What is natural selection?

Originally posted by serigado
Disagree.
Creationism must be debated in the eyes of science the same way as any other theory.
Evolution theories must be criticized and put to test, the same way as creationist ideas.

God MIGHT really have created all of this like some say. Let's put it to test. Science doesn't discard any hypothesis, nor it takes anything for sure. Prejudice has delayed science for centuries.

Creationism isn't a theory, it's a belief inspired by a book that belongs in the fiction section... if I read Harry Potter, and believe it is divinely inspired, that doesn't mean that the various ideas presented in the book are theories. "Look around you! Everything is so complicated! It must be made by magic, not random occurrences!" does not belong in the same page, book, or class as evolution and natural selection.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Plus, gravity isn't that powerful of a force.

Yes, it is surprisingly weak compared to electromagnetism... which has been a source of confusion for physicists. I've been reading this book called 'Foundations of Physics' that was discussing the possibility of a quantum particle called a 'graviton', which would have no mass due to infinite capacity, and a spin of 2 because of the second rank tensor field properties of gravity.

It was saying that it is possible that gravity is so much weaker because gravitons, unlike photons, could theoretically leak from parallel universes in small amounts, possibly explaining gravity's weakness... however, it contradicts conventional models of curved space-time described in General Relativity. This makes me unsure, as I am fond of Einstein's work, but acknowledge that he is outdated. Until there is some type of mathematical proof that makes it possible scientifically, like leptons, quarks, and the other gauge bosons, I'll withhold judgment.

While, I hope that someone found this rant worthwhile.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Depends how far from the source you are. At long range it's pretty impressive.

If their was a magnet the size of the sun, and we were made of metal, you would know how weak gravity is compared to other fundamental forces.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I use the term 'thing' because it lacks a more precise technological label, as seen in such terms as 'force' or 'element,' for example.

Kind of like every scientific theory unrelated to a fundamental law?

Originally posted by jaywill
A serious question:


Which is occuring at a quicker pace (if either) -

1.) The rate at which new species are evolving into existence.

2.) The rate at which old species are becomming extinct.

Now? With us idiotic humans, I'll say extinction, but I'm no expert. Maybe our destroying the environment is ending various species and selecting enough new mutations to even it out.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
If their was a magnet the size of the sun, and we were made of metal, you would know how weak gravity is compared to other fundamental forces.

The earths core is mostly iron and is magnetized - hence the earths magnetic field.
I think one of the key differences between gravity and magnetism is that magnetism is directional and gravity is not. As a result, gravity just keeps adding up in all directions, whereas magnetism often cancels itself out.

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.

Every farmer knows that if he carries out selective breeding, the gene-pool of his livestock / crops will change and so will their characteristics. Also if he is careful he can guide that change to his advantage.
In nature, (ie amongst living things not deliberately being bread by man), there are a number of factors which result in selective breeding. There are a vast number of these factors ranging from environmental effects to the behavior or characteristics of the individuals. The overall result of these effects is referred to as 'Natural Selection'.
By definition, Natural Selection takes place on a day to day basis throughout all species - including those breed by man. It is undeniable simply by definition.
However, the Theory of Evolution goes a step further and claims:
1. That Natural selection results in dramatic changes to organisms over time.
2. That an understanding of Natural Selection in all its different forms can help us to understand how various organisms acquired their characteristics.
3. That natural selection is a key component of evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Every farmer knows that if he carries out selective breeding, the gene-pool of his livestock / crops will change and so will their characteristics. Also if he is careful he can guide that change to his advantage.
In nature, (ie amongst living things not deliberately being bread by man), there are a number of factors which result in selective breeding. Th ...[text shortened]... ms acquired their characteristics.
3. That natural selection is a key component of evolution.

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?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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?

Natural selection doesn't "make choices" or have criteria.... Its a natural process.... Thats very similar to asking; Do hurricanes choose where they hit based on some kind of criteria that we fail to grasp?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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?

Death before reproduction is the phenomenon you refer to as a 'choice'. Really more of an event, though.

When any self-replicating thing dies before having reproduced, natural selection has occurred.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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?

C'mon Freaky, you know better than that.
Natural selection is like a sieve or a filter. Some get through, some don't. There's no morality involved, in fact, there's no choice being made at all, at least in any sort of conscious sense.
Those individuals that can reproduce are selected for. Those that can't are not.
Is it the simplicity that annoys you?
Is it that you feel the complexity of life on earth just can't come from such simple process?
Do you want something more involved?
Do you want something that's harder?

Originally posted by amannion
C'mon Freaky, you know better than that.
Natural selection is like a sieve or a filter. Some get through, some don't. There's no morality involved, in fact, there's no choice being made at all, at least in any sort of conscious sense.
Those individuals that can reproduce are selected for. Those that can't are not.
Is it the simplicity that annoys you?
I mple process?
Do you want something more involved?
Do you want something that's harder?

But the problem is that most of the holes in the seive are blocked. Most mutations are not helpful.

If most of the mutations were helpful then the analogy of a sieve might be more applicable. But since most mutations are not benefitial to the organism the way of progression is mostly blocked.

Originally posted by jaywill
It may be a sieve. But the problem is that most of the holes in the seive are blocked. Most mutations are not helpful.

If most of the mutations were helpful then the analogy of a sieve might be more applicable. But since most mutations are not benefitial to the organism the way of progression is mostly blocked.

What is this 'way of progression' of which you speak, grasshopper?

There is no progression. There is only survival and reproduction.
If the sieve has fewer holes, so what?

Originally posted by amannion
What is this 'way of progression' of which you speak, grasshopper?

There is no progression. There is only survival and reproduction.
If the sieve has fewer holes, so what?

Would you be willing to say that survival and adoption is "progression" over non-survival and extinction?

Originally posted by amannion
C'mon Freaky, you know better than that.
Natural selection is like a sieve or a filter. Some get through, some don't. There's no morality involved, in fact, there's no choice being made at all, at least in any sort of conscious sense.
Those individuals that can reproduce are selected for. Those that can't are not.
Is it the simplicity that annoys you?
I mple process?
Do you want something more involved?
Do you want something that's harder?

================================

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 they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not science."

[Quoted by Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution, J. Wells, pg.221]