29 Feb 08
Originally posted by jaywillNo.
Would you be willing to say that survival and adoption is "progression" over non-survival and extinction?
Progress implies a goal - natural selection has no goal.
Whatever works gets through the sieve - if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
(Did you mean adaption or adoption?)
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by jaywillWhat rubbish.
[b]================================
Is it the simplicity that annoys you?
===================================
I think it was the simplicity which annoyed this writer. His name is Henry Gee and he was the chief science writer for Nature. I don't know if he still is. But he wrote:
"To take a line of fossils and claim that t ...[text shortened]... ut not science."
[Quoted by Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution, J. Wells, pg.221][/b]
Of course it can be tested, IF you're aware of what it is that you're testing. You may dispute the interpretation of a line of fossils as being indicative of an evolutionary lineage, which seems to be what this author claims.
But you can easily test the lineage hypothesis itself - I have a fossil, does it fit within my proposed evolutionary lineage, based on physiological and structural analysis? Yes or no. Done.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I said, Natural Selection, includes a vast range of factors every one of which comes into play in determining the survival of an individual.
It is your third point to which this thread was initiated. Do you care to address how natural selection makes its choices, specifically concerning its standards and/or values used to make its determinations?
Throughout, there are two main components:
1. pure chance.
2. characteristics of the individual which affect the probability of its survival within the realm of pure chance.
For example, a person may get run-over by a car and thus have no further offspring. Such an event is partly subject to pure chance. However, there are a number of probabilities involved:
1. the environment in which he lived ie the existence of cars, the quantity, and the regularity with which he crossed roads etc.
2. his general alertness and carefulness when crossing roads etc
and so on.
Other factors are much less subject to chance - for example many genetic diseases almost guarantee death and some genetic advantages confer a significant survival advantage.
I don't think it would be right to assign standards and/or values to any of it. Why would you want to?
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo strengthen your point about genetic diseases/advantages in a simple way. Take myself. I've recently moved from home where my fair skin means little, to western Australia, where having fair skin is a huge huge disadvantage....
As I said, Natural Selection, includes a vast range of factors every one of which comes into play in determining the survival of an individual.
Throughout, there are two main components:
1. pure chance.
2. characteristics of the individual which affect the probability of its survival within the realm of pure chance.
For example, a person may get ru ...[text shortened]... think it would be right to assign standards and/or values to any of it. Why would you want to?
Now apply this simple premise to primitive man. As a result of environmental change or migration the climate gets significantly sunnier. Beings such as myself are going to be at a huge disadvantage due to our inability to take the sun, thus probably loose out on breeding rights to the less sunburnt and debilitated males, resulting in a preference in future generations toward a darker skin pigment.... Thus eliminating the fairer skinned population..... Natural Selection
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by MexicoSo in the case of your example, the 'Natural Selector' is sunlight. Freaky is asking what are its standards and/or values used to make its determinations and I think the only correct answer is NONE.
To strengthen your point about genetic diseases/advantages in a simple way. Take myself. I've recently moved from home where my fair skin means little, to western Australia, where having fair skin is a huge huge disadvantage....
Now apply this simple premise to primitive man. As a result of environmental change or migration the climate gets significantly s ...[text shortened]... a darker skin pigment.... Thus eliminating the fairer skinned population..... Natural Selection
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich is all well and good. No one have adequately described what it is, though. Someone suggested a sieve or filter which makes no sense whatsoever. As best as I can determine, to date, no one has been able to describe what natural selection is, only what it does or how it acts. Some 120-odd years later and it still lacks a proper label.
So in the case of your example, the 'Natural Selector' is sunlight. Freaky is asking what are its standards and/or values used to make its determinations and I think the only correct answer is NONE.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe you should read my posts again. I think I have described what it is. Its proper label is 'Natural Selection', and if you want a category label then it is a process or more generally, a group of processes, and more specifically a selection process.
Which is all well and good. No one have adequately described what it is, though. Someone suggested a sieve or filter which makes no sense whatsoever. As best as I can determine, to date, no one has been able to describe what natural selection is, only what it does or how it acts. Some 120-odd years later and it still lacks a proper label.
'Sieve' and 'filter' are good descriptive words for 'selection' and make perfect sense if you are willing to use your brain for a moment.
The very essence of what any process is is what it does or how it acts.
What more do you want? You appear to want to give it a name, turn it into a god and worship it, but if I go too far down that route you will accuse me of mind reading or misrepresenting you.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're being obtuse.
Which is all well and good. No one have adequately described what it is, though. Someone suggested a sieve or filter which makes no sense whatsoever. As best as I can determine, to date, no one has been able to describe what natural selection is, only what it does or how it acts. Some 120-odd years later and it still lacks a proper label.
Natural selection can only be described through what it does because it is a process, not an object.
You might as well say no one has described what 'buying bread' is.
29 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by MexicoWhen quoting it is customary to include the source so that you may examine the context.
Also these are mined quotes taken out of context.... As with every other quote by reputable scientists, used to back up their claims without using the full spectrum of information available.......
If possible I provide the source. If I cannot you usually know that.
Don't just disqualify a quotation just because you don't like it, with a dismissal of "quote mining". There are a lot of people thinking about these matters out there. Don't expect everybody on your side of the issue to come to only all of the exact same thoughts as you.
Neither do I expect so. We should not assume that our opinion is so monolithic that there is no variations of views. And that is one thing I intend to demonstrate.
29 Feb 08
Originally posted by amannionDo you believe that Intelligent Design approach to biological life can be falsified ?
What rubbish.
Of course it can be tested, IF you're aware of what it is that you're testing. You may dispute the interpretation of a line of fossils as being indicative of an evolutionary lineage, which seems to be what this author claims.
But you can easily test the lineage hypothesis itself - I have a fossil, does it fit within my proposed evolutionary lineage, based on physiological and structural analysis? Yes or no. Done.
29 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358If you know anything about the advancements in computer programming, there is a discipline which treats processes as objects. This is called "Object Oriented Programming" or OO. It is the approach to data processesing which forms the basis of such computer languages as C++, Java, Pearl, Python, Visual Basic (arguably).
You're being obtuse.
Natural selection can only be described through what it does because it is a process, not an object.
You might as well say no one has described what 'buying bread' is.
My only purpose for mentioning this is that some researchers do discribe a process as an object.
Isn't one instance of the process of "natural selection" an object?