
A good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic. They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
--
As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and-------------------------------------
move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference point is the instinct that guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability
to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You
saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the species of the moment, denies that the marks of previous selection pressures,
tell their tale - regardless of how developed the Evolution has blindly become.
You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Your transplanted tree has is part of a population already adapted to its environment. Moving it does not change its
morphology except to the extent that its new environment effects its
ability to survive to produce offspring, some of which manage to survive
to procreate in that new environment. Moving it back to its original
site is an option if it fares poorly in the new site. But it's still the same
individual organism.
What does "adaptation that colludes with the environment" even mean?
collude /kəˈl(j)uːd/ verb verb: collude;
"cooperate in a [...]way in order to[...] gain an advantage[...]."
I just mean overlap (in a Venn diagram kind of way). Collusion meaning the coming together of the shared overlap.
On 10/22/23 10:11 AM, Dexter wrote:.
[...]You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.
I shudder to think of what influence Pokemon will have on the biological sciences..
"Choice" isn't a good choice of word, also.
Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...
"Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications" https://faculty.fiu.edu/~noriegaf/Papers%20Proteomics/Epigenetics/Paper01.pdf
The section on plants and vernalization may be the sort of thing you are asking about.
You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
Populations evolve.Populations with inherited instinct, have a greater chance at survival if nuance (of heritable attenuation) is at least partially personal. In other words, the way that the population relates to future Evolution, determines that Evolution for that
Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to predict when
to become lighter/darker? That's a "no".
Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to more rapidly
follow environmental changes? That's a "yes".
It's called regulatory genes. Few peppered moths are completely white
or completely black. Instead, regulatory genes alter the degree of lighter/darker; a biological dimmer.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Is there a p-factor for lighter/darker adaptations, which can navigate to a quicker transition?It's hard for me to be sure, but I think you may be asking about environmentally determined epigenetic changes. Here's a review of the subject...
"Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications" https://faculty.fiu.edu/~noriegaf/Papers%20Proteomics/Epigenetics/Paper01.pdf
The section on plants and vernalization may be the sort of thing you are asking about.The Link you gave said "genome-wide patterns of DNA and chromatin modifications (‘epigenomes’) do not persist throughout life,
but undergo precise, coordinated changes at defined stages of development, particularly in mammals. These transitions contribute to the lineage- and tissue-specific expression of genes"
That's basically what I am asking, as far as change is concerned - now all we need to answer is "does this speed up, if you switch between common environments at different stages of transition?"
If there is an epigenomic shift in life, that shift can be accelerated?
It's less clear in mammals, but it seems quite possible in plants that epigenetic effects allow quick transitions between heat resistance and cold resistance in response to environmental change, as a result of transgenerational persistence ofepigenetic changes in, for example, methylation patterns. I don't know much about this, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are asking, since your language seems a bit idiosyncratic. I get the feeling you are asking about things that have
epigenetic changes in, for example, methylation patterns. I don't know much about this, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are asking, since your language seems a bit idiosyncratic. I get the feeling you are asking about things that haveIt's less clear in mammals, but it seems quite possible in plants that epigenetic effects allow quick transitions between heat resistance and cold resistance in response to environmental change, as a result of transgenerational persistence of
Yes that makes senseinstinct for it and it will take a long time.
"transgenerational persistence" is exactly what I was asking for.
It would make even more sense, if that "persistence" could be accelerated - say a beaver makes a home in a number of rivers, eventually he will get faster at making homes? Whereas, if he (the beaver) attempts to make a home inland, he will not have the
I don't know what it is I am asking for specifically, but the notion is simply "I wish I understood how to operate in faith, in Evolution?" "would Evolution work faster, if I was aware of the environmental pressure I was persisting in?" "Would beingable to attenuate faster to Evolution than the next guy, make me more attractive (as a mate)?"
At some point, there is a transcendental state, that has a bearing on what burdens are carried forth, for the next generation (I know that instinctively, from past experience with meditation). If we could connect the "persistence" with the "transcendental", the burden of change would not be so confused.
What does it mean to "operate in faith, in Evolution"?
The sort of thing I mean by your idiosyncratic language is this....
I have no idea what you mean by "if that persistence could be accelerated." Persistence means staying the same - how can you get faster at staying the same??
What does it mean to "attenuate..to Evolution"?
What does it mean to "operate in faith, in Evolution"?
Your questions seems to skirt around things like adaptive changes in mutation rates and epigenetics, but I may just be projecting things that make sense to me onto very vague strings of words in your posts.
What does it mean to "operate in faith, in Evolution"?
Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to predict when
to become lighter/darker? That's a "no".
But they may have an instinct, that one environment is better for them than another?
Are you asking if there's something which allows moths to more rapidlyI take your point, that there is something that helps - but I am asking "does that help itself, speed up?"
follow environmental changes? That's a "yes".
It's called regulatory genes. Few peppered moths are completely white
or completely black. Instead, regulatory genes alter the degree of
lighter/darker; a biological dimmer.
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
On 10/22/23 10:11 AM, Dexter wrote:
[...]You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
Populations evolve.
I shudder to think of what influence Pokemon will have on the biological >sciences.
population.You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
Organisms attenuate to selection pressures in ways that advantage their young. Subsequent generations express that evolution, while attenuating to selection pressures that *their* young will express.
Populations evolve.Populations with inherited instinct, have a greater chance at survival if nuance (of heritable attenuation) is at least partially personal. In other words, the way that the population relates to future Evolution, determines that Evolution for that
What does it mean to "operate in faith, in Evolution"?To return to your question a third time: take for example power: "Power to purpose, recollection grows! (selah)"
If Evolution had purpose, and you added power to it (if you discussed it or wrote about it or built something about it), recollection would grow with it - the survival advantages of "recollection" would be harnessed (to varying degrees).
Surviving might help, but knowing you are surviving would help more!
-------------------------------------You've made a very basic error in this analogy. Organisms don't evolve.
Organisms attenuate to selection pressures in ways that advantage their young. Subsequent generations express that evolution, while attenuating to selection pressures that their young will express.
Populations evolve.Populations with inherited instinct, have a greater chance at survival if nuance (of heritable attenuation) is at least partially personal. In other words, the way that the population relates to future Evolution, determines that Evolution for that population.
Hi there,
Thanks for your time.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:11:13 PM UTC+11, Chris Lowland wrote:
Hi there,
Thanks for your time.
I just can't get past the idea, that if you are familiar with a selection pressure,
that *familiarity* gives a selection advantage. The idea that "relevance" (of a
specific adaptation to a specific environment) increases that familiarity, through
guidance (from one generation to the next) is like that advantage. In other words,
the more you can call familiarity relevant, the faster appropriate adaptations
will develop. I am not twisting words, I am just saying "doesn't 'familiarity' and
'relevance' add to Evolution in a way that is constructive?"
Isn't this why creatures develop memory and instinct?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:11:13 PM UTC+11, Chris Lowland wrote:
Hi there,
guidance (from one generation to the next) is like that advantage. In other words, the more you can call familiarity relevant, the faster appropriate adaptations will develop. I am not twisting words, I am just saying "doesn't 'familiarity' and 'Thanks for your time.
I just can't get past the idea, that if you are familiar with a selection pressure, that *familiarity* gives a selection advantage. The idea that "relevance" (of a specific adaptation to a specific environment) increases that familiarity, through
Isn't this why creatures develop memory and instinct?
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:21:14?AM UTC+11, jillery wrote:reference to the contact. I breathe in and out, but if I stop there, I don't need to breathe out first, before I start breathing in again. If I plant a tree in a garden, then uproot it and plant it somewhere else, then uproot it again to plant it back
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Chris Lowland
wrote:
[...]
You missed the analogy. Both the river/environment and the
man/species constantly change, and those changes necessarily,
contingently, iteratively, alter successive changes, while leaving in
their wake evidence of past changes.
Yes (I understand Evolution has to start somewhere) but your insistence that changes emerge from contact with the environment doesn't make sense. They may emerge from contact with a certain environment, but that doesn't mean are only stored with
guides the adaptations, the outcrop is the ability to identify which adaptations are needed for which selection pressures. You saying that Evolution is just something you tack on to whatever is the species of the moment, denies that the marks of previousA good example is the terror birds which evolved during the Cenozoic.
They occupied the apex predator niche. They became too large to fly,
so their wings were useless for that function. A superficial
understanding might suppose their wings could have devolved back into
the forelimbs of their maniraptoran theropod ancestors. But a correct
understanding is, even if that was possible, the evolution would
necessarily have started from their existing wing morphology, and not
from the lobed fins of ancestral tetrapods.
--
As I said, it is a choice, whether you miminize adaptations where you are and move out of the area, or you hold out hope that future selection pressures will advance you where you are and you keep what you have. The reference point is the instinct that
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 12:11:13 PM UTC+11, Chris Lowland wrote:guidance (from one generation to the next) is like that advantage. In other words, the more you can call familiarity relevant, the faster appropriate adaptations will develop. I am not twisting words, I am just saying "doesn't 'familiarity' and '
Hi there,
Thanks for your time.
I just can't get past the idea, that if you are familiar with a selection pressure, that *familiarity* gives a selection advantage. The idea that "relevance" (of a specific adaptation to a specific environment) increases that familiarity, through
Isn't this why creatures develop memory and instinct?
My concern is that when we use these sorts of labels to characterize some underlying reality, there's a danger of falsely introducing extra connotative baggage that is just a phantom of colorful language.
Now assume that a simple mutation provides immunity from the
poison. In which of the two species would that mutation be more
likely to get fixed?
berries, with less of a toxic profile. These factors shape the adaptation.Now assume that a simple mutation provides immunity from the
poison. In which of the two species would that mutation be more
likely to get fixed?
I loved this answer so much. How did you arrive at the idea that the poison could be defeated with immunity? Was the mutation immunal? How did selection pressure change such that immunity was attempted?
One can assume being in proximity to the berries is relevant and that the intensity of the berries' flavour is familiar. Instinct regarding the berries is that the poison can be eliminated; memory of the berries is that they are like certain other
The point is the group that developed immunity had to keep dying, whereas the religious group had the choice of attempting to share immunity after the fact.berry area, adapted to other poisons and then came back, would the immunity come back more quickly?" I think the answer is that it depends entirely on whether a p-factor has been developed.
The question I want to keep asking is "did immunity to the berries have a flow on effect to other poisonous berries?" Or simply put "if the religious group married the immune group, would immunity carry?" Or indeed "if the immune group left the poison
A p-factor is where various attempts at a skill lead to better control of that skill (the example I originally saw was that learning a number of ways to use your intelligence leads to more intelligence over all). To use the example of the berries, ifthe immune group attempted to become immune to a wide variety of berries, there would be a chance that they develop a p-factor for poisonousness in general. Then if they left an area and neglected immunity, then returned, that immunity would be aided by
The key is that the potential for a response (to poisonousness) is something that you have to exercise.
I think that answers the question of whether adaptations come back more quickly -if the adaptation or something related to it is exercised, there is reason to believe
Does that make exercising Evolution, a needed development of Evolution?
The key is that the potential for a response (to poisonousness) is something that you have to exercise.
One can exercise tolerance to minute amounts of the worst, and full immunity to some of the
less potent . Some humans develop immunity to poison ivy rash, initiated by eating some.
Many wild animals (deer, for instance) eat it avidly. But poison ivy is one of the milder
of the common poisons.
On 11/15/23 7:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
[snip to one point]
The key is that the potential for a response (to poisonousness) is something that you have to exercise.
One can exercise tolerance to minute amounts of the worst, and full immunity to some of the
less potent . Some humans develop immunity to poison ivy rash, initiated by eating some.
Many wild animals (deer, for instance) eat it avidly. But poison ivy is one of the milder
of the common poisons.
Technically, urushiol, the active ingredient in poison oak and poison
ivy, is an allergen, not a poison. To the best of my knowledge, only
humans and chimpanzees are allergic to it. And people wishing to
acquire immunity by eating it should keep in mind that doing so can also result in dermatitis at both ends of the digestive system.
Now assume that a simple mutation provides immunity from the
poison. In which of the two species would that mutation be more
likely to get fixed?
I loved this answer so much. How did you arrive at the idea that the poison could be defeated with immunity? Was the mutation immunal? How did selection pressure change such that immunity was attempted?
One can assume being in proximity to the berries is relevant and that the intensity of the berries' flavour is familiar. Instinct regarding the berries is that the poison can be eliminated; memory of the berries is that they are like certain otherberries, with less of a toxic profile. These factors shape the adaptation.
The point is the group that developed immunity had to keep dying, whereas the religious group had the choice of attempting to share immunity after the fact.
The question I want to keep asking is "did immunity to the berries have a flow on effect to other poisonous berries?" Or simply put "if the religious group married the immune group, would immunity carry?" Or indeed "if the immune group left the poisonberry area, adapted to other poisons and then came back, would the immunity come back more quickly?" I think the answer is that it depends entirely on whether a p-factor has been developed.
A p-factor is where various attempts at a skill lead to better control of that skill (the example I originally saw was that learning a number of ways to use your intelligence leads to more intelligence over all). To use the example of the berries, ifthe immune group attempted to become immune to a wide variety of berries, there would be a chance that they develop a p-factor for poisonousness in general. Then if they left an area and neglected immunity, then returned, that immunity would be aided by
Does that make exercising Evolution, a needed development of Evolution?
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 2:07:09?AM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.
Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
Women and offspring die during the birth
process. The human skull has evolved to be
squashed during birth to get out without too
much damage, but that isn't enough.
Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
but evolution can't fix it.
The whole premise is that you are pumping enough variation in, to catch the necessary difference (for some of the species).
The problem is that you need to define some of that variation as "relevant" (or instinct will fail to nurture adaptations enough).
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following...or not.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Chris Lowland
<[email protected]>:
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 2:07:09?AM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote: >>> Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.Perhaps a clear translation of that, and a clear explanation
Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
Women and offspring die during the birth
process. The human skull has evolved to be
squashed during birth to get out without too
much damage, but that isn't enough.
Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
but evolution can't fix it.
The whole premise is that you are pumping enough variation in, to catch the necessary difference (for some of the species).
The problem is that you need to define some of that variation as "relevant" (or instinct will fail to nurture adaptations enough).
of its relevance to Robert's post, would be appropriate,
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appearedI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock >without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appearedDeer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appearedI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you. >>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn >>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control, >>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment >>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.
I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
Every other year or some local dies of it.
On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appearedNo, I've just got lousy typing skills. It's "both", and every other
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:"bott"?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appearedDeer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appearedI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock >>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you. >>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn >>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control, >>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment >>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.
I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
Every other year or some local dies of it.
year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
oh my. Well, not tigers.
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appearedNo, I've just got lousy typing skills. It's "both", and every other
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:"bott"?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appearedDeer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appearedI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock >>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you. >>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn >>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control, >>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment >>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.
I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
Every other year or some local dies of it.
year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
oh my. Well, not tigers.
On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.
On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appearedNo, I've just got lousy typing skills.� It's "both", and every other
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:"bott"?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appearedDeer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too. >>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appearedI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.� I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle.� Children keep eating them,
nevertheless.� And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same.� A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
eating you.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to >>>>>>>>> warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent >>>>>>>>> control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert
environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
Shiprock
without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't >>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were >>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.
I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
oh my.� Well, not tigers.
You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
(south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually
attack people.
On 12/21/23 9:37 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 08:59:31 -0800, the following appearedAll true. Our lions are mountain lions, and our bears North American
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:You might want to clarify that the lions aren't 500 lb with
On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.
On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appearedNo, I've just got lousy typing skills.� It's "both", and every other >>>>> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears, >>>>> oh my.� Well, not tigers.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:"bott"?
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appearedDeer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too. >>>>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared >>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpsonI've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up >>>>>>>>> Shiprock
<[email protected]>:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.� I am on >>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about >>>>>>>>>>> eating you.
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself. >>>>>>>>>>>>
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle.� Children keep eating them,
nevertheless.� And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same.� A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to >>>>>>>>>>> warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent >>>>>>>>>>> control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert >>>>>>>>>>> environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't >>>>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were >>>>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.
I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
(south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one), >>>> but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually >>>> attack people.
a mane, living in prides, but 200 lb with none, living
solitary. Similar color, though... :-)
black bears (200-500 lbs). Not very scary unless they come in the
automatic doors in the market.
On 2023-12-20 23:19:38 +0000, erik simpson said:
On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:Yes, but it's not wise to keep a python as a pet, non-poisonous though
Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am onIt would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
it be. I heard of someone once who took her python to a vet as it had
stopped eating. The vet said "that's quite normal; he's waiting until
he's hungry enough to eat you".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:06:53 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,287 |