Originally posted by spruce112358You're being obtuse.
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.
Just the opposite, actually. I am attempting to force those holding to the view that natural selection is the guiding force-that-is-not-a-force into applying an adequate and accurate label.
Natural selection can only be described through what it does because it is a process, not an object.
Well, you're getting closer, I'll give you that. However, you use the indefinite article in place of (what should be) the definite article. Any particular reason, that?
You might as well say no one has described what 'buying bread' is.
That's because everyone with the even the smallest amount of common sense knows that 'buying bread' is an exchange. See how easy this should be? Even buying bread has a proper label.
Originally posted by spruce112358Posts like this are truly comical. The goal of natural selection is success, is survival. It HAS to be; one could not describe what function natural selection serves otherwise. And yet, when forced to diminish the actual functions of the so-called process, the proponents of natural selection immediately look for the exit door and proclaim that it's all pure chance with no goal in mind.
By the definition of the word 'goal': "a projected state of affairs which a person or a system plans or intends to achieve or bring about."
'Natural' selection unlike 'artificial' selection occurs, by definition, without any plan or intent. Hence it has no goals.
It is that way because that's the way the terms have been defined.
Which way do you want it?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTell me Freaky, what is the 'goal' of photosynthesis?
Posts like this are truly comical. The goal of natural selection is success, is survival. It HAS to be; one could not describe what function natural selection serves otherwise. And yet, when forced to diminish the actual functions of the so-called process, the proponents of natural selection immediately look for the exit door and proclaim that it's all pure chance with no goal in mind.
Which way do you want it?
You might argue that it's to produce sugars from water and carbon dioxide, but this is merely the 'result' of the chemical reaction. It's most definitely not a goal.
Likewise, natural selection, which you seem obsessed with trying to call a force or something else, is merely a process that produces a result, successful individuals. There is no goal.
Now, what I'm most interested in, is why you are so obsessed with trying to define, or not-define natural selection?
It seems like a pretty petty way to try to argue against evolution.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo!
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.
You must not fully understand the statistics - pure chance has NO PART in Natural Selection as a mechanism.....
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIt has in the sense mutations are random. (to be exact it's not the mutations that are perfectly random... it's the kind of phenotype change almost-random mutations cause).
No!
You must not fully understand the statistics - pure chance has NO PART in Natural Selection as a mechanism.....
And even if there an organism that's less apt then another in a competition for survival of the fittest, there's a chance he might survive or coexist with other guys.
Originally posted by serigadoI am trying to keep it as simple as possible (for those who do not yet grasp the idea).
It has in the sense mutations are random. (to be exact it's not the mutations that are perfectly random... it's the kind of phenotype change almost-random mutations cause).
And even if there an organism that's less apt then another in a competition for survival of the fittest, there's a chance he might survive or coexist with other guys.
If we keep to the idea of natural selection, the organism exists. The source of the advantage may come from where-ever, that does not matter here. What matters is survival to successful reproduction. To suggest that pure chance is somehow involved in skewing that simple concept leaves doors open for *intended* error. Pure chance will affect the entire population in a statistically even handed way, and so both 'successful' and 'unsuccessful' sets in a similar way. I'm not sure I have expressed that clearly enough, but I would rather we kept the concepts as simple as possible for those of us who are still confused.
Originally posted by jaywillIf you understand OOP, you might like to think of natural selection as the result of what happens when all the instances of all the objects are functioning, but the analogy is still very poor, because objects are coded with a function in mind.
If 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).
My only purpose for mentioning t ...[text shortened]... cess as an object.
Isn't one instance of the process of "natural selection" an object?
Originally posted by jaywillAh! And there we have the nub of the problem. Things do not 'naturally select' themselves. Natural selection is the name given to the result of the process of life, if you will, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
... Some of us have a hard time accepting that energy and matter randomly "natural selected" itself from lifeless pond of water to an amoeba....
Beings that survive to successful reproduction pass on their genes. Note that every generation, by definition, all beings die. So when someone said in a previous post it seemed wasteful, perhaps they forgot that all beings die, anyway. Those who reproduce, pass on their genes; those who do not, their genes disappear from the gene pool. Simple really.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky,
Of course not. It's a process. But a process of... what?
Since I naturally like underdogs, and I think the Darwinists, so far, are the underdogs in this debate, let me come to their unsolicited aid a little.
As I understand the process -
Natural Selection is the name we give to the results of benefitial modifications in an organism surviving and being passed on to offspring which enable those possessing such traits to have a greater probability of adapting and surviving some adverse environment.
How is that for a fair definition? I did not look it up. I thought about what I have been taught and came up with my own working definition.
Can an theist who believes in Intelligent Design and some form of creationism be fair minded? I think its a pretty good definition.
snowinscotland,
============================
Ah! And there we have the nub of the problem. Things do not 'naturally select' themselves. Natural selection is the name given to the result of the process of life, if you will, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
==============================
I have provided a definition which I think is a little bit less vague then to say "the result of the process of life".
You say natural selection has nothing to do with origin of life.
Does it have anything to do with origin of species?
If it has anything to do with origin of species then it is relevant to explain, I think, how it operated in the origin of the first instance of "species."
I will accept an answer of "We do not know."
I will accept an answer of "We have not figured that out yet."
I will consider any reasonably plausible answer.
By the same token, I want to hear what others have to say about the problem of the origin of the first instance of "species". I want to hear what alternatives they propose besides the gradualism of Darwinian natural selection.
=====================================
Beings that survive to successful reproduction pass on their genes. Note that every generation, by definition, all beings die. So when someone said in a previous post it seemed wasteful, perhaps they forgot that all beings die, anyway. Those who reproduce, pass on their genes; those who do not, their genes disappear from the gene pool. Simple really
=====================================
Whoever made the comment can respond. I have no response about the wastefulness issue at the moment.
Originally posted by jaywillOrigin of species (Abiogenesis) has yet to be successfully recreated, although there are several extremely viable theories. Until it can be reproduced then no one can say for definite how it occurs. And it's entirely feasible that there is more than one mechanism. We've gotten close, in that we can generate all the ingredients necessary for life, we just can't work out the mechanism from there.
snowinscotland,
[b]============================
Ah! And there we have the nub of the problem. Things do not 'naturally select' themselves. Natural selection is the name given to the result of the process of life, if you will, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
==============================
I have provided a definition which I think is ...[text shortened]... comment can respond. I have no response about the wastefulness issue at the moment.[/b]
As an aside, Abiogenesis is completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, the formation of life is one subject which isn't that well understood, however where it went from there is reasonably clear....
Thanks for your reply.
==================================
As an aside, Abiogenesis is completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, the formation of life is one subject which isn't that well understood, however where it went from there is reasonably clear....
====================================
I have heard that many, many, many, many times.
But I think it is related whether you like it or not.
If you want an unguided, goaless, planless, ID-less, naturalistic macroevolution history to be true, then it is logical that the first life must have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals.
It is reasonable to ask how the theory of evolution explains then how the first rung in the ladder came about.
Is is reasonable explain how evolution caused the simpliest of the "simple" organisms to spring up in the process.
Instead saying that origin of life has nothing to do with evolution out of the difficulty of addressing origin of life, why not do something like what you have done above? That is just admit that the theory evolution has not yet solved that problem?