It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
GetHyped
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
How would Astyanax's definition be in any way relevant? He's not the author of the paper.
By the way, "survival of the fittest"? Haven't heard that one in about 150 years and it wasn't a valid description even back then so I don't see why you're getting so hung up on this simplistic and inaccurate definition of evolution.
GetHyped
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
So what is your definition of evolution and do you subscribe to it?
zilebeliveunknown
Theory of evolution had worked to the point where humans became self aware. From that moment the theory of evolution isn't applicable any more to our species. Our society isn't based on the premise of 'survival of the fittest' even though there are groups who behave like this. Societal norms are different than in animal societies. I cannot simply eliminate someone else in order to gain their teritory and food resources.
At each generation
T, N parents are drawn with replacement with probability
proportional to their fitness 1+s with the constraint that the
population size (or carrying capacity) N is fixed. Each parent gives
rise to one offspring, and the offspring make up the population for
the next generation.
During reproduction, each base in the
genotype of length L mutates to a random alternative base with
probability m.
In biology, Darwinian fitness or simply fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.
So we can say that fitness is this study is determined by the predicted secondary structure of the RNA sequence (genotype) which determines the odds of reproducing.
Fitness is 1+S1 for phenotype 1 (grey in Fig 3A) and 1+S2 for phenotype 2 (red in Fig 3A). Phenotype Q (blue in Fig 3A) has a fitness equal to 1.
The authors have set S2>S1, therefore in terms of fitness P2>P1>Q
Astyanax
it seems to me that 'fitness' in the model being studied is nothing but a mathematical term, one that is used as a weighting factor in the equations and is not related to any actual, physical determinants of biological fitness.
*
Sooooooooo basically you agree with exactly what their models show,
but you think the "most fit" is whatever is most prevalent at any given point in time . . . . . ?
Bringing forth more viable offspring does not equate to being a better survivor . . . the difference may seem like semantics or extremely subtle but it is a serious issue.
Unless you want to change the definition of fitness to the actual ability to reproduce this is a fundamentally different mechanism driving the phenomena. Currently fitness is tied to the ability to actually survive which increases the chances of being able to reproduce at some point. The study is demonstrating the strongest link is actually the reproduction process itself.
These are very different things.
Gee I wonder why? This was the reason I asked you for the definition you were using as I suspected it would be something ridiculous like this.
Your explanation above seems to bear this out, unless they built a whole mathematical environment, tested various toy phenotypes against them, and based their assignment of fitness values S1, S2 on how the phenotypes actually fared.
Is this what they did?
If the probability that a certain phenotype will appear in a population is lower than the probability that it will outbreed other members of the population, how high can the latter probability — which one might ordinarily use, might one not, as an indicator of selective fitness? — actually be? Shouldn't the first set of odds be factored into the second set? And wouldn't that reduce the second set, thereby in turn affecting the first yet again? I suspect the answer, if there is a good one, will be too mathematical for me. But try me.
Edit: I think Malthus said pretty much the same thing I did.
it demonstrates just how strong an effect "arrival of the fittest" can have on evolution.
1) likely: an individual (or individuals) with phenotype 1 (grey) appear due to mutation. They have a better chance of reproducing than individuals with phenotype Q and eventually 1 will replace Q as the dominant phenotype and become fixed (all individuals will have P1 except few mutants).
2) unlikely: an individual (or individuals) with phenotype 2 (red) appear due to mutation. They have a better chance of reproducing than individuals with phenotype Q and phenotype 1, and eventually Phenotype 2 will replace Q (and Phenotype 1 if it exists in the population) as the dominant phenotype and become fixed (all individuals will have phenotype 2 except few mutants).
So we can say that fitness is this study is determined by the predicted secondary structure of the RNA sequence (genotype) which determines the odds of reproducing.
In biology, Darwinian fitness or simply fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.
So we can say that fitness is this study is determined by the predicted secondary structure of the RNA sequence (genotype) which determines the odds of reproducing.