Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member rvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    31 Dec '10 10:45
    Darwin stated that Nature selects the species best fitted for survival. Naturally this presupposes "Nature" as an agency engaged consciously in an activity
    of " Selection" of the species best fitted for survival. Since this amounted to bringing in God by back door,Darwin added the words to the effect that this activity goes on automatically or by chance. While agreeing that Darwin was correct in his explanation about the "Origin Of Species", bigger questions loom up.

    Why should there be an instinct in all living things
    to live and to procreate ? Where does
    this instinct comes from?
  2. 31 Dec '10 10:52 / 1 edit
    Darwin did not know how nature's selection process worked because DNA was discovered about a century after he wrote The Origin of Species.

    As for survival instinct, not all species have it, and it is not unconditional in those that do have it. A simple example is a worker bee who might sacrifice itself to (attempt to) save the colony. An example in humans is e.g. someone diving into a canal to save a drowning baby, putting themselves at risk. Elementary evolutionary theory should explain how wanting to survive can be beneficial, perhaps you should start studying the basics of the theory.
  3. Standard member rvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    31 Dec '10 11:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Darwin did not know how nature's selection process worked because DNA was discovered about a century after he wrote The Origin of Species.

    As for survival instinct, not all species have it, and it is not unconditional in those that do have it. A simple example is a worker bee who might sacrifice itself to (attempt to) save the colony. An example in h ...[text shortened]... nting to survive can be beneficial, perhaps you should start studying the basics of the theory.
    I am asking what is the benefit pre realized by a species that its continuing survival is beneficial to it ? When a living being makes a conscious or even instinctual decision to survive/procreate what
    is the basis for its decision/instinct ?
  4. 31 Dec '10 11:08
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I am asking what is the benefit pre realized by a species that its continuing survival is beneficial to it ? When a living being makes a conscious or even instinctual decision to survive/procreate what
    is the basis for its decision/instinct ?
    Natural selection will select behaviour that will, on average, result in the genes of its carrier having more success replicating.
  5. Standard member rvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    31 Dec '10 11:19
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Natural selection will select behaviour that will, on average, result in the genes of its carrier having more success replicating.
    I think you have come around to saying this entity called Nature is busy selecting the fittest species. What is this entity called Nature and why should it bother about selecting the fittest when most of the Universe is dead matter.
  6. 31 Dec '10 11:23
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I think you have come around to saying this entity called Nature is busy selecting the fittest species. What is this entity called Nature and why should it bother about selecting the fittest when most of the Universe is dead matter.
    No, natural selection is the name of a process occuring in nature. Not the name of a process guided by an entity called nature.
  7. Standard member rvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    31 Dec '10 11:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No, natural selection is the name of a process occuring in nature. Not the name of a process guided by an entity called nature.
    What is the Raison d'être for this process,if I may say so. Who ordered this process in a barren universe ?
  8. 31 Dec '10 11:33
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    What is the Raison d'être for this process,if I may say so. Who ordered this process in a barren universe ?
    The theory does not require someone or something ordering it to happen.
  9. Standard member rvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    31 Dec '10 11:42
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The theory does not require someone or something ordering it to happen.
    I am asking about the process. Not about the Theory. It is not a chemical or physical reaction but a process purporting to select the fittest species. Why does it take place ?
  10. 31 Dec '10 12:58
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I am asking about the process. Not about the Theory. It is not a chemical or physical reaction but a process purporting to select the fittest species. Why does it take place ?
    I am confused, are you talking about natural selection or mutation?
  11. 31 Dec '10 13:19
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I am asking about the process. Not about the Theory. It is not a chemical or physical reaction but a process purporting to select the fittest species. Why does it take place ?
    The process is stability. Initially you need a molecular structure that replicates. The odds of this happening are very small but in a vast universe with enough time, this is certainly plausible.

    Once you have simple molecules that replicate, making use of the resources available, you will certainly get random variation (at this point) based on resources and environmental factors. The "selection" part will be that you will get unstable molecules which have shorter life span than its counterparts. What remains is more stable molecules with longer life spans, dominating over less stable molecules. This process goes on, improving stability over time.

    The initial processes of how it all started (abiogenesis), we are all certainly unclear of, but we know enough to know of various possibilities on how it started, broadly based on the description I have provided above. Experiments have been done which have demonstrated some possibilities (e.g. The Miller-Urey experiment conduced back in the 50s). Natural selection onwards is very clear though, with mountains of evidence to support it.
  12. Subscriber deriver69
    Keeps
    31 Dec '10 18:09
    I would guess on the reason for the instinct to procreate, something without this instinct would not procreate hence not survive. A bit like Pandas.
  13. 31 Dec '10 19:57 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Darwin stated that Nature selects the species best fitted for survival. Naturally this presupposes "Nature" as an agency engaged consciously in an activity
    of " Selection" of the species best fitted for survival. Since this amounted to bringing in God by back door,Darwin added the words to the effect that this activity goes on automatically or by chance. t in all living things
    to live and to procreate ? Where does
    this instinct comes from?
    “...Darwin stated that Nature selects the species best fitted for survival. ...”

    I am not sure what you mean by that. As far as I can recall, he said the environment the living thing lives in does the selecting (which is correct) and he certainly didn't the "species" best fitted for survival is selected! he said the INDIVIDUALS (within a given species) best fitted for survival is selected within the environment those individuals are in.

    “....Naturally this presupposes "Nature" as an agency engaged consciously in an activity ...”

    no. how does one logically follow from the other?
    What would the logical contradiction be in the environment (it was the environment that he was talking about) selecting something AND NOT being conscious?
    A light breeze may selectively select the lighter sand grains but not the heavier ones that are two heavy for that breeze to select. Would that mean that that breeze is conscious?

    “... Since this amounted to bringing in God by back door,Darwin added the words to the effect that this activity goes on automatically or by chance....”

    Where did he say that natural selection or evolution could occur “by chance”? And what would that mean?

    “...Why should there be an instinct in all living things
    to live and to procreate ?...”

    because natural selection generally selects those variants that survive and pass-on their genes and therefore a variant that has a survival advantage of an instinct for survival will generally be selected over competing variants that have not such survival advantage.

    “.... Where does this instinct comes from? ...”

    the brain (with characteristics determined by the genes)
  14. 31 Dec '10 20:06
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    I am asking about the process. Not about the Theory. It is not a chemical or physical reaction but a process purporting to select the fittest species. Why does it take place ?
    “...I am asking about the process. Not about the Theory. ...”

    the theory is an explanation and description of the process.

    “...It is not a chemical or physical reaction but a process purporting to select the fittest species. ...”

    where did you get that from?
    That is not what evolution says.
    It says nothing about the “fittest species” but rather, in each generation, it is about the better adapted individuals within a population within a single species being constantly selected over those individuals that are less well adapted and, as a result, over many generations, the population is selectively bred by the environment to change its average characteristics of its individuals so that they change to become better adapted.
  15. 31 Dec '10 21:45
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Darwin stated that Nature selects the species best fitted for survival. Naturally this presupposes "Nature" as an agency engaged consciously in an activity
    of " Selection" of the species best fitted for survival. Since this amounted to bringing in God by back door,Darwin added the words to the effect that this activity goes on automatically or by chance. ...[text shortened]... t in all living things
    to live and to procreate ? Where does
    this instinct comes from?
    More to the point, which are such dumb questions more an insult to, science or God?

    Richard