No, it is a form of parasitism. The creature takes from the herd but does not benefit it. All it has to do is get the nutrients it needs to survive, it negates the “Survival of the fittest” reducing it just to "“survival”. There are still some problems with the actual creature though. It has to be viable in terms of self cohesion. A hole in the heart will kill even if the creature is coddled by a herd.
But even so,it only works in herd animals, a family would soon notice the ugly duckling and reject it. It cannot possibly function in lone pairing animals. (Unless you are going to claim the cuckoo as some sort of precedent for raising an alien.)
Parasitism could be the missing process that helps link disparate creatures. I wonder whether there has been any study on this? There might be other variations on the principle that could be applied outside herd theory.
Agreed, which is why I do not wish to get drawn back into it by answering your specific challenges or examples. If you really want to go there (again) I suggest that someone starts a thread for it. I am not going to, having been accused of trolling.
And I have no idea what on earth might suggest otherwise. Or are you rejecting the Parasite understanding. I would advise against that. I am throwing you a bone. Take it!
Or perhaps you are of the persuasion that the opponent cannot possibly be right in any shape or form?
I would suggest that you read it first. I can almost guarantee that they don’t define parasitism as one member of a species depending on other members of their species for survival. Parasitism is where one species depends on another species for resources, often to the detriment of the other species. Parasitism happens between species, not within species.
Then you really don’t understand what parasitism or neutral drift is.
Everyone knows that a baby in the womb acts the same as (equates to) a parasite. It takes neuutriants and grows at the expense of the mother.
A deviant in the middle of a herd is doing exactly the same thing it is not benefiting the herd (AKA neutral) and it is being protected by the herd (fixation) while it waits for the deviations to become beneficial to it. The benefits will be its not the herd’s. That is the definition of parasitism. The herd gains nothing. Eventually the creature in the middle evolves to the ultimate detrement of the herd.(probably)
You must understand the principles of what you claim, and not just the facts.
Again, you don’t know what parasitism is. A parasite detrimentally affects the ability of the host species to pass on their genes. The act of passing on one’s genes is not parasitism, even when it involves the use of resources to aid in the passing on of one’s genes.
Why would a neutral mutation cause an individual to stop benefitting the herd? I don’t think you understand what a neutral mutation is.
This analogy illustrates the concept of a parasite without defining what being a parasite actually means. Did I read it correctly?
Not what neutral means. Neutral means it does not confirm an advantage or disadvantage to the individual so natural selection will not remove the mutation from the population or cause it to grow through the population. The individuals with the mutation still reproduce and so are considered successful from a biological sense. If they didn’t reproduce the mutation would not have a chance to spread through the population.
The point is a neutral mutation doesn’t confer a benefit or a detriment to the herd on it’s own. The benefit comes later when it is combined with another mutation.
That’s what you said, and what you said is incorrect.
That article has nothing to do with neutral evolution and does not equate neutral evolution with parasitism. (Incidentally, much of what I do for a living is studying the short-term evolution of parasites, specifically malaria parasites.)
What I was looking for was an understanding of what Parasites are,so that there might be an understanding of how their evolution might reflect in Evolution as a whole.
The problem here is that people seem to get very focussed on specifics, whether is is the specifics of Neutral Drift,or the specifics of Parasites. Ignore what you know and what the article tells you that you already know (or even study) and consider how the principle of parasitism might apply to developing a new creature form an old one. The new creature feeds off the old one (in some shape or form until it is able to fend for itself (something an actual parasite never achieves, or do some?) hink of a parasitic wasp, the embryo literally kills the host body to grow and then leaves to live. Now apply that principle to evolution and see what you might get?
I am sorry, you are closer to understanding me than ever, bu tnot quite. And I appreciate that you are trying.
Take neutral as not affecting the herd at this time
Of course, so does a parasite
You are repeating yourself. The point is that during the development stage the deviant is not really affecting the herd at all. (other than using the herd resources to exist) That is the definition of neutral. But later on, when the creature develops beyond the herd, it does not benefit the herd (other than leaving it so not using it) but it may well be detrimental especially if it now rivals it, or worse predates on it.