Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Selecting out, or culling, produces the same effect as choosing what is to survive and breed.
Selection, "natural" or not, drives evolution. It is merely human hubris that requires a distinction.To say that nature selects implies that she roots for the best (making her an elitist) and that she actually cares.
Nature's a cold-heated [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] who doesn't care for anything, not even the best. The only reason the best survive is because Mother Nature didn't find a way to kill them yet.
Selection, "natural" or not, drives evolution. It is merely human hubris that requires a distinction.
And if we are going to quibble, Mother Nature has no heart because there is no Mother Nature, and because there is no Mother Nature, she can't kill anything. She can't even try.
No, it doesn't imply that at all. "Natural selection" is just a name, a label that was applied to a process that most certainly occurs. When coined, the label was intended to be metaphorical; it suggests that what happens in natural selection is in some way analogous to what happens in "real" selection, i.e. when humans selectively breed animals. And the analogy is valid: in both cases, genetic variants causing certain traits become widespread in a population. The usefulness of the name doesn't depend on the original motivation, however, and mostly biologists don't think about selective breeding when they're talking about natural selection; they just think about the naturally occurring phenomenon.To say that nature selects implies that she roots for the best (making her an elitist) and that she actually cares.
So why did he make it appear, in his most valuable lesson to us poor, feeble humans, that not only did he create in a given timespan, he was also restricted by it (created during the day, even when it was dark) and did nothing at night, and then rested on day 7?Because God does not reside in "time" as we are, your statement is the most likely.
Why He would take 6 days, only God knows.
Over time, small changes accumulate and effetively become big ones.You are taking small changes observed in a species grossly amplifying it, expanding on it to mean something or imply something greater than what it actually is. I have not been given any example of one kind of animal turning into another. Yet this is what is claimed.
To say that nature selects implies that she roots for the best (making her an elitist) and that she actually cares.
I don't understand the question. NS doesn't know anything. Organisms do vary. Some of those variations are genetic, and some of those make the organism more or less likely to successfully reproduce. NS just means that the genetic traits that are more likely to reproduce are likely to increase in frequency in the population.
But why do you believe it to be insufficient?
I agree NS doesn't know anything and that's the problem.
Example the bearded dragon. There are two mechanisms that determine its sex: genotypically and temperature sex determination. Males have ZZ chromosomes while naturally born females have ZW. During a warm period genotypic males will become phenotypic females. If this period last for an extended period of time ZZ females will dominate the population, but for some reason there is a preservation of the W chromosome insuring the survival of the species to when temperatures return to normal.
Same thing with the peppered moth. White and black before and after. Even after several decades of favoring one color moth over the other there is a preservation of both.
Same thing with E. Coli. In sugar digestion they can mutate from digesting lactose to lactose/lactulose or from lactose to lactose/lactobionate, but not from lactulose to lactobionate or vice a versa. Again somehow within the population it preserves the non mutant when it seems advantageous to digest two sugars this enables the colony to adapt when there is a deprivation in the supply of the second sugar and an introduction of a sugar they haven't been acquainted with previously.
My points is it seems nature leaves a means to get out of the corner and this is against the abilities of NS (as I understand it).
For the time being, I see minimal evidence against the theories of evolution. The theories themselves aren't perfect, but they are darn convincing with the amount of evidence they have, considering it takes a ****-ton to make ones hypothesis into a theory. I reckon the theories themselves will be replaced by a more centralized theory which brings all the different schools of thoughts together and harmonizing it, but for now I have to say that evolution is a fact. To say otherwise is to ignore very convincing evidence.
I reckon the theories themselves will be replaced by a more centralized theory which brings all the different schools of thoughts together and harmonizing it,
but for now I have to say that evolution is a fact. To say otherwise is to ignore very convincing evidence.
People will decide on their own if it is valid visible evidence or not.
People will decide on their own if it is valid visible evidence or not.
ToE does has its holes, but so does every theory. Evolution is much more plausible than Creationism. What's more probable? That human beings have evolved over time from basic, simple organisms, through natural selection, or that we were randomly created one day by a "God" for no reason?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?