The true scope of Natural Selection

[Zeo]

How many saw that show on animal planet about the Animals of the future?? I didn't see much, but I was able to tell that who ever created it had some serious problems....

 

Few are able to grasp the true scope of Natural Selection.

 

I just want to get this straight...and maybe criticize <--(can't spell) the show a bit...

The ending was how squid would move on ground...and how squid would be real smart and another version would be real dumb but real smart...well...

 

Natural selection is not when a species needs an ability they just develop it....NO!

 

natural selection....n.s. (I don't feel lke typing) is where certain individuals have a genetic mutation which gives them an advantage....and if they're lucky, they pass it on to the species through their offspring...often there's a chance that there isn't any mutation at all...or they don't have offspring...not that the mutation is limited to just one individual...

 

so say a ...I dunno....an ostrich....needs to fly....because a new land limited predator who's really fast shows up....the ostrich will not develop the ability to fly...all in all...it'll probably die out...unless the predator fits into the ecosystem and maintains balance by not eating all the ostrich in one go...but still you get the point...

 

I just wanted to point this out...

 

look forward to input

 

 

 

:zzz:

[fafalone]

A really fast predator wouldn't show up any faster than an ostrich would adapt to it and be able to fly.

Once again, let me explain a basic idea in genetics for those who obviously have no higher level knowledge of the topic. If you look at mutuation rates, it's blatantly obvious this is not the primary factor driving evolution. Sexual reproduction is. Do not confuse the varying of traits with mutations. Mutations are the driving factor for change ONLY in asexually reproducing organisms. Please rethink your theory with this knowledge that an incredibly fast predator wouldn't simply mutate into existance in a few generations.

[Zeo]

it was a scenario hypothetical....jeez

[fafalone]

even in hypothetical situations you must apply ideas correctly :/

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

even in hypothetical situations you must apply ideas correctly :/

Well, you did summarily rule out inward migration of a foreign species.

 

Haven't you seen Tremors?

[BPHgravity]

Aren't we humans kind of nulifying the idea of natural selection? Natural selection doesn't always make creatures or humans better or more adapt. It sometimes leads them to overall reduction and even extinction through a series of "flaws" and genetic weakness. Humans are trying to beat this at ever turn. Not only do we continuously eliminate what nature has intended to inflict us with to reduce our numbers, but it comes back with something even worse the next time around. We are the only entity known thus far in this universe that actualy tries to improve itself against what nature delivers. (Animals don't look at themselves and say I would probably a better hunter if I went in and got LASIK)

 

This is our true downfall because while it appears that humans have beat nature in many ways through the use of technology and science, it really has just set us up for being unable to cope with the most simple problems.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by BPHgravity

Natural selection doesn't always make creatures or humans better or more adapt.

Yes it does. That's the point.

Changes in the habitat or ecology of the organism may make the adaptation useless later on, but that's not relevant to the effect at the time of the selection.

[blike]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Yes it does. That's the point.

Changes in the habitat or ecology of the organism may make the adaptation useless later on, but that's not relevant to the effect at the time of the selection.

 

I think he just worded that bad. The product of natural selection is always more "adapt" organisms(for lack of better word ATM), but in the process many organisms get the boot. Natural selection can often lead to the extinction of a species, but the remaining living species (if any) are always more fit.

[Sayonara]

For god's sake people, the word is ADEPT.

 

Natural selection eventually leading to the extinction of a species does not make the selective process at the time it was made a 'bad thing' or a negative influence.

 

The extinction event is brought about by a set of circumstances in which selection plays a role.

[Skye]

I think he just worded that bad. The product of natural selection is always more "adapt" organisms(for lack of better word ATM), but in the process many organisms get the boot. Natural selection can often lead to the extinction of a species, but the remaining living species (if any) are always more fit.

Yep but being better adapted only applies to a given environment. Fish are better adapted to water than squirrels, that doesn't mean that fish are better adapted than squirrels.

 

We have a strong reliance on being able to modify our environment to us and we always have had. The people that do this better are better adapted, and it's one of our most important adaptations, the one which has enabled us to spread over the globe. But let's say there's some disaster and we don't have any of these cool things like hospitals or insulin. Those people that can't adapt to the environment would be dead, sure. I'd still say there'd be a fair number of healthy people around. The real problem from my point of view is that most people don't have the knowledge to adapt the environment to them like our ancestors had to.

[Sayonara]

Individuals don't adapt to environments, species do.

 

The idea that selection is a spontaneous reaction to adverse conditions among an elite subset of a population is a major misconception of selection process theory, and one of the things the thread was started in order to stamp out.

[Aardvark]

The human capacity to misunderstand the theory of evolution is awesome. I doubt that this or any number of threads with stamp that out.

 

Perhaps it's because the theory of evolution is so simple and beautifully elegant that so many people have difficulty with it. People expect it to be horribly complicated and can't adjust to the stark, simple beauty of the theory.

 

Odd really.

[Guest buckminster]

Originally posted by Aardvark

The human capacity to misunderstand the theory of evolution is awesome. I doubt that this or any number of threads with stamp that out.

 

Perhaps it's because the theory of evolution is so simple and beautifully elegant that so many people have difficulty with it. People expect it to be horribly complicated and can't adjust to the stark, simple beauty of the theory.

 

Odd really.

 

Actually, there are a number of subtle elements to the mechanisms of evolution that make the understanding of how it works more than just simple.

 

And I certainly agree with you about the beauty of evolution but unfortunately your posting has one glaring error.

 

The biological process of evolution is NOT a theory. It WAS a theory 100 years ago but the huge volume of scientific evidence that has accumulated since Darwin establishes it as irrefutable scientific fact - like gravity or thermodynamics or relativity.

 

Some pseudo science advocates and a lot of nice folks with a religious agenda want to treat evolution as a theory to serve their own purposes. These metaphysical beliefs are philosophical topics and are outside the arena of science. Their beliefs have no place in any scientific study of a subject or in science education.

 

Sorry, Aardvark but that error in your posting is a very common misunderstanding of science and that needed clarification.

 

best regards,

 

buck

[blike]

Don't confuse theory with hypothesis. The former is well supported, the latter is a guess.

 

I think most (credible) scientists would agree that evolution is still a theory.

[Sayonara]

It's well evidenced to be sure, and the best explanation for a lot of what we observe in nature - but a theory none the less.

[JaKiri]

The process of evolution is a fact.

 

Whether it occured to end up with us is another matter.

[Sayonara]

Prove it.

 

[For continuity's sake, I am inclined to agree. I'm just being annoying.]

[blike]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

The process of evolution is a fact.

 

Whether it occured to end up with us is another matter.

 

Right, I was referring to the all encompassing theory that accounts for our existence; including the process of evolution by natural selection, but not exclusively.

[matthew]

Just curious here... was he referring to the special feature on pigme species? I know their was a part about the evolution of the elephant on a small island due to population growth... too much crowding occured and elephants were dying off due to a lack of food, but after a rather large amount of generations, the pigme elephants are coming along to replace the older multi-ton versions and survive off food lower to the ground and in places the larger animals can't get to. I just figured i'd throw that out there, being that it is a prime example of natural selection. I could've always explained the show wrong, but i highly doubt it - so i'm sure the discovery channel will be game for answering questions on their program. Best of luck to those who continue to go off on tangents in reference to the original thread topic.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by BPHgravity

Not only do we continuously eliminate what nature has intended to inflict us with to reduce our numbers, but it comes back with something even worse the next time around.

 

Nature is not a conscious entity.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sayonara?

Prove it.

 

Dogs have evolved to make eye contact.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

Dogs have evolved to make eye contact.

Do you remember when you first went to BIG SCHOOL, and the teachers would write "2/10, show working out!" on your homework...?

[Giles]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

It's well evidenced to be sure, and the best explanation for a lot of what we observe in nature - but a theory none the less.

If you're going to be like that, science will never produce anything that isn't a theory.

 

I think the dog thing is an artificial selection kerjigger.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Giles

If you're going to be like that, science will never produce anything that isn't a theory.

 

I think the dog thing is an artificial selection kerjigger.

Not always true. The theory of evolution is not actually one theory, it's a family of theories. The beauty of it is most of it still works even if one part turns out to be bunkum. The disadvantage is that this makes the existence of evolutionary processes as a whole difficult to prove, even though we are pretty certain we know that it's happening.

 

You kind of proved my point with the dog thing. You told me in a very vague way what you think it is, aptly demonstrating that Radical Edward shouldn't leave his reply as "Dogs have evolved to make eye contact", because it's only open to interpretation and doesn't actually tell us anything.

[Giles]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I know evolution is a familiy of theories, it's what i (ought to) spend my time studying. I meant in the sense that scientific theories* can only be finally disproved, not finally proved.

 

*i.e. theories that actually describe the world. some of the laws of genetics (for example) are mathematical theorems, but they apply to idealised systems rather than neccesarily describing material entities. Ofc, it so happens that some real systems correspond closely.

 

...

 

By 'i think' i only mean 'iirc'. artificial selection isn't vague, it's "the process of man deliberately causing change in frequencies of genes in a population over time by exerting control over relative reproductive rates" if you really want a rigorous defintion.