jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (51 posts)

“Natural Selection”

  1. profile image71
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    "Natural Selection" is a coined term; I don't think it is much related to the natural; and it is not opposite of un-natural, in any way.

    Natural might have been used to differentiate from the artificial i.e. selection breeding of animals and plants by humans.

    Nevertheless, neither the word natural has been used in its common and normal usage nor the word selection has been used in its common and normal usage; later the term natural selection has been used to describe a scientific phenomenon limited for those people who work in that field of knowledge.

    1. profile image0
      Cranfordjsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I would argue that natural selection could be used in asserting that the genes that bear the mental traits associated with Religious dogma will eventually die out due to war against one another. wink

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6026035_f248.jpg

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    'Natural Selection' is an evolutionary term. Means selected naturally like a genetic mutations from no thumb to thumb, was more advantageous in the environment, so that those born with a
    thumb became naturally selected as a better capability of survival.

  3. profile image71
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Natural might have been used to differentiate from the artificial i.e. selection breeding of animals and plants by humans.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't that sexual selection?

  4. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    So, in other words, are you asking to help you understand the meaning of natural selection?

  5. couturepopcafe profile image59
    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago

    I always thought natural selection was individuals of a species selecting the most advantageous mates in terms of characteristics.

    1. profile image71
      paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think it hardly happens in the real world.

  6. profile image57
    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago

    It is nothing more than Darwin speak.

    The faithful will explain it to you.

    The, "Doctrine of Evolution", keep the faith guys.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Do you have a point to make?  In fact is there a point to this thread at all?

      What natural selection means was described when the term was "coined". 

      Whether or not you think this happens, it is:

      "..as many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected."

      1. profile image57
        WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly, Psyche.

        Darwin speak... as I said.

        I would imagine the point of the thread is to start a debate between the faithful.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Of course it is "Darwin-speak" it's from his book.

          A debate about what?  As a term, it means what it means.  "Origins" is a very easy book to read and not at all ambiguous.

          1. profile image57
            WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I know, Psyche.

            I did not say other-wise.

            And you know as well as I, Psyche, that Paas enjoys watching the "Darwinian faithful", debate the "religious faithful".

            It is always amusing to watch the Darwiniacs sputter their psuedo-science, half cocked assumptions, supppositions, and guesses, as thogh they eqaul "scientific evidence".

            All the while laughing at how similar thier faith in evolution is, as oppossed to that of the Godly faithful.

            Absolutely no difference... but the Darwiniacs cannot handle that.

            At least the religious admit thier faith is based on just that... faith.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yet they argue heaven and hell as fact. On either end, who is absolutely right?

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You still haven't said what we are meant to be debating.

              1. profile image57
                WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Obviously it would be Creation -Vs- Evolution. (as if it does not get debated on here enough.)

                Paas is a Muslim. So I know he believes in Creation.

                What else would be the purpose of asking for a definition of such a simple term.

                To stir the pot, of course.

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Why?

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Or we could just assume the question was literal.  In which case the answer is "yes"

                    Darwin used natural in comparison to artificial a.k.a. human.  It was already known at the time that humans could breed plants and animals to enhanced desired features.

      2. couturepopcafe profile image59
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Psych - I can always count on you to get straight to the point and to put the point straight. I thought it was basically survival of the fittest, just didn't feel like looking it up.

      3. profile image71
        paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        When the term was coined it was meant for those who were seriously engaged in that particular branch of science; later it was exploited to much greater extent to convey things it was not genuinely entitled to.

        The word "natural" was used in a very narrow or part sense meaning mainly the physical aspect while the word nature was used to reflect the whole human or animal life .

        1. Kyle Payne profile image61
          Kyle Payneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I am not sure that I understand your question.

          1. profile image71
            paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this



            We use the word artificial or manmade for things in which humans are involved to bring them about; everything else is called natural whether it is selected on merit or not is not the question. "Selection" can only be done by an intelligent being; and nature in itself is not an intelligent being.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Whoa! Hold the phone there. Are you saying that only those living things that survive do so because an intelligent being decided that as opposed to it occurring as a result of nature?

              That's absurd.

            2. Kyle Payne profile image61
              Kyle Payneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              My dictionary contains this definition of selection: A natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment.

              1. profile image71
                paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Definition of SELECTION
                1
                : the act or process of selecting : the state of being selected
                2
                : one that is selected : CHOICE; also : a collection of selected things
                3
                : a natural or artificial process that results or tends to result in the survival and propagation of some individuals or organisms but not of others with the result that the inherited traits of the survivors are perpetuated — compare DARWINISM, NATURAL SELECTION
                See selection defined for English-language learners »
                See selection defined for kids »
                Examples of SELECTION
                1.    The selection of the best poem was difficult.
                2.    <his selection of a running mate was a long, tedious affair>
                First Known Use of SELECTION
                circa 1623
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selection

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Like what, for example?

        3. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, and no.

          The book was published for a general educated reader.  And "nature" was used to mean everything that occur outside human deliberate action and planning.

          To know this all you have to do is read the book, its out of copyright and easily access online.

          1. profile image71
            paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I am not critical of the book; what I want to state is that the term Natural Selection is most of the times used by certain people to convey the meaning which are not there in the nature or in the seclection.

          2. profile image57
            WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Psyche.

            Have you ever read, Professor Sören Lövtrup's, "Dawinism; Refutation Of A Myth"?

            Hard as hell to come by... but worth the search.

  7. profile image71
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    I believe that human beings got evolved in millions of years as destined by the Creator God; one may say human beings were created by the Creator God in millions of years as the process set by Him.

    1. profile image57
      WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Look, Paas.

      One of your own says no evolution per allah.

      http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini … inism1.php

      1. profile image71
        paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I am with the reality and truth.

        The Creator God said the word "be" and the big bang and the process of creation of every thing started taking shape as per the blue print set by the Creator God; the process of evolution also got started with it in time.
        Man was created through evolution.

        1. profile image57
          WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You need to go convince ole Yahya there...

          I understand Evolution perfectly... and the amount of faith it takes to hold that belief.

          The faithful.

          1. profile image71
            paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have to convince everybody; I just put what I sincerely believe; others are free to have their own opinions.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The opinions of others here are merely to show your sincere beliefs have nothing to do with reality. Why you would press to push your beliefs in contradiction to reality is the question?

              1. profile image57
                WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                There is as much evidence for creation, as there is for abiogenisis, which is a failure of theories, and evolution of Species, which is slowly dying the death of all Myths.

                Welcome to the wonderful world of faith, troub.

                "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." Dr. Sören Lövtrup is a professional biologist specialising in Systematics and Developmental Biology. He is the author of Epigenetics: A Treatise on Theoretical Biology(1974) and The Phylogeny of Vertebrata(1977).

                Professor Sören Lövtrup, of the Dept. Animal Physiology, University of Umeå, Sweden, headed the organisation Swedish Developmental Biologists, SDB, from 1979 to 1987. He served as the first chairman. (3). He is mentioned 7 times in David Hull's Science as a Process(1990); Hull included him in the group of cladists; and has 4 publications in the index, but Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth is not one of them. Wallace Arthur(2000)

                (But I would imagine he doesn't know what he is sopeaking of.)

                I mean... we have to throw out the first and second laws of thermodynamics just to have any chance at Evolution working as propounded by the faithful.

                Not to mention information... because in the beginning there was information. And The instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits).

                Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life's DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information, it is simply a physical representation or housing of the information (the story). Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

                Dr. Werner gitt attests to this in his works on genetic information. Another of those things Evolution just cannot account for.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I can imagine the waving of the magical hand of an invisible super being theory stands up to the rigor of genetic microbiology experimentation.



                  Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I'll be joining your world anytime soon.



                  I like the way you start off your declaration of faith by quoting someones irrational belief.



                  I understand his credentials, but it's his irrational belief that is in question.



                  Why do we have to throw them out?



                  That is a fallacious conclusion and your definition of "information" is not in any dictionaries I've ever seen.

                  Information - A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn. Knowledge acquired through study, experience or instruction.



                  Another fallacious conclusion based on a false representation and the erroneous definition above (ink/paper - DNA)



                  True, evolution does not account for your fallacies and false conclusions.

                  1. profile image57
                    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    That definition of genetic information is put forth by retired Dr Werner Gitt.

                    Who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium.

                    So I think he knows a lil better than you about information.

                    And how is it you all think God does not use technology?

                    Why do claim it all to be magic?

                    That is a restricted view of the powers of God. My God is the God of all things, including science.

                    And just clinging to your myth, makes you one of the faithful.

                    And that quote from Prof. Soren Luvtrop, is not an irrational belief, that is a conclusion drawn from his decades of experience and work in the fields. read his work, -Darwinism; "Refutation Of A Myth"-, he states it plainly.

                    Where do you get your assumptions come from, troub?

                    Explain how Entropy and Evolution co-exist, please?

                    Evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermal-dynamics. Flat out.

                    And those "fallicies" are the conclusions of Dr. Gitt who is a genetic Information Specialist, among other things.

                    So you can dismiss it all you want, but each one of these arguments is valid and is being asked by scientists who see and know the truth of Evolution.

                    Again... where do you gain your assumptions from? What university were you a prof. at? Where did you teach genetic engeneering? Evolutionary biology? Or any of the other fields these gentleman have spent thier live in?

                    Where?

                    You all show your true colors when all you can do is dismiss experts because you do not like them having religious beliefs.

                    That shows just how sad a state you all are in in this battle.

                    lol

              2. profile image71
                paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I don't mind.

  8. profile image57
    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago

    Just as I expected.

    You cannot dispute their science and conclusions... so you take the low way out.

    If their faith disqualifies them... then yours also disqualifies you, and all other atheist Evolutionary faithful.

    See how easy it is to dismiss you all based on junk excuses.

    And again... NOWHERE... no qualifications.

    But that is okay. We will not fault you for it.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They only have false conclusions based on their faith ie. young earth creationism - they have no science to back their conclusions.



      lol

      1. profile image57
        WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Go watch his lectures and then talk about no science to back it up.

        lol

        You are a riot.

        What sciences are you qualified in to state either of those two do not have science on their side. They are scientists... unlike many on the Left who simply regurgitate mis-information.

        Please...

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The young earth creationist reveals his agenda. lol

          1. profile image57
            WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You can snipe all you want... that just shows everyone your inablity to dispute the science of these gentlemen.

            You do not have to like thier conclusions, but they support them with science and facts.

            Unlike you and just your bluster.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              No, they don't. smile

 
working