What is natural selection?

No thread could be complete, really, without some hare-brained futile jaunt down the rabbit hole of evolution. So here ya go.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No thread could be complete, really, without some hare-brained futile jaunt down the rabbit hole of evolution. So here ya go.

You seriously interested? OK.

We have self-replicating organisms, with occasional small random mutations. Any mutation that increases the chances of the organism surviving to successfully breed (and to raise its offspring to successfully breed, etc.) has a slightly higher probability of being passed on to successive generations compared to its competitors. Any mutation that decreases the chances has a lower probability.

Repeat for several billion years. A simple, yet very powerful, mechanism.

Originally posted by mtthw
You seriously interested? OK.

We have self-replicating organisms, with occasional small random mutations. Any mutation that increases the chances of the organism surviving to successfully breed (and to raise its offspring to successfully breed, etc.) has a slightly higher probability of being passed on to successive generations compared to its competitors ...[text shortened]... lower probability.

Repeat for several billion years. A simple, yet very powerful, mechanism.

A simple, yet very powerful, mechanism.
Sure. Just like, say, gravity or some such, right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] A simple, yet very powerful, mechanism.
Sure. Just like, say, gravity or some such, right?[/b]

Not really. Gravity is a fundamental force, natural selection isn't. It's an emergent behaviour that is a consequence of having self-replication.

Originally posted by mtthw
Not really. Gravity is a fundamental force, natural selection isn't. It's an emergent behaviour that is a consequence of having self-replication.

"An emergent behaviour." That's a loaded concept. Mind defining that one?

I would call natural selection a process, rather than behaviour. Every species has an urge to survive. To do that, they breed. To breed, organisms must survive until they reach a state in which they are able to reproduce. The weakest ones die due to being unable to survive. The strongest ones survive, breed and pass their genome on to the next generation. Survival of the strongest occurs for each generation, thus slowly causing the species to evolute, hence become stronger, smarter etc. Natural selection can shortly described like this - nature selects the strongest organisms to reproduce.

That's the way I understand natural selection.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No thread could be complete, really, without some hare-brained futile jaunt down the rabbit hole of evolution. So here ya go.

take it to the spirituality forum, spanky. or debates.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"An emergent behaviour." That's a loaded concept. Mind defining that one?

"Emergence" just refers to the way (often complex) properties can arise from basic rules without being an obvious result of those rules.

It's possibly not the best phrase to use to define natural selection, but I was trying to emphasise the way that gravity is a pretty fundamental property of the way the universe works at a basic level, whereas natural selection, like other biological and environmental processes, works at a higher level.

Originally posted by wormwood
take it to the spirituality forum, spanky. or debates.

Why? Natural selection -> biology is science. On the other hand, it really isn't that exact. It's rather debatable.

Originally posted by kbaumen
Why? Natural selection -> biology is science. On the other hand, it really isn't that exact. It's rather debatable.

that's not my point. if you take a quick peek at freaky's past public forum posts, you'll soon realize that talking about biology (which I would like) is not the reason for starting this thread.

Originally posted by kbaumen
Why? Natural selection -> biology is science. On the other hand, it really isn't that exact. It's rather debatable.

The reason this should go to spirituality is because the person isn't actually interested in scientific discussion.... They wish to poke holes in an established and accepted theory which doesn't agree with their beliefs, but because they lack a valid scientific alternative they just try and knock down other peoples work... Which is clear from the initial phrasing of the post, and not due the persons historical posts.....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No thread could be complete, really, without some hare-brained futile jaunt down the rabbit hole of evolution. So here ya go.

I can get evolution into ANY hard headed guy/gal out there. It's time to get people educated. Who doubts evolution exists? My challenge.

Originally posted by serigado
I can get evolution into ANY hard headed guy/gal out there. It's time to get people educated. Who doubts evolution exists? My challenge.

I do...... There is clearly no evidence for "Macro" Evolution (Wtf does that even mean) only small scale changes which occur within distinctly defined species. Granted if these were given sufficient time perhaps they could result in difference species. BUT since the world is only 15'000 years old there simply isn't time.... We know the world is this old because the bible kind of says so. And since everything in the bible is true, there is little evidence for evolution QED


HAHA defeat my circular logic.....

Originally posted by Mexico
I do...... There is clearly no evidence for "Macro" Evolution (Wtf does that even mean) only small scale changes which occur within distinctly defined species. Granted if these were given sufficient time perhaps they could result in difference species. BUT since the world is only 15'000 years old there simply isn't time.... We know the world is this old beca ...[text shortened]... is true, there is little evidence for evolution QED


HAHA defeat my circular logic.....

1 - macro evolution does not exist
2 - the world is no more then 7k yrs

even some fundamentalist christians can interpret the bible in a way saying earth can be a lot older.

Not a single thing in the bible can be proven true -> this breaks your circular logic.

Even assuming all is true, it can be interpreted in a away to be coherent with evolution... Some christians do.

Originally posted by serigado
1 - macro evolution does not exist
2 - the world is no more then 7k yrs

even some fundamentalist christians can interpret the bible in a way saying earth can be a lot older.

Not a single thing in the bible can be proven true -> this breaks your circular logic.

Even assuming all is true, it can be interpreted in a away to be coherent with evolution... Some christians do.

BUT there are fossilized trees with no growth rings..... proving that the atmosphere was once perfect.... Thus that the garden of eden existed.... QED the bible is true......

Also There are fossils of sea creatures on top of mountains proving the flood, and thus proving the bible is true once again......