Evidence of evolution: Sex ratio as a function of male competition

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Showing your real colors now. I have offered evidence of evolution. It's your turn to offer the evidence of God.

Evidence of god is a matter of intrepretation, if you choose not to interpret the world around you as divine, that is your choice.

The notion that Evolution "Predicts" these ratios, (and don't think it's gone unnoticed that you've changed your line of reasoning from the first post), itself is most likely incorrect.

This equation was most likely derived from existing ratios within the parameters of Evolution Theory. That's just my hunch. Kind of like starting with increasing temperatures and concluding that CO2 is causing a greenhouse effect within the framework that man is evil-monsterous plague upong GAIA. (Especially, white-male-republicans, I'll whip up an equation that proves that.)

Intelligent Design is a philosophy, There is literally no way it can be disproved.

TRUCE! I understand the intent of your post but you should have made an effort to change the tone from ZZZZZZZZZZZ's contentious posts which turns everything into a right/wrong screaming match. Just offer up a theory, no need to disprove anything ...

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from drmarkan:

This still does not prove your point. One can say that the equation you are solving is unlocking the method of the designer. One can also say that what looks like random chance to us is something that is just beyond our comprehension at this point. Considering that the designer (however you want to view him/her/it) would have infinite wisdom compared to us, one could say that it is easier for us to create our own theories in order to satisfy our own need for understanding our existence rather than leaving it to faith alone and believing that there is something greater than ourselves out there.

By the way, great touch you added to your last post calling jem out on his grammatical errors. We know that you would never do anything like that. From the above quote:

The Nature always have ways to change the ratio if evolution requires it to do it.

Or this one:

Anyone who still don't get it deserves to be called "idiot."

I'm simply stating a fact - anyone unable to understand my post after the 2nd time, with all the hints I gave, has got to be handicapped one way or another.

One may indeed say that the equation

x=(n-1)(2n-1)/n(4n-1)

(x is the percentage of male offspings, n is the number of foundresses in a patch) is unlocking the method of the designer. But this equation was derived using the evolution theory. So if we agree with your premise, it leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that the method of the designer is evolution. I have nothing against it but the ID proponents would not agree to that.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

Evidence of god is a matter of intrepretation, if you choose not to interpret the world around you as divine, that is your choice.

The notion that Evolution "Predicts" these ratios, (and don't think it's gone unnoticed that you've changed your line of reasoning from the first post), itself is most likely incorrect.

This equation was most likely derived from existing ratios within the parameters of Evolution Theory. That's just my hunch. Kind of like starting with increasing temperatures and concluding that CO2 is causing a greenhouse effect within the framework that man is evil-monsterous plague upong GAIA. (Especially, white-male-republicans, I'll whip up an equation that proves that.)

Intelligent Design is a philosophy, There is literally no way it can be disproved.

TRUCE! I understand the intent of your post but you should have made an effort to change the tone from ZZZZZZZZZZZ's contentious posts which turns everything into a right/wrong screaming match. Just offer up a theory, no need to disprove anything ...

Here is the equation:
x=(n-1)(2n-1)/n(4n-1)
and it was in the very first post. I have not changed the line of reasoning at all. It simply took more explanation for you to understand what I was saying. My entire point has been that this equation
x=(n-1)(2n-1)/n(4n-1)
in which x represents the percentage of male offsprings, n represents the number of foundresses in a patch, is predicted by the evolution theory. And it is confirmed repeatedly in observation. This was my point in the first post, and still is my point now. How slow do I need to explain it?

Don't tell me that the equation is circular logic. It was predicted before observations were made. From the link I gave in the first post you can find the timeline of research on this topic. You can track down the years of publication of all the articles and check for youself.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

ok, perhaps I am an idiot for not being persuaded that your evidence disproves a "Designer".


over and out, dude

Only an idiot would try to draw the conclusion that my evidence "disproves a Designer." The title of this thread is "evidence of evolution," and I've always been clear about what I was trying to prove - the triumph of the evolution theory.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Only an idiot would try to draw the conclusion that my evidence "disproves a Designer." The title of this thread is "evidence of evolution," and I've always been clear about what I was trying to prove - the triumph of the evolution theory.

you got me ...I read only the first three paragraphs, which spoke only of 1:1 ratios... A thousand apologies! I should not post at work where I don't have adequete time. Sorry to pollute your thread.

I should have followed my first instinct and not posted at all.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

you got me ...I read only the first three paragraphs, which spoke only of 1:1 ratios... A thousand apologies! I should not post at work where I don't have adequete time. Sorry to pollute your thread.

I should have followed my first instinct and not posted at all.

No harms done. The convenience of being able to post quickly sometimes has its drawbacks...

Please stick around, we may have some more fun. I'm planning to have a discussion on this funny insect, what's its name, Wolbachia, and how it relates to the game theory.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

No harms done. The convenience of being able to post quickly sometimes has its drawbacks...

Please stick around, we may have some more fun. I'm planning to have a discussion on this funny insect, what's its name, Wolbachia, and how it relates to the game theory.

Believe it or not, I actually posses a Math degree, which doesn't qualify me to evaluate the merits of this equation, or Evolution theory for that matter, but it may offer evidence that I'm not an idiot. Maybe it only proves I should have the ability not jump to conclusions with evaulting all the input.

I'm afraid I probably reacted the same way Haoriki did (the first responder); read the first two paragraphs and immediately arrived at my conclusions... , and perhaps was even influenced by his initial comment.

Yes, the governoring dynamics behind M:F ratios certainly would be an interesting relationship to quantify, and a career-making discovery for the researhers, no doubt. BUT, IMHO, it only argues in favor of ID. My intrepretation of ID differs greatly from anyone who associates it with Bible literalists and Fundementalists. "Intelligent Design" for me is an all encompsing term, let's call it a religion for those who have lost their religion, but who still want to believe.

I find approaching the world as if it were designed by a "Designer", not only valuable but exhilarting. So, again apologies for speaking out-of-turn. Good luck.

(By the way, I've just realized it was ME that carried over the contentionous tone from other related threads)

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Let's talk some more about Wolbachia.

I'm speaking from memory so some details could be wrong. I'm not going to name the specific insects to avoid getting them confused. With these disclaimers, let's start.

Wolbachia infects a large number of species. This bacteria is very peculiar because the infection is through the eggs. Bacteria in the body of an infected female gets to her eggs and infect the eggs. The offsprings are thus infected too. Wolbachia cannot be infected in any other way.

This path of infection presents serious challenges to both the bacteria and the hosts, and creates an interesting dynamics that can be best described by the game theory.

First move, Wolbachia. Because bacteria are only passed inside a female insect to her eggs, an infected male insect cannot infect any other individual. Therefore, bacteria inside a male insect face a reproduction dead end. Of course, when the bacteria infected the unhatched egg, they wouldn't know whether it's male or female. By the time they find out it's male, it's too late. Their fate is already sealed. How do these bacteria remedy their situation and breakout of the death sentence? They change the male into a female! Some strains of Wolbachia are able to produce certain chemicals inside the eggs so that these eggs will develop into female insects even though they have the male chromosome!

to be continued....

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Next move, wasp. If a female is infected, then her eggs are definitely infected. A male wasp would gain an advantage if he can tell the difference between an infected female and a healthy female. This would be difficult for him under the normal circumstances - he cannot see the bacteria. However, the fact that the bacteria converts males into females gives him some help. The appearance of females with the female chromosome is slightly different than females with the male chromosome. But a female wasp with the male chromosome is almost certainly an anomaly due to the Wolbachia infection. So if the male wasp avoids mating with such transgendered female, he can greatly boost the chance that his offsprings will be healthy. A few species of parasitic wasps indeed have shown ability to distinguish between regular and transgendered females, and shown preference for the regular females.

Pity those Wolbachia bacteria. They changed their hosts from male to female, but still are facing near certain death. What's their next move?

To be continued...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

A dog licks his own balls because he can. The same dog sniffs another dog's bunghole.

Praying mantis sometimes eat their young.

Neither of which actions are necessary for survival of these species...nor can evolutionary theory account for these actions necessarily on the basis of evolutionary theory or random ignorant chance theory...

Waiting for the next move?

LOL!!!