Hey folks, I have a question about natural selection: what is it?
No, this is not another evolution vs. creation post (at least, that's not my intent), nor is it me proclaiming I don't believe in NS.
In fact the type of creationism I favor makes heavy use of natural selection to account for the variety within species or groups of species.
Recently however I've been reading another book and it discussed natural selection in a philosophical way, showing that there are multiple ways to define NS and all of them were unscientific.
I found that rather strange, since obviously we can see that some individuals or some species can live on while others go extinct. Since they are not actively selected by an outside intelligence (like man or God or aliens) it would be oke to say that "nature selects".
Now I will not repeat his arguments here, for that may put you in a frame of mind about how to define NS, rahter I'd like you guys to give me your best shot of defining NS and then I'll see if his arguments are still valid when applied to your definitionsdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25d89/25d8901e4ef9e35dd4feebe8c133f5ddba30814d" alt=":)"
One more thing about what I meant with "scientific", here I mean that it is (a theory or hypothesis that is) falsifiable (Popper).
No, this is not another evolution vs. creation post (at least, that's not my intent), nor is it me proclaiming I don't believe in NS.
In fact the type of creationism I favor makes heavy use of natural selection to account for the variety within species or groups of species.
Recently however I've been reading another book and it discussed natural selection in a philosophical way, showing that there are multiple ways to define NS and all of them were unscientific.
I found that rather strange, since obviously we can see that some individuals or some species can live on while others go extinct. Since they are not actively selected by an outside intelligence (like man or God or aliens) it would be oke to say that "nature selects".
Now I will not repeat his arguments here, for that may put you in a frame of mind about how to define NS, rahter I'd like you guys to give me your best shot of defining NS and then I'll see if his arguments are still valid when applied to your definitions
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25d89/25d8901e4ef9e35dd4feebe8c133f5ddba30814d" alt=":)"
One more thing about what I meant with "scientific", here I mean that it is (a theory or hypothesis that is) falsifiable (Popper).
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 1058 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 701 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 820 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25d89/25d8901e4ef9e35dd4feebe8c133f5ddba30814d" alt=""
I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 754 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 745 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 621 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 818 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 840 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 734 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 753 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 767 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
- 867 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 723 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 809 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
- 871 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 689 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 678 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 802 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 322 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 742 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 767 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 791 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 791 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 772 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 798 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 328 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e322c/e322c8cefbd738204abe275558f6304b6c376db1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87c35/87c35ab98ae7fb5951a48907ad70867983869bca" alt=""
100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
- 350 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e322c/e322c8cefbd738204abe275558f6304b6c376db1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87c35/87c35ab98ae7fb5951a48907ad70867983869bca" alt=""
Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 776 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 916 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 679 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 900 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 713 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 746 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 690 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 844 Views