• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
On the video - #1

Seems to me most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims, but somehow believe that claims made for these ideas are facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture, and looking at it, one is left to wonder, how one can be that deluded.
Then you realize, it is simply an emotional attachment to a desired belief.

7633560.png


Wow. How can one miss this transition... The blow hole smoothly transitions upward, while the snout contracts and expands.
Look at the eyes. What a match.

The dupers must be having a good laugh at the duped.
Pure conjecture based on subjective opinion is what this is.
It does make for quite a fanciful story.

Who knew, the day would come when myths were accepted in science. Yet evolution believers swallow it whole.
You make a joke of yourself when you use words that you do not understand. Or were you lying?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way? :confused:

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.

Let's cut to the chase. Provide the theory of intelligent design which has been supported by the same level of academic study and work that the Theory of Evolution has. There isn't even an hypothesis, much less a theory put forward.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Why can't we argue over the Theory of Gravity for a change?
Gravitationists and Newtonists are godless fools who worship the false god of "science" and believe ridiculous claims. You can't find their so-called "evidence", "logic", or "mathatics" in the bible, so that settles it!
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
Assumptions, not guesses. Everyone assumes, truth-seekers doubly so. They do admit it, only fools deny it; if you find someone denying it, they are a fool (or a liar). The previous conclusion is an acceptable assumption. Assumptions do get turned on their head, as new truth is revealed.
What is your point?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Let's cut to the chase. Provide the theory of intelligent design which has been supported by the same level of academic study and work that the Theory of Evolution has. There isn't even an hypothesis, much less a theory put forward.
Create a thread, or we can continue on the thread specifically create for that purpose.
Wow. The amount of strawman arguments you see when evolution believers can't even refute clear evidence against their beloved false doctrine.
How could they when the evidence can't be refuted... because it's fact.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Create a thread, or we can continue on the thread specifically create for that purpose.
Wow. The amount of strawman arguments you see when evolution believers can't even refute clear evidence against their beloved false doctrine.
How could they when the evidence can't be refuted... because it's fact.
You have yet to provide any evidence against evolution. Once again, you refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence. That makes it all but impossible for you to come up with evidence against the concept.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Assumptions, not guesses. Everyone assumes, truth-seekers doubly so. They do admit it, only fools deny it; if you find someone denying it, they are a fool (or a liar). The previous conclusion is an acceptable assumption. Assumptions do get turned on their head, as new truth is revealed.
What is your point?
You read my point.
Evolution believers get all riled and deny it, when told that their claims of evidence in support of their belief, are assumptions, guesses, suppositions etc..
They refer to said assumptions as scientific facts.
Assumptions are not facts.
That is my point.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You read my point.
Evolution believers get all riled and deny it, when told that their claims of evidence in support of their belief, are assumptions, guesses, suppositions etc..
They refer to said assumptions as scientific facts.
Assumptions are not facts.
That is my point.
Once again, you do not even know what is and what is not evidence. If you did this statement of yours would be a lie.

Ignorance can be soooooooooooooooooooooooo convenient.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way? :confused:

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.


Actually the idea is based on Anthropology, biohemistry and most important DNA

And DNA cannot lie.

I find it interesting that evolution deniers will make up so much rubbish, nit-pick areas of science they are clueless about, misrepresent those areas and think they scored a goal against overwhelming evidence just to justify a delusion to themselves
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You read my point.
Evolution believers get all riled and deny it, when told that their claims of evidence in support of their belief, are assumptions, guesses, suppositions etc..
They refer to said assumptions as scientific facts.
Assumptions are not facts.
That is my point.


Seems to me you are the one who wrote thousands of words in anger.

Putting forward misinformation, cherry picked nonsence and bile then get all upset when you are challenged.

Why?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Gravitationists and Newtonists are godless fools who worship the false god of "science" and believe ridiculous claims. You can't find their so-called "evidence", "logic", or "mathatics" in the bible, so that settles it!

But... I aint seeing too much brotherhood, marriage fidelity, love of children, respect,
peace etc either practiced or held in high regard (read my profile below) "so that
settles it" for science (?)
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Gee, Jehovah's Witness denies evolutionary common descent....who would've guessed? :rolleyes:

FYI, nPeace has me on ignore for merely suggesting that his being a Witness influences his views on science


Pretty simple really. Selection is primarily driven by the environment in which the population exists. So in a cold environment, new traits that increase an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to persist and spread in the population, whereas new traits that decrease an organism's ability to survive in the cold are more likely to be eliminated from the population. After that plays out for a period of time, you have a population that is better suited to exist in a cold climate than in a hot climate.

That's how selection generates non-random results. Again, a very simple concept.


No idea where nPeace got the idea that beneficial mutations don't exist, since we not only directly observe them, we also exploit them (domestication) and fight against them (antibiotic resistance).


Of course scientists make assumptions. But the key is, they then go and test those assumptions.
Yes. Any animal or plant breeder will understand how a population of living organisms can be changed by selective breeding. Mankind has been doing this for thousands of years.

Darwin's insight was simply that the environment in which organisms find themselves can do the same thing as a human breeder. This insight is supported by huge amounts of evidence.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.
Bravo! I'm frankly surprised. You watched the video and actually picked up on some good information, but you're still not quite seeing the picture, likely you're cherry picking ambiguous and unclarified data, and collecting apparently unsupported 'facts'.
One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?
OK, first, selective breeding isn't about selecting species, but characteristics within a species -- like color, hair length, size, &c; variationss you can easily observe in a litter of puppies, for example.
Yes, nature does the same thing, but without intention or guidance.
The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
Ouch! Bad choice of words. It clearly implies intenionality, but, as you picked up on from the rest of the video, there is no need for any.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.
Positive and negative have implications as well. Useful or detrimental might have been better.
#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.
Correct.
Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way? :confused:
Now I'm confused. The video answers your question. It's non-random in the same way selective breeding is non-random. There's variation: not all babies are identical. Qualities that chance to lead to greater reproductive success tend to pass themselves on through said reproductive success. They increase in frequency in the population.
#2 How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
See above -- by reproductive advantage. The 'positive changes' the parents were born with help them to thrive; to get more food, or run faster from predators; to hide better or be favored by females. More survive, more mate, they live longer and they have more babies -- with the advantageous trait -- which increases its frequency in the population.

Remember the peppered moths?
I thought you were catching on, but now the information in your video, your quotation, and your own link seems to have been forgotten.

Is it hysterical suppression? How are you not getting this? The process as presented is intuitive and childishly simple.
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made.
What?! "Somehow becomes?" Remember reproductive variation? That introduces the "something new." Puppies in a litter aren't all identical, are they? There's variation to select from.
It's the same process as selective breeding, except the traits are selected by the environment rather than the farmer.
Some chance to be born with advantageous traits., yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made.
How about the new 'chance advantageous traits'?
So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.
That's exactly how natural selection works, except the rooting out is done automatically by the environment. Those with less advantageous characteristics for their particular environment aren't as successful. They pass on the trait to fewer young. Those with the advantageous traits are more reproductively successful and the percentage of those with 'positive' features increases over time.

#3 Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.
Doesn't need to be "all powerful," just adaptive. Nor is urging needed, it's all automatic. Nor is there any "progress," just endless adaptation.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection
. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption.
Palpable poppycock! Sure science makes guesses, but it's the process of vetting that makes it a powerful tool. Its guesses and speculations are investigated, tested, peer reviewed and criticized. Science may take off in ten different directions, but abandons hypotheses that aren't supported by evidence.
Take for example...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
So? In science everything is provisional, pending new evidence. What science believes is what the current, best evidence indicates. If new evidence points in a new direction, that's where science goes.
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,
So? That's why science continues to investigate and come up with new hypotheses as evidence accumulates.

Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
As I said, everything's provisional; science invites criticism and new avenues of investigation. That's its strength, not a weakness. Unlike religious doctrine, nothing's writ in stone.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Traits that produce successful offspring?
You see right there. Your language seems no different to his.
"Traits" are passed on through heredity. They vary - good, bad, ugly.
You are only causing me to repeat...
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.


Remember, the cabbage for example was selected by the farmer, because it did well, and it had the features he wanted.
Left to reproduce, that cabbage will not now only produce bigger, better, best.
The good, bad, and ugly, will be part of the process.
The farmer, however, is there to again select the best, and discard the rest.
With natural selection, it doesn't care about the imperfections. It's a mindless concept.
So while there are positives, there are negatives also, and some of those negatives do stick around. We have many examples, don't we?


This of course happen in some cases, I agree.
However, I get the impression that, for some persons, it is applied in every case, and to every thing... like a wave of a magic wand.


I have my ideas. It's not really the narrator's fault.
I'm not getting the natural selection concept to work as it appears to be magical in some areas... Not all. Some.
You have quite clearly misunderstood what I said. It does no good to compare selection by the farmer with natural selection. They are not even remotely the same thing. The farmer selects and discards on the basis of desirable traits. Nature selects on the ability to produce successful offspring. Yes, less-successful offspring will also be produced, but even you should be able to see that over time, over multiple generations, the modification that leads to more offspring will soon far out number the others. This is simple arithmetic, like you could do in grade 3.

If strain A produces 1.9 offspring per parent, and strain B produces 2.1 offspring per parent, and keeping in mind that the parents don't live forever, it should be obvious even to you that in 10, or 100 generations, there will be many, many more strain Bs around, and eventually there will be no strain As left at all.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I said it, but I don't mind saying it again.
The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.

I will provide all the evidence to support this... what I consider, to be fact.... starting from the OP.
I want it to be clear that I am referring specifically to the part of the theory stated in red - the second concept of the theory of evolution discussed in this video.
Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.

One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?

The narrator said....
1) Nature carefully decides which trait to keep.
2) Positive changes add up over multiple generations.
3) Negative traits are quickly discarded.

#1
It's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

"Need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population.
Thus it does not carefully decide.

Although I think this article is a bit misleading, here is the source.

If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way? :confused:

#2
How does positive changes add up, without the introduction of positive additions?
The cabbage somehow becomes a giant every generation, yet no mention of anything new being introduced is made. So there are both positive and negative changes. The farmer is selectively rooting out the negative or less desirable - obviously because he doesn't 'want' them.
That's not how natural selection works.

#3
Some tend to think of natural selection as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress, but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

Natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation. You don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Assumptions
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.
....
Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators, Dr Tan postulated that the variety of anti-predator strategies in leaf beetles that she has found may explain their successful spread into a variety of habitats.
So what do you think happened in reality?

How do you account for the beginning of life on earth?

And the origin of species?

If there's any real evidence to support what you're arguing for, what is it?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
You have quite clearly misunderstood what I said. It does no good to compare selection by the farmer with natural selection. They are not even remotely the same thing. The farmer selects and discards on the basis of desirable traits. Nature selects on the ability to produce successful offspring.
Hi, there.

Is there really is a categorical difference between kinds of selection? For example,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait that makes me more resistant to cold than my neighbours. And it gets colder on average for a few years. My offspring may come to dominate the population.

Or,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait where I spring more fuit/seeds/tubers etc. And a human spots this and chooses my offspring for his next season. My offspring come to dominate the population.

In each case I'm the plant with the trait that makes me better suited to my environment. The environment selects these traits from the population and they become more common.

Thoughts?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Hi, there.

Is there really is a categorical difference between kinds of selection? For example,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait that makes me more resistant to cold than my neighbours. And it gets colder on average for a few years. My offspring may come to dominate the population.

Or,

Say I'm a plant in a population and I happen to have a trait where I spring more fuit/seeds/tubers etc. And a human spots this and chooses my offspring for his next season. My offspring come to dominate the population.

In each case I'm the plant with the trait that makes me better suited to my environment. The environment selects these traits from the population and they become more common.

Thoughts?
Though very similar, the difference between a deliberate choice made by an external party (the human) and the happenstance of simply surviving to reproduce through an unselected alteration (an accident, basically) is profound. Remember, the world is continually changing, often in quite random ways. And human tastes also change. These changes will be reflected in future generations. But note this, when human selection is at play, it is quite possible to predict future generations. Selecting for deeper reds, or larger seeds, for example. In natural selection, nobody has any idea at all which variations may be more or less likely to produce offspring, and therefore there is no guessing where things might go.

Just a small example of the latter -- it is actually not unlikely that human intelligence, leading to great creativity, is right now creating a world and environment in which that very intelligence has outlived its usefulness. In which case, it might well be selected against. After all, that big brain uses up an inordinate amount of the energy used by the whole human. That's an expensive thing to carry on, if it's not needed.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
You read my point.
Evolution believers get all riled and deny it, when told that their claims of evidence in support of their belief, are assumptions, guesses, suppositions etc..
They refer to said assumptions as scientific facts.
Assumptions are not facts.
That is my point.
Yes, and I disagreed with your points.
 
Top