How i understand "Natural Selection"

[wellwisher]

Randomness? Chance?

I don't understand how this would work as a mechanism to generate beneficial change in a population, because that's all natural selection is.
Please explain how artificial selection generates beneficial changes in a population.

Are you sure you understand what natural selection is? You seem to be imputing human motives, psychological and social effects to it that aren't there.

Natural selection involves life being selected based on the potentials set by the natural environment. Artificial selection involves using potentials created via artificial environments; human created.

For example, in Arctic areas of the earth, natural selection will favor animals with thick fur and lots of body insulation. If we add humans, who build a heated dome city, in the middle of a glacier, that is stocked with transported food from all over the world, you don't need to be hairy to be selected. If you were the billionaire, who paid for the project, you can be the one always selected, simply by pandering to yourself. This selection may not be the same result found in nature.

Say a bunch of con artists, create a social environment, called the collusion delusion, where fantasy, intrigues and false witness, takes the place of honesty and reality. In this artificial environment, social selection goes to the most delusional and devious. This is not the same selection as a natural culture, which seeks truth in nature and man.

Say there was massive logistical damage to human civilization, due to a series of natural and manmade disasters. The humans that remain now live in a broken civilization environment, that is being overrun by nature. The selection process will change, since style, money and politics, may not matter compared to the woodsy skills of the boy scout who understands nature.

Darwin, in a way, tried to return things back to natural causes. Darwin published in 1859. Beginning in roughly 1760, the industrial revolution began in England and spread to other places like America by 1820. This placed more and more humans in artificial factory dominated environments, which broke contact with natural rural farm life.

The family farm, was historically, subject to natural blessings and curses, such as floods, droughts, pests, vermin, hot and cold, all of which may be a function of local geography. Natural selection was part of farm life and farm death.

The big factories of the Industrial revolution worked year round with little change coming from the natural environment. The human mind over the 100 years until the Publication of Darwin, became detached from nature and made confused by the artificial environments. Darwin traveled away from civilization and factory culture, to a remote place where only nature controls life. There he reaffirms nature.

His premise is similar to the premise of the bible, in the sense that something beyond man, was at the foundation of selection. The details of origin are different, but both orientations place man secondary. In modern times, returning to nature, natural or organics foods, and maintaining natural sanctuaries, satisfies both the needs natural science and religion.

 

[David T]

Natural selection involves life being selected based on the potentials set by the natural environment. Artificial selection involves using potentials created via artificial environments; human created.

For example, in Arctic areas of the earth, natural selection will favor animals with thick fur and lots of body insulation. If we add humans, who build a heated dome city, in the middle of a glacier, that is stocked with transported food from all over the world, you don't need to be hairy to be selected. If you were the billionaire, who paid for the project, you can be the one always selected, simply by pandering to yourself. This selection may not be the same result found in nature.

Say a bunch of con artists, create a social environment, called the collusion delusion, where fantasy, intrigues and false witness, takes the place of honesty and reality. In this artificial environment, social selection goes to the most delusional and devious. This is not the same selection as a natural culture, which seeks truth in nature and man.

Say there was massive logistical damage to human civilization, due to a series of natural and manmade disasters. The humans that remain now live in a broken civilization environment, that is being overrun by nature. The selection process will change, since style, money and politics, may not matter compared to the woodsy skills of the boy scout who understands nature.

Darwin, in a way, tried to return things back to natural causes. Darwin published in 1859. Beginning in roughly 1760, the industrial revolution began in England and spread to other places like America by 1820. This placed more and more humans in artificial factory dominated environments, which broke contact with natural rural farm life.

The family farm, was historically, subject to natural blessings and curses, such as floods, droughts, pests, vermin, hot and cold, all of which may be a function of local geography. Natural selection was part of farm life and farm death.

The big factories of the Industrial revolution worked year round with little change coming from the natural environment. The human mind over the 100 years until the Publication of Darwin, became detached from nature and made confused by the artificial environments. Darwin traveled away from civilization and factory culture, to a remote place where only nature controls life. There he reaffirms nature.

His premise is similar to the premise of the bible, in the sense that something beyond man, was at the foundation of selection. The details of origin are different, but both orientations place man secondary. In modern times, returning to nature, natural or organics foods, and maintaining natural sanctuaries, satisfies both the needs natural science and religion.

"Natural selection involves life being selected based on the potentials set by the natural environment. Artificial selection involves using potentials created via artificial environments; human created"

While i do appreciate, what you said following up on the definition by darwin and yes his sensibility was correct i want to push further what darwin was concerned about. The reason being that we can and have turned "natural selection" into something that it is not and thats a platform for objectifying nature in new clothes is all. So bear with me i feel what you are saying and yes darwins feelings were correct.


Whats intelligent design? Which obviously false. But what exactly is it?

You cannot replace an external intellect with your own intellect and hope thats true. This is exactly how "natural selection" has manifested into our thinking.

There is no such thing as selection going on in nature. I have spent far too many days out in the wilderness examing it. You cant simply go "" oh look no intellect involved in selecting, its nature selecting. " without that itself becoming a trancendental illusion..

What" natural selection" as articulated does not account for is the observer at all is in DARWINS original drawing explicitly stating the observer is separate from the observations. FALSE FALSE FALSE. No science needed even.

So interestingly darwins concern is drawn out in his original drawing, the i thinker over here and the observed over there. The tree and the i think are not separate at all yet darwin never accounted for that fact. I am not saying how to, i am saying what the problem Is. Ultimately its psychological. And yes my concern is the same as Darwins, we are dettached from the enviroment severly. Thank god for at least this though. But its needs further examination.

 

[usfan]

Perhaps the OP's own words can explain this thread..

Or more clearly phrased " half wit highly intelligent asperger reductive dimwits were too stupid to understand the text and had to create a fantasy about the text."

The text isn't written by Asperger's it's written for Asperger's. Idiots, I have an extremely low opinion of the intellect in regards to the text. It lacks reading comprehension skills.

 

[David T]

Perhaps the OP's own words can explain this thread..

Thats simple.
Asperger on spectrum Lacks capacities for prosody in spoken Language. So when Something is written they only have a structural capacity and thus transliterate say esoteric texts into literalism. Creationism is an extreme example, another is intelligent design. Thats actually aspergers and really doesnt have much to do with anything really. Just asperger fantasies is all in religious drag.

Aspergers is effected by enviroment not limited to just neurology. So an asperger person raised in a religious enviroment are going to tend to read it flat affectively like a science text.

Stick to accounting or quantum Mechanics, easy stuff that doesnt require any quality of prosody. I can also invert that very easily since the other end of spectrum has its own issues in the inverse.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural selection involves life being selected based on the potentials set by the natural environment. Artificial selection involves using potentials created via artificial environments; human created"

What do you mean by "potentials?"
Natural selection is a simple concept, involving reproductive variation and breeding success within a specific environment. Where's potential come in?

Artificial selection is selective breeding, using the same mechanisms, but manipulated by humans. I see no potentials, I just see farmers.

While i do appreciate, what you said following up on the definition by darwin and yes his sensibility was correct i want to push further what darwin was concerned about. The reason being that we can and have turned "natural selection" into something that it is not and thats a platform for objectifying nature in new clothes is all. So bear with me i feel what you are saying and yes darwins feelings were correct.

What have we turned natural selection into that it is not? It's just a mechanism for change. No "sensibilities" or "concerns" involved that I can see. It's the same, simple process it's always been.

What do you mean by "objectifying Nature," and what does this have to do with Darwin or the ToE?

Whats intelligent design? Which obviously false. But what exactly is it?

Goal driven engineering by an invisible, magical entity?

You cannot replace an external intellect with your own intellect and hope thats true. This is exactly how "natural selection" has manifested into our thinking.

No "external intellect" is presumed or involved with natural selection, nor is any human intellect. Natural selection is what it is; a mechanism, that's been functioning for billions of years. "...manifested into our thinking?" -- what does that mean. We're just aware of it.
I get the impression you're seeing some major psychological and social ramifications I seem to be missing.

There is no such thing as selection going on in nature. I have spent far too many days out in the wilderness examing it. You cant simply go "" oh look no intellect involved in selecting, its nature selecting. " without that itself becoming a trancendental illusion..

!?
Finally! a clear statement of your position!
So you just don't believe in natural selection?
Do you believe in change over time at all? If so, by what mechanism, if not natural selection -- magic poofing by an invisible architect?

Did you not learn about peppered moths in biology class?

What" natural selection" as articulated does not account for is the observer at all is in DARWINS original drawing explicitly stating the observer is separate from the observations. FALSE FALSE FALSE. No science needed even.

I don't understand this. Can you restate?
What does an observer have to do with anything? Natural selection works whether there's any observer or not, as it has for billions of years -- or are we talking about quantum mechanics, now?

So interestingly darwins concern is drawn out in his original drawing, the i thinker over here and the observed over there. The tree and the i think are not separate at all yet darwin never accounted for that fact. I am not saying how to, i am saying what the problem Is. Ultimately its psychological. And yes my concern is the same as Darwins, we are dettached from the enviroment severly. Thank god for at least this though. But its needs further examination.

What does a sketch have to do with anything? What does it mean to you? Natural selection is explained in Darwin's writings. This is the source you should be referring to. No thinkers or observers are involved; no psychology. WE don't matter at all. The whole thing works without us, like rain or seasons; independent, unguided, automatic.

 

[David T]

"So you just don't believe in natural selection"

Finally a clear statement by you belief has zero to do with nature at all. No science narrative no religious narrative no words determine it ever.
Science selector"natural selection" vs religious selector "divine selector" you two deserve each other same bs dressed up differently self affirming each other who cares! Please foolishness of the intellect is all this selection nonsense is about. A tiny tiny fraction of the human brain called the intellect cant possibly give a statement about nature that is over riding and objective in regards its own formation and be true impossible.

Thus we suddenly get back to the psychological of it. Natural selection as its articulated intellectually percieves it is objective psychololically. That literally is Impossible factually.
.

 

[Valjean]

"So you just don't believe in natural selection"

Finally a clear statement by you belief has zero to do with nature at all. No science narrative no religious narrative no words determine it ever.
Science selector"natural selection" vs religious selector "divine selector" you two deserve each other same bs dressed up differently self affirming each other who cares! Please foolishness of the intellect is all this selection nonsense is about. A tiny tiny fraction of the human brain called the intellect cant possibly give a statement about nature that is over riding and objective in regards its own formation and be true impossible.

Thus we suddenly get back to the psychological of it. Natural selection as its articulated intellectually percieves it is objective psychololically. That literally is Impossible factually.
.

What?

 

[David T]

What?

What do you mean what?,What you or what i, or anyone thinks is irrelevant to nature. Science isnt some magical around that fact regardless. Good scientists know this. Bad science just mumbles nonsense pretending they now have magic facts. Which of course change with new facts and now they just parrot them as universials. Nonsense. Its what annoys me when i hear "laws of physics" nonsense like its imposing itself and is unto itself determining. Sorry absurd, human intellectual abstractions have zero to do with nature and thats a self evident fact.

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean what?,What you or what i, or anyone thinks is irrelevant to nature.

Exactly. We're in perfect agreement.
So what's your objection to indifferent, automatic natural selection?

 

[David T]

Exactly. We're in perfect agreement.
So what's your objection to indifferent, automatic natural selection?

[QUOTE1="Valjean, post: 6181571, member: 57767"]Exactly. We're in perfect agreement.
So what's your objection to indifferent, automatic natural selection?[/QUOTE]
The identical problem i have with supernatural selection. Whats the commonality? Both have selection as its primary assumption. Whats secondary? Details is all. Why care about the details when the assumption is false? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The assumption, angels can dance.

Eventually the term "natural selection" will simply vanish from scientific lexicon thats a fact. I cant predict what replaces it but no one can, but certainly it will go extinct. Thats evolution and the entirety of scientific theory is subjective to the topic regardless, it most certainly is not objective determining the topic evolution.

Automatic
done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.
"automatic physical functions such as breathing"


Hmmm i wonder why i say breathing is a deeply underappreciated phenomena. It tend to be automatic, and thinking processes tend to be automatic. Since most intellectual processes thus statements tend to be automatic parroting if what ever is it actually thinking? Not really.

 

[Valjean]

[QUOTE1="Valjean, post: 6181571, member: 57767"]Exactly. We're in perfect agreement.
So what's your objection to indifferent, automatic natural selection?

The identical problem i have with supernatural selection. Whats the commonality? Both have selection as its primary assumption. Whats secondary? Details is all. Why care about the details when the assumption is false? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The assumption, angels can dance.

Eventually the term "natural selection" will simply vanish from scientific lexicon thats a fact. I cant predict what replaces it but no one can, but certainly it will go extinct. Thats evolution and the entirety of scientific theory is subjective to the topic regardless, it most certainly is not objective determining the topic evolution.

Automatic
done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.
"automatic physical functions such as breathing"


Hmmm i wonder why i say breathing is a deeply underappreciated phenomena. It tend to be automatic, and thinking processes tend to be automatic. Since most intellectual processes thus statements tend to be automatic parroting if what ever is it actually thinking? Not really.[/QUOTE]

Valjean replied:
I think I understand, now. You don't believe selection occurs at all, natural or otherwise. Am I correct to assume you believe all things were created, or, at least, have always existed, in their current form?
Why didn't you state this clearly, at the outset, so I wouldn't have to post my bafflement in post after post?

Now the new subject for discussion: You think the concept of natural selection will vanish?! How can this be so, when it's one of the most well established theories in all of science. and is gaining further support daily?
The evidence is overwhelming. It's the foundational principle of all biology. The fact of evolution is used in multiple disciplines to advance technology.
How did the biological diversity we see in the world come to be, if not by natural selection?

 

[David T]

"I correct to assume you believe all things were created, or, at least, have always existed, in their current form?"

Of course not. And i believe i dont believe i am agnostic. is opinion.

Based on your opinion will the sun rise tomorrow, and whats your opinion on gravity?

Heraclitus said the logos is commo but everyone has their own private opinions as to what it is.