What is natural selection?

Originally posted by Mexico
Alright once again. Ill try and put it in the terms that you've just laid out...

1. NS is the closed system in which all life exists

2. NS is the process of passing genes down to the next generations

3. NS works along the fundamental principals of survival, those with an advantage are more likely (obviously) to have breeding privileges, therefore th ...[text shortened]... ntrol the strong and by pass the very Natural selection we're currently discussing......

1. NS is the closed system in which all life exists
I probably don't need to tell you that your statement makes absolutely no sense... do I?

My guess is the Idea of an all powerful being who created an entire planet and made it look like it was 6.5 billion years old, but its actually only a few thousand.
Huh? What does this nonsense have to do with the conversation at hand, exactly? Let's try to narrow our consideration to the topic: natural selection. Leave EVERYTHING else out of it for now.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What "closed system" is photosynthesis taking place in? It would have to be a system stretching from the sun to the plant to the soil to the organisms that die in the soil...

That closed system in within the atmosphere of one planet: Earth. Where the light energy comes from is inconsequential.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That closed system in within the atmosphere of one planet: Earth. Where the light energy comes from is inconsequential.

Actually ATY makes a very good point.... Photosynthesis can't be a closed system because its Dependant on an outside source of energy... Hence the name PHOTOsynthesis.......

I was simply trying to put Natural Selection into the context you set out..... I know my statement wasn't entirely accurate. However your comparison with photosynthesis is a completely flawed concept in the first place. How can you compare a process encompassing all natural life with a chemical reaction that occurs in most plants....

So your argument is flawed.....

I think my analogy with the wind fits the concept much better... or didn't you read that post?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I'm not sure I follow you.

Natural selection is the name we give to the result of the process of the survival to successful reproduction.

The process may have many factors to contend with, eg
pure chance (the cub was is the wrong place at the wrong time),
'finger pokin' (humans breeding for certain 'better' characteristics,
' ...[text shortened]... inition, Wiki defines it as the process, but I think this is very misleading. My bad.....

Here again, we have a description of what it does, not what it is.

Using photosynthesis as an example, you can see how NS ends up looking so dissimilar to anything like a process. The living organisms which use photosynthesis do so as a result of their programming. However, the living organisms which "use" NS are acted upon by an outside force. Of course, this contradicition makes no sense at even the most basic level of logic.

NS is either a force acting upon living organisms or it is part of their programming... and therefore a process. If one still insists on calling it a process, one must also accept that all living organisms are so programmed--- some to live and some to die. Thriving for life makes sense. But thriving to die? That is truly altruistic.

Originally posted by Mexico
Actually ATY makes a very good point.... Photosynthesis can't be a closed system because its Dependant on an outside source of energy... Hence the name PHOTOsynthesis.......

I was simply trying to put Natural Selection into the context you set out..... I know my statement wasn't entirely accurate. However your comparison with photosynthesis is a completel ...[text shortened]... think my analogy with the wind fits the concept much better... or didn't you read that post?

ATY's post was responded to eight minutes prior to your posting. Did you read that one?

EDIT: I did read your post on wind. Wind is a result of planetary functions; it doesn't select.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
ATY's post was responded to eight minutes prior to your posting. Did you read that one?

EDIT: I did read your post on wind. Wind is a result of planetary functions; it doesn't select.

Yes I did and you post is quite simply wrong; for a system to be closed it needs to rely on no outside influences or factors. And actually there is no such thing as a non theoretical closed system. So your completely wrong on this one.

Def;
A closed system is a system in the state of being isolated from the environment.

As to wind. By your logic Wind selects many things:
Which areas of land become desert.
Which seas are roughest
Where gets decimated by weather systems
Which plants spread over the globe...

I can go on......

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here again, we have a description of what it does, not what it is.

Using photosynthesis as an example, you can see how NS ends up looking so dissimilar to anything like a process. The living organisms which use photosynthesis do so as a result of their programming. However, the living organisms which "use" NS are acted upon by an outside force. Of co ...[text shortened]... some to die. Thriving for life makes sense. But thriving to die? That is truly altruistic.

Then go ahead and call it a natural force if you want. It makes no difference, it does happen.....

And you keep referring to "programming" as if there is a programmer.... Photosynthesis is what plants do to survive..... A plant with a less efficient form of photosynthesis relative to its competitor will loose ground and eventually die, thus doesn't pass on its genetic material, thus this poorer plant will become extinct. Thats natural selection......

But it doesn't seem to matter how people put it.... It seems like your intentionally not understanding because you don't want to...

Originally posted by Mexico
Yes I did and you post is quite simply wrong; for a system to be closed it needs to rely on no outside influences or factors. And actually there is no such thing as a non theoretical closed system. So your completely wrong on this one.

Def;
A closed system is a system in the state of being isolated from the environment.

As to wind. By your logic Wind s ...[text shortened]... e gets decimated by weather systems
Which plants spread over the globe...

I can go on......

And actually there is no such thing as a non theoretical closed system. So your completely wrong on this one.
The entire universe is a closed system, but that's beside the point. Photosynthesis does not need the sun per se for it to occur. The process does require energy in the form of light.

Originally posted by Mexico
Then go ahead and call it a natural force if you want. It makes no difference, it does happen.....

And you keep referring to "programming" as if there is a programmer.... Photosynthesis is what plants do to survive..... A plant with a less efficient form of photosynthesis relative to its competitor will loose ground and eventually die, thus doesn't pass on ...[text shortened]... put it.... It seems like your intentionally not understanding because you don't want to...

Then go ahead and call it a natural force if you want. It makes no difference, it does happen.....
What I call it makes no difference whatsoever; I have already called it a farce. It is what the proponents of the theory call it that makes all the difference.


Photosynthesis is what plants do to survive.
Right. Because it is part of their genetic make-up. Or, more descriptively, programming.

But it doesn't seem to matter how people put it.... It seems like your intentionally not understanding because you don't want to...
Actually, I understand it just fine. The fact that it makes no sense is what the problem is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]And actually there is no such thing as a non theoretical closed system. So your completely wrong on this one.
The entire universe is a closed system, but that's beside the point. Photosynthesis does not need the sun per se for it to occur. The process does require energy in the form of light.[/b]

Still requires energy from an outside source thus is not a closed system....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Then go ahead and call it a natural force if you want. It makes no difference, it does happen.....
What I call it makes no difference whatsoever; I have already called it a farce. It is what the proponents of the theory call it that makes all the difference.


Photosynthesis is what plants do to survive.
Right. Because it is part of th
Actually, I understand it just fine. The fact that it makes no sense is what the problem is.[/b]

Force, system, process.... They're simply words. Natural selection does happen, its been shown to happen in Bacteria.... And fruit flies and a bunch of other life forms.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try once more. And I'm going to keep it really simple. Stop me when you have a problem.
1. A life form is defined by its genes. Which it gets from it parents, and their parents before them etc.
2. These genes decide the creatures morphology and other characteristics such as personality, intelligence etc. etc.
3. Certain Morphology/personality combinations are suited to certain environments. E.g Aggression, and size, or some other physical attributes are more useful in a highly competitive environment, Dexterity and intelligence are better suited to environments where food supplies are scarcer and require creativity to acquire. I can go on in more detail if you wish.
4. Lifeforms who have a slight advantage due to increased size or some other edge over their competitors are more likely to breed and pass on their genes, therefore theses gene's which we're once an edge become the norm.
5. Lifeforms without this edge become severely disadvantaged with respect to the rest of the populace.
6. These disadvantaged lifeforms loose breeding rights, and fail to gather food, etc etc.
7. Said lifeforms die
8. Advantaged population becomes the normal status.
9. Some of the advantaged population gain another advantage.... Return to point 1.

Programming implies programmer which is invalid and lacks proof.....Plants do what they do because thats how they evolved. A method of converting sunlight into food. Because that gave them an advantage over the plants that gained energy in other ways. Mainly due to the abundance of sunlight, making them the dominant norm.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here again, we have a description of what it does, not what it is.

Using photosynthesis as an example, you can see how NS ends up looking so dissimilar to anything like a process. The living organisms which use photosynthesis do so as a result of their programming. However, the living organisms which "use" NS are acted upon by an outside force. Of co ...[text shortened]... some to die. Thriving for life makes sense. But thriving to die? That is truly altruistic.

Hang on - why must anyone accept it as programmed into life? I don't see the link.
Natural selection happens to life, not inside it. To argue that life must be programmed to naturally select is ridiculous. Life reproduces, the reproduction process is not perfect, so variations exist in offspring, the environment 'selects' those variations which are successful - which is merely to say that some live long enough to reproduce and others don't.
There's nothing programmed here, we're just talking about a natural consequence of having what we have.
That's what it is.
What it does is produce change in species over time.

Now, I'm not sure what planet you're from, but here on Earth that's pretty simple to understand.

Originally posted by amannion
Life reproduces, the reproduction process is not perfect, so variations exist in offspring, the environment 'selects' those variations which are successful - which is merely to say that some live long enough to reproduce and others don't.

Just to add to that. Variation is not only caused by imperfect reproduction, but in the case of sexual reproduction, variation is produced by mixing and matching of various genes. In fact, the above is a major reason why the sexual reproduction is so successful.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What I call it makes no difference whatsoever; I have already called it a farce. It is what the proponents of the theory call it that makes all the difference.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding something so simple. You seem too intelligent to be honestly unable to understand basic things like this.
Natural Selection is not a theory. It is a process which has a definition. What might be called a Theory, is the results of that process.
I am not a proponent of Natural Selection. Natural Selection is simply a fact by definition. Attacking Natural Selection as you appear to be doing is simply stupid. Its like saying: "farmers cannot selectively breed cattle".
You can claim: "farmers cannot get better cattle via selective breeding" but to deny the existence of selective breeding implies you either:
1. want to mislead.
2. dont understand the definition.
3. are mentally challenged.
I doubt 3. for 2. you can see my definitions earlier in this thread and ask for clarification, if you do not do so, I will assume you are admitting to 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why are you having such a hard time understanding something so simple. You seem too intelligent to be honestly unable to understand basic things like this.
Natural Selection is [b]not a theory. It is a process which has a definition. What might be called a Theory, is the results of that process.
I am not a proponent of Natural Selection. Natural Sel ...[text shortened]... thread and ask for clarification, if you do not do so, I will assume you are admitting to 1.[/b]

I'll respond to both yours and amannion's posts as they talk about the same thing.

Manipulating genetic traits is an action (breeding cows, for instance) with a target (more meat/less fat) in the mind of the selector (said rancher).

According to amannion, natural selection is when the environment takes over. This is where the formula starts to get a little hazy. In the first scenario, the selector is consciously acting to achieve a targeted goal. He values something as desirable, conceives of the means necessary to achieve the goal and plots his course accordingly--- all the while working within the inherent limitations of his goods.

In the second scenario, how is that the environment knows what is best for a particular species' survival, or what species are best for continued survival? How does the environment know anything of the big picture?