JP>I know fitness is reproductive success- that is what I said in my OP. That is what makes NS useless- there is no way to know which organisms are the most fit just by looking at them.
chance: Quite correct, you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t determine by looking, which one out of many, is fitter than the other. Because what you see when you look at something is itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s size, weight, speed, colour, etc. While these outward traits have some bearing on the individuals capability to survive and win a mate, it wont be every factor.
JP> Which is what I have been saying. The factors other than those outward traits are not heritable and far outweigh those that are.
Are you stating that only outward traits
are heritable!! I think you need to define what you mean here, e.g. what about the ability to digest food more efficiently?
Can you give me an example or two of a non-outward
JP> You have to wait to check their offspring before making any determiniation on fitness. And even then about 84% of the alleles are not due to NS but some other factors such as chance & luck- which are not heritable traits.
chance: Correct again, once the parents have finished breeding, you could determine their success by counting the number of offspring that also made it to reproductive age and produced offspring.
JP> IF NS is to habe ANY effect at all one has to consider the reproductive success of all generations. And when that is done the best we get is oscillating allele frequencies. Which is not what is to be expected if NS was the "magic bullet" evolutionists want us to believe it is.
Reproductive success is what exists here and now, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be anything else, so whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to consider? What effect are you anticipating?
What do you mean by oscillating allele frequencies
, please give a real life example.
chance: Natural selection is a description of a process not a method of measuring fitness, which is what you seem to be implying (false dilemma).
JP> NS is a description of a conserrving process which is quite the opposite of what evolutioniusts require of it.
Eminently false, as demonstration of animal husbandry. E.g. if all the dogs disappeared with the exception of the Ã¢â‚¬ËœMexican barking ratÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, has that hypothetical event Ã¢â‚¬ËœconservedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ it, or eliminated the others? Ã¢â‚¬ËœConservingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is meaningless, all that matters is change and it affect on itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fitness.
Show me how you would Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmeasure fitnessÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
JP> If you are eliminating the marginal you are conserving the norm.
Ok, how is that any different from, If you are eliminating the norm by conserving the superior
. There is no difference between your description and mine. Normal, superior, weak
are subjective and the same argument you previously made about traits, it is no basis for an argument, all that matters is fitness.
The bottom line is science has shown NS to be a conserving force and random mutations a bankrupt source. Yet people like you believe that these two, when combined, can do things that can't be verified via experimentation. What is the difference between that and a miracle?
Nonsense, e.g. lets try this thought experiment - assume we make a genetically Ã¢â‚¬ËœsuperiorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (and by that I mean more fit in an evolutionary sense) animal and release it into the wild. Do you think natural selection will eliminate it because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Ëœnot normalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢?