Darwin's "theory" of Natural Selection is strictly about adaptations that enable an oraganism "better fit to survive." The fact that the human infirm and disabled, those of poor and deteriated vitality, the feeble of age, the weak and terminal sick, the irresolute vaccillating people, the permanently disabled, the chronically sick, those with handicapped adaptations make them unable to survive on their own; in short, those that that have genetically or "naturally" evolved mutations that make them "less" adaptable to survive, rather than "better adapted for survival," not only proves that the "theory" of Natural Selection is only just that - a "theory" rather than a "law - but also proves to show that is no longer applicable to all forms of evolution on Earth today! Those that hold onto the "theory" of Natural Selection as an "absolute" to explain what the future of evolution has yet to unfold relative to mankind, are akin to those that still hold onto that lingering thin thread of belief in God as the all encompassing creator and force, because they are scared to let go for fear of the unknown, or for fear of being unable to provide a more firm belief or explanation. The "theory" of Natural Selection is no longer applicable to humans because we go out of our way to assist and help those with adaptations unsuitable to survive to still survive. This is contrary to the definition of "Natural Selection" as proposed by Darwin and the definition that is in common use in evolutionary language today.
Wow. You repeated yourself again. Now it all seems so clear.... Not. Fuck it. Done. If you still refuse to admit that selection is still taking place in the human species, and that this selection can only be termed 'natural', then you never will. From past experience with dealing with you, I suspect that you never will. I'm done trying to explain this very simple concept to you. I've already said that a theory's founder has no special place in defining the theory. Once a theory is 'out there' in the public realm, it is subject to reinterpretation and often the original theorist is left behind. Yeah. No reason you should take a developmental biologist's word for it, right? Fuck it. Meh. One last rant. The thing, Valich, is that you see all this shit as some kinda holy sepulchre. Solid and unyielding. You read this, read that, and the shape of 'natural selection' takes shape in your mind as a solid thing which is simply delineated by definitions. You seem to have no sense of the dynamics involved in human knowledge and the acquisition of said knowledge. In other words, don't give arguments like "Darwin didn't say that..." or "the general consensus among evolutionary blah-de-blah's..." Those are non-arguments. You give all these peremptory statements but fail to support anything with logical or rational thinking. You feel that quotes and references are the extent of science. You do nothing but parrot ideas that you don't fully understand. If you did understand them then you would have less need for references and would be able to actually discuss the topic itself rather than who said what about the topic sometime in the past. Ok. That's it. Enjoy.
Just like life evolves: so does language - language that it used to explain it. If one were to still insist on using the "theory" of Natural Selection - since it is clearly not a "law" because it does not apply under all circumstances - to apply to humans, then I suggest/propose that you "qualify" the use of the theory by stating something like that the "Intellectually Derived and Evolved theory of Natural Selection" applies to humans.
Why is there a need to apply the extra definitions? "Intellectually derived..." Uh. Are you saying that Darwin's original paper wasn't 'intellectually derived'? Perhaps he was divinely inspired? "Evolved theory..." Uh. Yeah. Would you expect it to stay the same? Do you think that Darwin's theory is not open to change? Why not? You've just added two completely unnecessary terms onto the title. They are unnecessary because they are implicitly expressed in the original. Adding them does nothing to express a clearer understanding of the theory therefore they should be removed as per Occam's Razor. Snip snip. However: Ok. Now. Here you've actually come up with a bit of the difference between theory and law. A law is universal. However, that doesn't make it any less a theory. It's still just a theory. Calling it law is just a simplified way of saying that it is a well-founded theory that is simple and held to be true in all circumstances. Still a theory.
All the time: F___ this, Sh__ that and you keep contradictoring yourself my failing to sufficiently reading, analyzing, and interpretating what has been said: so you resort to using vulgarity and lack of insight, rather than being open-minded towards progressive change. It is commenly said: "the only thing absolute is change." But I can say this over-and-over again, substantiating my points with facts and reason, and you would still fail to see the light.
Shut the fuck up, you simpering idiot. I've already said before that your jumping on this 'vulgarity' issue is fucking stupid. I'm not 'resorting' to shit. I cuss. I swear. I'm a vulgar motherfucking person. What.Is.Wrong.With.Vulgarity? Huh? Answer me that, Einstein. Oh? I resort to lack of insight? What.The.Fuck.Are.You.Talking.About? Aren't you the guy saying: "But Darwin said this and he didn't think that natural selection includes people living in skyscrapers and helping each other to live and blah blah blah..." Huh? Where the fuck am I the one being resistant to progressive change? Ha! You are saying this? You? Who don't seem to comprehend a thing that anyone else is saying? You who constantly misinterpret everything said to you over and over again? YOU?! Except Darwin, I guess. Right? Or are you changing your case now? You are a seriously fucked up individual if you truly think that you have done any such thing. You've substantiated jack shit. Fuck you. You are a troll. This last post proves it. I'm done even trying to reason with you. Goodbye. I won't ignore you. But I'm done responding to you. (Well. Unless I feel like it.)
Of course. I can understand the point about how man has removed himself from dangers of predation and diease and etc... Man has elevated himself above the animals in many ways. This is undeniable, but the point is, as Ophiolite posted a while back very clearly, that we are not removed from natural selection. We are still being selected for. The only thing that has changed is the criteria by which we are being selected. Rather than a 'wild' environment, we are now being selected for through a 'civilized' environment. There are those who are unable to conform to societal standards and these people are usually unable to find a mate and thus are selected out. Now. The whole thing is complicated. There are so many different criteria that one simply can't point to a simpe set of rules by which selection is to take place. Some are selected for by being succesful financially. Some are selected for by successful socially. There are selection criteria going on in human evolution (and yes. We are evolving. Evolution does not stop for man nor beast.) However, the rate of change is another matter. There need not be a large amount of physical change. We know that mankind has not changed much physically for millenia. But this does not mean that we have escaped evolution's clutches. Sharks are largely unchanged for millions of years. Are they too evolutionarily escapees? Are sharks unnatural? We are evolving. There can be no doubt of this. Note. I'm not saying that speciation is imminent. Speciation is impossible given the contact that humanity has with itself all over the globe. But still evolution takes place. Perhaps one should use the word domestication rather than evolution as we are being selected for traits that are similar to those selected for in domesticated animals. Note that a major piece of this disagreement over the nature of natural selection is over the definition of 'natural'. I contend that modern human society is natural. How could it not be natural? And there are selection pressures taking place within this society and so too how could this selection not be natural? You know. I'm reminded of an article in last week's Science on the phenomenon of phenotype plasticity. I think that this sort of selection must be going on in modern society. Things change so fast now compared to how things used to be that there can be no doubt that those more flexible in their behavior are being selected for. This is a good thing, if you think about it, because the doom of a species is specialization and in many ways the human animal is the ultimate specialist. We've specialized in civilization as a survival technique and its entirely debatable if we could survive its collapse. (I tend to believe that man would survive. But that's a whole 'nother issue...) Edit: You know. On the subject of man's specialization and the survival of civilization's collapse. I think it would come down to determining exactly what man is specialized in more. Is he specialized in adaptation (which would amount to a specialization in generality) or civilization? If the latter then man would be doomed should his specialist niche collapse, but if the former then the niche could never collapse completely (barring some extreme circumstances.)
Yes, of course humans are still evolving. And we cannot say what we'll eventually evolve into - probably more adaptations to life in space if we keep up our attempts at trying to colonize outside of Earth. We'll probably adapt to increases in pollution levels. We might adapt to the rapid accumulation of more knowledge via a larger cranium. We might evolve into a hominidae with no appendages if technology invents more efficient and beneficial artificial limbs. We would then be apt to rely more on them then our own, and eventually lose our own. The farther away we diverge, the more imminent speciation becomes plausible - like with Neanderthals: first we thought they were a seperate species, then the same, then seperate, now the same again - a subcpecies still capable of interbreeding that went extinct. But if a large group of humans were to colonizae a distant planet light years away, they would be more prone to develop into a seperate species than ones that stayed nearby. One thing we do know is that as we progress in our technical achievements to keep man artificially alive in unnatural ways, such as a bionic man with electronic and mechanic devices, or via mass cloning, or by developing half human-half robot interactive devices and beings. Nature can no longer select out what is less adaptable to survive. We become the deciding driving force behind these creations and can select out for ourselves the ones that we decide to continue to exist or not, to survive or not, to propogate or not. We now can and do determine a lot of those once-natural environmental determinants that allows the species to live. We become the artificial selectors.: this is the basic principle behind the two opposing evolutionary forces of Natural Selection and Artificial Selection (as in Mendel's peas). See the big difference.
This promiss is seven pages back now. I do not find your tendance to swear, use fowl language, etc. any problem as you usually have something intelligent to say. I think your intellect can be better spent than discussing the merit, or lack there of, with Valikch about your "vulgar style." In case you forgot the post I would appreciate your comments on, it is found in thread "about determinism." Please read the several related posts around 8 October and comment. Thanks
So much Believe and so little Facts in this thread. What a Pity. >> One thing we do know is that as we progress in our technical achievements to keep man artificially alive in unnatural ways, such as a bionic man with electronic and mechanic devices, or via mass cloning, or by developing half human-half robot interactive devices and beings. Nature can no longer select out what is less adaptable to survive. << These "technical achievements" all ARE part of Nature and Evolution. And as those they play a major current role in the natural selection process. There actually is no distinction to be made between Nature and Technology at all. As No-Thing that stems out of nature can be considered 'unnatural'. Feel free to fight further, though. As even that is a (perhaps necessary) part of this evolution process, too. As is this forum.
We abruptly changed the focus of our discussion. Don't you remember? On page 8 I replied in agreement with you: "I agree, thermodynamics cannot explain creation of "specific form." That it why I said in my last post that this is where the theory of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest must be applied. Nevertheless, this does not mean that thermodynamics is not still at work. That diversity contributes to disorganization and less order. All life is a short oneway street that ends in death and decay: the ultimate in disorganization, disorder, increase in entropy, and gradual thermodynamic equilibrium. We're talking about five billion years from now, no? I think this is the predicted extent of the Earth's existence?"
Nature vs. Technology is an extremely hot philosophical debate. A distinction can and is made, perhaps in the same way that biologists and geneticists alike commonly distinguish between Natural Selection and Artificial Selection. In the terminology of biology and genetics this distinction is a fact. The rediscovery of Mendel's painstaking work in "Artificial Selection" in his pea experiments formed the entire basis for the understanding of the science of Genetics today. This is an undisputable fact. It's history!
And of the so much "fact," that I have quoted with citations and references, the only replies I seem to ever get are side-tracted unsubstantiated criticisms and vulgarity for quoting the "facts!" in the first place. The impression I've been getting is that people don't want to learn or know the facts - closed minded.
Billy T, Wow. Seven pages of inanity already? Christ. It racks up fast. Yes. I haven't forgotten. I simply haven't had the time. I will get to it. Valich, Sigh. Once again I feel you've misunderstood something. You say that man can and does practice artificial selection? Really? Is there a lot of breeding programs going on in your area? I thought human mating was rather haphazard myself. Yes. There is sexual selection going on, definitely. But there sure as shit isn't any planned or methodical breeding program. That is what artificial selection is, you know. Yes. Humans are intelligent and they thus have more ability to choose specific traits in their partners, but more often than not their intelligence is hamstrung by their instincts and by accidents. Did you know that a woman is more likely to get pregnant when cheating on her spouse? Anyway. This is an issue with the use of the word domestication I used earlier. Domestication suggests artificial selection. This isn't at all what is happening with humans at the present time and unless custom changes it won't be happening any time soon. Uh. No. "Nature vs technology" does not equal "natural vs artificial selection". You really have this bad habit of not understanding anything. So? Troll.
Yes, in our biology department we have a lot of artificial selection breeding projects going on, as they do in most biology research labs worldwide. Artificial Selection is, in a sense, the anti-thesis of Natural Selection, in that the breeding and outcomes are not natural, as in Nature. We set up controls to compare our Artificial Selection to, but the Artificial Selection itself is determined by us, not Nature. Therefore you can make a distinction between what is Nature and what is man-made or artificial. If I stood in the middle of Time Square in Manhattan and yelled out, "Gee, it's great to feel back to Nature," I'd probably get hauled away by little men in white shirts. Yet if I were camping out in a remote region of the Adirondacks and said the same thing, all around me would agree. There are many examples of man-made products as opposed to what we consider as natural ones. There is a current uproar, especially in Europe, about using pre-engineered biogenetics for the enhancement of food production, and the use of preservatives in food. In contrast to this we talk about "natural" food. We have Artificial Intelligence (AI - robotics), Artificial Insemination as opposed to natural copulation, artificial man-made reservoirs and dams compared to natural ones, artificial respiration (enabling people to live, rather than "naturally" die), artificial crystals in bioscience and chemistry, such as a superlattices (an artificially superimposed lattice on a nuturally occurring one), man-made artificial diamonds, synthethized or made from zirconia, as opposed to natural diamonds, and the list goes on-and-on. In short, we can and do make a distinction between what is natural and what is Nature, and what is artificial or man-made. It is often said in philosophy that Nature would be perfect with the exclusion of man. Man is the only animal in Nature that produces artificial products on such a vast overwhelming scale like this that it changes the face of what we "normally" consider and "normally" - in the common usage of the term - call "Nature."
Let me get this straight. You're breeding humans in your biology research lab? That's quite avante guarde. And you think that this is taking place in the human genome in general? What does this have to do with taking care of the sick, by the way? Because you're using nature in a different sense. You're using nature in its meaning of wild and uncivilized. Are termite mounds natural? You've never answered that. Yes. The list goes on and on and none of them have any relevance to the way we're using nature in this discussion. Do you think mankind is supernatural then? Yes. But in the case of natural selection you're using the wrong definition of nature. Try again. I think we should find an award to present to you for being the most obstinate fool ever to grace our doorstep.
