User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 57 to 64 of 76

Thread: Just to clear some things out for he newbies

  1. #57
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But we are not talking about physical fitness, we are talking about genetic fitness.
    No, you arent talking about physical fitness..
    but I am..and have been all along.

    if you dont want to, thats fine..
    but physical fitness is definitely part of this whole concept..
    if you want to ignore that part of it, thats up to you..

    We are really debating on two different levels here..
    personally, I dont care about "genetic fitness"..
    its the results of your "genetic fitness" that makes the animal "physically UNfit"..
    to me, thats the main issue here..
    I really dont care if the genes themselves are fit or not..
    the end result of your fit genes is that you have a Persian cat who cant breathe properly..
    you have a Parrot cichild that cant eat properly..
    you have a Bart Simpson and Cup Trap VFT that cant even catch an insect!
    thats a pretty serious physical limitation..

    VFTS are designed to catch insects..to suppliment their nutrition..
    sure, maybe a Bart Simpson VFT will technically survive..but being able to only photosynthesize,
    it is missing out on a lot of nutrients it needs to be fully healthy..

    thats a seriously flawed VFT..

    the one trait that makes it a Carnivorous plant in the first place, its one unique feature, (its trap, and method of carnivory)
    that no other organism in all of creation has, is gone..
    denied..all in the name of novelty. and being denied its means of full nutrition, of course it will be weaker..

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyro View Post

    But you cannot make the blanket statement that either animal is "more" genetically fit or "less" genetically fit period end of discussion. With no point of reference there is no "more" or "less"

    Yes I very much can make that blanket statement..because its simply true.

    What you keep choosing to deliberately ignore is that there IS a point of reference..
    the point of reference is the natural form of the creature or plant in question.
    using that point of reference, they are most definitely less fit.
    period, end of discussion.

    since you refuse to even acknowledge that..well..there isnt much left to say..

    I think we have both made our points quite well..
    but since we are both deliberately ignoring the other's half of the argument, there is much point in continuing!

    Scot

  2. #58
    Not Growing Up! GrowinOld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    ARTificial Bog in da' Middle of da' USA
    Posts
    932
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know you all are having fun trying to get your point across to the other....
    slap:

    And watching the way you feed off the others comments reminded me, there are many plant+animal symbiotic relationships in nature. And they have developed via natural selection and have survived as well as they have simply because another species finds them valuable! (An example would be: the ants that tend and grow a fungus and then feed off of it.)
    And there are lots of others!

    Anyway, I know this is just about the disagreeing and debating at this point, so while I would suggest this:
    and
    I will let you get back to it!
    It has been interesting at times watching you go at it! Nothing like a pissin' contest!

    (Funny, we developed naturally with TWO ears and only ONE mouth, why do you think that is?) Perhaps there is something you AGREE about? Well.....
    Have fun kids! Play nice!
    Experience is the best teacher. At least it used to be.
    But then, common sense isn't so common anymore, is it.


    http://www.terraforums.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=113866

  3. #59
    BuddhistAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rock Island, IL
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HAHA!! I love it! Couldn't agree more or have said it better!
    All fear violence, all are afraid of death.
    Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used.
    The Buddha
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref...r1?ref=profile

  4. #60
    allegedhuman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    307
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since you are talking about genes and use “fitness” that means you should be using the reproductive biological meaning of fitness. That is just what fitness means in genetics/ biological terminology. When you actually mean physical fitness you need to be explicit that you are talking about physical condition or weakness…otherwise there is the confusion about what you actually mean when you say “fit” since obviously people were coming in on fitness from two different meanings of scientific versus colloquial fitness.

    Now for more debating fun! Note: I’m not trying to insult or want to actually piss people off, I just find this fun to debate and actually have a moderately intelligent conversation with someone who has an opposing viewpoint and is actually willing to listen instead of just going “EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL AND THE BIBLE SAYS SO” or eyes glaze over which is what I usually run into when I even start mentioning this…

    Scot[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by scottychaos View Post

    Yes I very much can make that blanket statement..because its simply true.

    What you keep choosing to deliberately ignore is that there IS a point of reference..
    the point of reference is the natural form of the creature or plant in question.
    using that point of reference, they are most definitely less fit.
    period, end of discussion.

    Scot

    Blanket statements make me twitch and twinge in pain….

    Can you tell me which breed is more fit or physically weaker when you are comparing a Clydesdale or other European draft horse versus an Arabian? Don’t take any personal breed preference or consider what you use or think an ideal horse should be used for into account. Both breeds are incredibly athletic and strong so unless you look at the context and environment in which the two breeds are in I don’t think anyone could make the judgment which is fitter or physically weaker than another. Each breed has its own strengths. For pure power the drafts have the Arabian beat, but endurance, agility and athleticism the Arabians have the advantage. Each breed arose in different environments for different purposes. Drafts have broad barrels and have chunkier bodies to conserve heat, heavy coats for winter, etc, all for colder climates and size, strength and gentle personality to be used by all members of the family for plowing, hauling loads, etc. because you can’t have essentially a temperamental tractor when you NEED to get those crops planted if you are going to get a harvest that season. Arabians are finer built with a proportionally larger surface area to allow cooling in hot climates and much smaller since their primary purpose was a fast, spirited riding horse. Both breeds are great, both survive just fine in a barn but due to the environment they were bred in they have different traits that make them better suited for particular conditions and uses. If you say environment doesn’t matter (and I will disagree till the end that it does) and you want to compare it to the natural form of the horse…what natural form are you using? Basically all domestic horses ancestors are extinct. I believe Przewalski's Horse is the only one left which is smaller like the Arabian but stocky like the drafts. Other than that all wild horses are just from feral domestic stock so back to the question what is the natural form domestic breeds were derived from originally? What about using a very early horse ancestor which was just a few feet tall? The closest breed to that is a Fallabella and those are just pure novelty although very cute in my opinion (opinion mind you) so that would imply any horse you can ride would be inferior compared to the original natural form of the horse.

    What about comparing the fitness of different species? Who is to decide which large wild cat is the “natural form” when comparing tigers, cheetah, leopards, puma? You'd have to use their most recent shared common ancestor and how would you determine fitness from bones to see if the new species is more fit or less than their extinct ancestor?

    Context is always important and in this case the context is environment and ability to reproduce in that one particular environment. The fitness of the exact same individual can change just by changing the environment so even with the same individual there is no one blanket fitness score without the environmental component.

    Sure with some breeds that seem obscenely deformed like the pug, Persian, etc you think blanket statements may apply that they are physically weaker but what about the majority of the breeds which are more along the lines of degrees of variation and not as obviously weird?

    I agree, squished noses make for weaker breeds IF all humans disappeared tomorrow and all breeds interbred. But in that case natural selection would remove deleterious traits which humans originally selected for artificially. But in the current domestic environment pugs live and breed just fine..sure they have additional health concerns which affect their physical condition but their fitness is no less than your average mutt and often higher.

    I want a dog that is athletic and active so I'm looking for a different breed than someone who wants a nice quiet companion and would love a pug. Different environments makes different breeds more suited for that set of conditions. If I got a pug and went for a "short" little jog I'd probably kill the poor thing or have it slumped in a wheezing mess while if my great aunt got a border collie or husky that would not end well at all either...I'd foresee that situation ending in the dog dragging them both into traffic killing them both or getting sent to the pound and put down for being psycho when all it really needed was a more active environment to burn off and focus that energy.

  5. #61
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    going back to Pyros sickle cell example, just cause some trait is physically weak does not mean it is useless in nature....individuals with sickle cell are physically weaker and have shorter life spans by bout 30-40%....they are weaker individuals that fatigue faster than someone without the gene......however that screwed up red blood cell shape makes the individual resistant to malaria which means though it leads to a weaker individual with a shortened lifespan the individual actually has a better chance of survival than someone with normal blood cells in an area where malaria is common.........

    physical weakness does not mean genetic weakness........
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  6. #62
    allegedhuman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    307
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Exactly! With sickle cell anemia if you are Homozygous for both normal alleles you do not get sickle cell BUT you are at risk for malaria and if you get malaria..well goodbye potential family and kids.... If you are Homozygous with both alleles for sickle cell you are not very fit either since you get severe sickle cell anemia...but the heterozygotes with one normal allele and one allele for sickle cell have reduced oxygen carrying capacity BUT less likely to get Malaria and will live longer and be able to make it to an age to breed compared to homozygous people with either malaria or severe anemia..therefore having a higher fitness at the expense of physical condition.

    So if you are in a region where malaria is not endemic the alleles for sickle cell are usually very low but compare that to a region where malaria is common and the gene frequencies for sickle cell anemia alleles are MUCH higher even if those alleles lead to physically weaker individuals.

  7. #63
    SDCPs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ironically, this thread has become a "clear some stuff up for the newbies" time. There is some deep discussion going on...even though it can get confusing.

    What did Timmy do to get you guys to help him with this thread

  8. #64
    Raven01000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It seems to me that the opposition to mutant VFTs assumes there's a certain way organisms are supposed to be, and that mutations simply alter these original, correct forms. For example, I believe Scot said something along the lines of "VFTS are designed to catch insects". However, those who believe in evolution would say that the mechanisms which allow VFTs to capture insects in the first place came about as a result of mutations. Should the environment in which VFTs live ever change, they would likely mutate and adapt, and possibly even become non-carnivorous. These mutations which would be a hindrance in the current, boggy, nutrient-less environment, would become beneficial in a different environment. Therefore, we can say that what ever traits make these plants most likely to survive and propagate in a particular environment are what are most "fit". Another way to think about it is that fitness changes with and is defined by environment.

    Since plants in cultivation are no longer in the same environment as wild plants, new conditions of fitness apply. In the human environment, that which best guarantees survival, and therefore indicates fitness, is that which is unique, eye-catching, and aesthetically pleasing. In the human environment, VFTs are no longer competing with each other in such contests as who can most efficiently catch food or who can avoid predation. In the human environment, it's all about satisfying, interesting, and alluring humans. Which ever plants are best equipped to do that are those which will continue to be cultivated and thus will continue to survive and prosper.

    I'd like to address one last thing...It seems to me also that a lot of people assume that man is somehow outside of the natural realm, and that, as such, anything man does to nature and any organism therein is inherently unnatural (i.e. cultivating VFTs that are unsuited to their natural environment). All creatures have an effect on the creatures around them, and man is no exception. So what is it about man's effect that makes it artificial? The barrier which separates man and excludes him from the rest of creation seems little more than illusionary to me. In the context of this discussion, if we cultivate these plants, then we have a sort of symbiosis with them, and what makes them most suited this symbiosis is hardly unnatural. That's just my opinion, but I wanted to get it out there...

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. my fellow newbies...
    By Presto in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-12-2006, 08:07 AM
  2. for newbies
    By Copper in forum Carnivorous Plant Trading Post
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 07:03 PM
  3. my fellow newbies..
    By Presto in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-04-2006, 12:01 PM
  4. Cps for newbies
    By Amateur_Expert in forum Carnivorous Plant Trading Post
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-11-2004, 12:29 PM
  5. Seed packet folding for newbies
    By wickedthistle in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2004, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •