3 ms·

Those quotes are directly talking about fittest as classification. “preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call

by Retric 1y ago

Those quotes are directly talking about fittest as classification. “preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest” “varieties which possess” Fit in those quotes means having favorable variations and not having injurious variations, at no point does it refer to a specific organism’s survival. > You don't cut anything bad if you don't filter out bad/fit for good, but instead have dumb luck making dumb choices. Sperm which successfully fertilize an egg are more likely to have specific characteristics, that’s all that matters here as that alone results in survival of the fittest. Sperm with identical characteristics die clinging to a sock on your bedroom floor, but they quite literally don’t matter because of the Trillions of sperm being produced. Humans are large animals we can take the minor metabolic hit to produce a for us a trivial number of cells each of which have extraordinarily low odds of success. Producing even more so fertilized eggs have a marginally higher probability of live birth is a winning strategy.

eviks 1y ago
> Sperm which successfully fertilize an egg are more likely to have specific characteristics, that’s all that matters here as that alone results in survival of the fittest. This is way too generic. Which specific characteristics? How are those "favorable"? How are "injurious" filtered out? > Producing even more so fertilized eggs have a marginally higher probability of live birth is a winning strategy. So why not billions? Now try it with the eggs. Why have a few instead of millions? Again, nothing you say here helps you get to 50mil because it's all too generic "the higher the better; not that expensive" argument quality. And you won't have a higher probability of live birth if your meteor discarding filter don't filter out the defects that decrease this probability > but they quite literally don’t matter because of the Trillions of sperm being produced No, they don't matter for this conversation because it's about the meaning in differences in the ability to reach the egg. If every cell has a 0% chance, there is nothing to discuss.
- Retric 1y ago
  > Which specific characteristics? How are those "favorable"? How are "injurious" filtered out? Mobility for one, within close distance to an egg the sperm which can orient on the chemical gradient beat out those unable to move. > So why not billions? Cost vs benefit > Now try it with the eggs. Why have a few instead of millions? Spending more resources on a few fetuses is the chosen strategy. Which would run into issues if both sides released millions of cells. The chemical signaling to abort a large number would be complex at implantation, much simpler to release a limited number of eggs.
  - eviks 1y ago
    > Cost vs benefit Both of which you've failed to quantify, so you have no answer as to why stop at millions and not thousands or billions. > Mobility for one Your continue to stop at the most important part - relevance to your own criteria. If you care about probability of live birth or cutting out those unnamed "issues", how do tiny variations in mobility help? What's the mechanism connecting the two?
    - Retric 1y ago
      > Both of which you've failed to quantify, so you have no answer as to why stop at millions and not thousands or billions. I already quantified it relative to the metabolic cost on an organism the size of a human. There’s a big difference to us between 10 calories (more specifically 5 to 25 calories) and 10,000 there’s not a big difference between 10 calories and 0.01. Thus we spend a relatively but not actually trivial amount of resources for minor benefit. A fruit fly by necessity operates at a different scale. It would help if you read my posts here. > How do tiny variations in mobility help. Mobility is a complex test of a wide range of cellular machinery. Which means that cellular machinery works well. Lifespan is similarly a great test for the ability to maintain cellular homeostasis.
      - eviks 1y ago
        > I already quantified it relative to the metabolic cost on an organism the size of a human You haven't, there isn't a single number in that reference. Even now you can't, you completely avoided quantifying the benefit and created a strawman for the costs. > There’s a big difference to us between 10 calories and 10,000 What about the small difference between 10 and 200? That would move you from 50 mil to 1 bil. What does your "cost/benefit" formula say? > It would help if you read my posts here. The opposite - because I did and saw you unable to justify the results even after you tried to expand the original point several times. What would help instead if you tried to focus on a coherent argument instead of making up false claims about the other person. > Mobility is a complex test of a wide range of cellular machinery. Which means that cellular machinery works well. So again you have nothing specific to say, what you actually need to prove is that probability of live birth is part of that causal "wide range" of complexity. It could very well be that high mobility comes at the expense of that probability. Analogy: you can make a car more mobile at the expense of driver safety/comfort while the same generic "mobility complex test wide range engineering machinery" would be true.

by Retric 1y ago

eviks 1y ago

> Sperm which successfully fertilize an egg are more likely to have specific characteristics, that’s all that matters here as that alone results in survival of the fittest. This is way too generic. Which specific characteristics? How are those "favorable"? How are "injurious" filtered out? > Producing even more so fertilized eggs have a marginally higher probability of live birth is a winning strategy. So why not billions? Now try it with the eggs. Why have a few instead of millions? Again, nothing you say here helps you get to 50mil because it's all too generic "the higher the better; not that expensive" argument quality. And you won't have a higher probability of live birth if your meteor discarding filter don't filter out the defects that decrease this probability > but they quite literally don’t matter because of the Trillions of sperm being produced No, they don't matter for this conversation because it's about the meaning in differences in the ability to reach the egg. If every cell has a 0% chance, there is nothing to discuss.

Retric 1y ago
> Which specific characteristics? How are those "favorable"? How are "injurious" filtered out? Mobility for one, within close distance to an egg the sperm which can orient on the chemical gradient beat out those unable to move. > So why not billions? Cost vs benefit > Now try it with the eggs. Why have a few instead of millions? Spending more resources on a few fetuses is the chosen strategy. Which would run into issues if both sides released millions of cells. The chemical signaling to abort a large number would be complex at implantation, much simpler to release a limited number of eggs.
- eviks 1y ago
  > Cost vs benefit Both of which you've failed to quantify, so you have no answer as to why stop at millions and not thousands or billions. > Mobility for one Your continue to stop at the most important part - relevance to your own criteria. If you care about probability of live birth or cutting out those unnamed "issues", how do tiny variations in mobility help? What's the mechanism connecting the two?
  - Retric 1y ago
    > Both of which you've failed to quantify, so you have no answer as to why stop at millions and not thousands or billions. I already quantified it relative to the metabolic cost on an organism the size of a human. There’s a big difference to us between 10 calories (more specifically 5 to 25 calories) and 10,000 there’s not a big difference between 10 calories and 0.01. Thus we spend a relatively but not actually trivial amount of resources for minor benefit. A fruit fly by necessity operates at a different scale. It would help if you read my posts here. > How do tiny variations in mobility help. Mobility is a complex test of a wide range of cellular machinery. Which means that cellular machinery works well. Lifespan is similarly a great test for the ability to maintain cellular homeostasis.
    - eviks 1y ago
      > I already quantified it relative to the metabolic cost on an organism the size of a human You haven't, there isn't a single number in that reference. Even now you can't, you completely avoided quantifying the benefit and created a strawman for the costs. > There’s a big difference to us between 10 calories and 10,000 What about the small difference between 10 and 200? That would move you from 50 mil to 1 bil. What does your "cost/benefit" formula say? > It would help if you read my posts here. The opposite - because I did and saw you unable to justify the results even after you tried to expand the original point several times. What would help instead if you tried to focus on a coherent argument instead of making up false claims about the other person. > Mobility is a complex test of a wide range of cellular machinery. Which means that cellular machinery works well. So again you have nothing specific to say, what you actually need to prove is that probability of live birth is part of that causal "wide range" of complexity. It could very well be that high mobility comes at the expense of that probability. Analogy: you can make a car more mobile at the expense of driver safety/comfort while the same generic "mobility complex test wide range engineering machinery" would be true.