Help me understand this: "individuals, can't respond to population relative selection pressures"

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I just keep coming back to this obstacle of my understanding of Evolution:

Individuals, can't respond to collective selection pressures

No matter how hard I try, I don't get it. Are you saying individuals need individual selection pressures (and collections of individuals need collections of 'like' selection pressures?)?

Maybe I've run into an evolutionary obstacle: distinguishing between individual and collective, does not advance a specific evolution or chain of evolutions?

I mean really: what is distinguishing between individual and collective meant to help you survive?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hi there,

So I just keep coming back to this obstacle of my understanding of Evolution:
No matter how hard I try, I don't get it. Are you saying individuals need individual selection pressures (and collections of individuals need collections of 'like' selection pressures?)?

Maybe I've run into an evolutionary obstacle: distinguishing between individual and collective, does not advance a specific evolution or chain of evolutions?

I mean really: what is distinguishing between individual and collective meant to help you survive?

We all need a leader.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

You're using the word collective here, but I *think* you mean population (is that correct?), so I will answer with that assumption.

An individual can adapt to their environment to some degree. However, when the individual dies without passing on their genes, presumably genes that allowed them to adapt, those genes are gone. No other organism will have those same genes. If the individual has offspring and passes those adaptive genes on, the adaptation can continue and evolve with the changing environment and the selective pressures that come with it. Also, having only one or very few individuals that can have offspring greatly limits the diversity of genes that can be passed on. With many, many individuals in the population there is a greater amount of different, unique gene combinations to be passed on allowing for a greater overall chance of adaptations to evolve and be passed on generation after generation allowing much greater flexibility in adapting and evolving to those selective pressures. This is how selection acts on populations over time and not on individuals from an evolutionary standpoint. That's where evolution works. On populations.

It's important to understand that genes mutate for a variety of reasons resulting in both the loss and gain of traits. Those mutations happen independently from environmental and selective pressures, not because of them (unless we're talking about mutagenic toxins or something in the environment which could affect whole populations, but that gets complicated. There are lots of layers). A mutation occurs and the environment selects for or against whatever trait the mutation results in. For instance, if a population lives in a hot, dry climate and a mutation arises that allows individuals to use water more efficiently, resulting in them being a little more resilient in the climate further resulting in an overall advantage in reproductive success, then that trait will tend to spread through the population over time and become the dominant trait. The selective pressure would be the heat, the mutation gives an advantage under that selective pressure resulting in the spread of the trait through the population resulting in the whole population becoming more resilient in the climate over time.

 

[Tanj]

Hi there,

So I just keep coming back to this obstacle of my understanding of Evolution:
No matter how hard I try, I don't get it. Are you saying individuals need individual selection pressures (and collections of individuals need collections of 'like' selection pressures?)?

Maybe I've run into an evolutionary obstacle: distinguishing between individual and collective, does not advance a specific evolution or chain of evolutions?

I mean really: what is distinguishing between individual and collective meant to help you survive?

I don't know who told you this...or whether you made it up, but there's no such thing as "collective selection pressure", or "individual selection pressure", for that matter. There's just "selection pressure".

Also while I am here I wanted to add that apart from very rare exceptions, in 99.99% of cases there is only 2 ways for a population to evolve:

1.Have babies
2. Die

That's it, end of story. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. The only way to change allele frequencies is to add more members to the population or remove some.

 

[Gottservant]

You're using the word collective here, but I *think* you mean population (is that correct?), so I will answer with that assumption.
[...]
For instance, if a population lives in a hot, dry climate and a mutation arises that allows individuals to use water more efficiently, resulting in them being a little more resilient in the climate further resulting in an overall advantage in reproductive success, then that trait will tend to spread through the population over time and become the dominant trait. The selective pressure would be the heat, the mutation gives an advantage under that selective pressure resulting in the spread of the trait through the population resulting in the whole population becoming more resilient in the climate over time.

You are forgetting mirror neurons.

If I mirror someone who dies and I can no longer mirror them, and there is a link between their death and the death of others (who I also mirrored), I can adapt.

I can say "it is likely that if I behave as others who I have mirrored, it is likely I will die" then I will live.

No need for future generations to die, they can all mirror me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are forgetting mirror neurons.

If I mirror someone who dies and I can no longer mirror them, and there is a link between their death and the death of others (who I also mirrored), I can adapt.

I can say "it is likely that if I behave as others who I have mirrored, it is likely I will die" then I will live.

No need for future generations to die, they can all mirror me.

That makes absolutely no sense and is not how neurons work.

 

[Larniavc]

Hi there,

So I just keep coming back to this obstacle of my understanding of Evolution:
No matter how hard I try, I don't get it. Are you saying individuals need individual selection pressures (and collections of individuals need collections of 'like' selection pressures?)?

Maybe I've run into an evolutionary obstacle: distinguishing between individual and collective, does not advance a specific evolution or chain of evolutions?

I mean really: what is distinguishing between individual and collective meant to help you survive?

Think about a crowd at a football match. The individuals are part of that collective.

Now get that crowd to run a foot race. And cut the slowest 50%. So now you have two collectives.

Collective A will be faster than collective B. Then each collective goes on the have kids (it’s a really long experiment). The kids from collective A will be on average faster than the kids from collective B. Repeat they 50 times (it a really loooong experiment).

Every generation the slowest 50% from collective A get culled and play no further part in the experiment.

So over time the fast people from collective A can only have kids with each other so the kids are on average faster over time.

The descendants of collective A are a lot faster than collective B. So much so that the two collective no longer want to mix with each other.

There you go: members of the collective A decedents are faster that collective B with no individual morphing into anything new.

 

[AV1611VET]

Collective A will be faster than collective B.

This surprises me.

Can't Collective B ever catch up (no pun intended) over time?

This almost sounds like Lamarckism to me.

Once slower, always slower?

 

[Larniavc]

This surprises me.

Can't Collective B ever catch up (no pun intended) over time?

This almost sounds like Lamarckism to me.

Once slower, always slower?

Good question. I missed an important part.

Every generation the slowest 50% from collective A get culled and play no further part in the experiment.

So over time the fast people from collective A can only have kids with each other so the kids are on average faster over time.

I’ve added that to my previous post.

In answer to the Lamarckism question, not it is not. Lamarckism is where the behaviour is the selection filter and causes change in the collective. In actual evolution the selective filter is the cut (which is analogous to not breeding).

If a cut was introduced into collective B it would begin to catch up. But without the cut collective B would be unable to catch up.

 

[Gottservant]

Think about a crowd at a football match. The individuals are part of that collective.[...]

Yes but you are saying "this one is a collective, and that one is a collective" as an individual.

There is no sense in saying "once we have all said the same thing, we are a collective".

A collective can be mirrored, by an individual that approximates them or by a collective that varies its interpretation of the same.

 

[Gottservant]

That makes absolutely no sense and is not how neurons work.

That is absolutely the point: "(the act of) missing the missing link, adds to adaptation".

Test your instinct: is something missed more likely to come back? (Yes!)

And who misses most, but those that need it most, in this life?

 

[Gottservant]

So is the missing link, something that is missed individually, or only missed as a population?

It depends on leadership, right?

Leadership that unites the missing of a collective missed link, increases the change that the missing link will be missed constructively?

 

[Shemjaza]

So is the missing link, something that is missed individually, or only missed as a population?

It depends on leadership, right?

Leadership that unites the missing of a collective missed link, increases the change that the missing link will be missed constructively?

A missing link is an archaic term for an example of an unknown but inferred transitional species.

People often claim that the link between humans and other apes is still missing, but they are mistaken. Two good examples are Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

So it has nothing to do with leadership.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes but you are saying "this one is a collective, and that one is a collective" as an individual.

No. A collective is group of individuals. Although any member of either collective is an individual it is the nature of the collective that changes over the course of generations rather than the nature of an individual.

 

[Larniavc]

If I mirror someone who dies and I can no longer mirror them, and there is a link between their death and the death of others (who I also mirrored), I can adapt.

That’s not what mirror neurones do.

 

[Larniavc]

No need for future generations to die, they can all mirror me.

The closest thing to what you are describing is cultural transmission of information.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is absolutely the point: "(the act of) missing the missing link, adds to adaptation".

Test your instinct: is something missed more likely to come back? (Yes!)

And who misses most, but those that need it most, in this life?

Nope. Still nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

A missing link is an archaic term for an example of an unknown but inferred transitional species.

Why is it archaic?

 

[Shemjaza]

Why is it archaic?

It has a lot of connotations that give a false idea about how evolution is understood to work.

It's associated with a singular missing animal between chimps and humans on a ladder of evolution and superiority.

 

[gaara4158]

Hi there,

So I just keep coming back to this obstacle of my understanding of Evolution:
No matter how hard I try, I don't get it. Are you saying individuals need individual selection pressures (and collections of individuals need collections of 'like' selection pressures?)?

Maybe I've run into an evolutionary obstacle: distinguishing between individual and collective, does not advance a specific evolution or chain of evolutions?

I mean really: what is distinguishing between individual and collective meant to help you survive?

Evolution does not occur on the individual scale. You personally never evolved and you never will. Evolution occurs on the population scale across many, many generations. It’s not measured by the difference between you when you were young and you when you’re old. It’s measured by the genetic differences between your ancient ancestors and your future descendants.