Natural selection as negative principle only

_{News
March 26, 2016

Natural selection, News, Philosophy, Science

3}_{Categories
Natural selection
News
Philosophy
Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A friend writes to note what philosopher of science, John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), had to say about natural selection:

The principle of natural selection is indeed an important contribution to biology. But it is a negative, not an architectonic, principle. It does not explain why variations appear, why they cumulate, why they assume an organization in the way of more successful adaptation. Organisms must, of course, be able to maintain themselves in their life environment and in the physical environment, in order to leave descendants and determine the character of the race. But that is all natural selection tells us. It does not explain the traits and organization of organisms nor why they become well or badly adapted to their specific environment.

Can’t seem to find this online, but it’s consistent with something we did find:

Even in such fields as science, where reason is supposed to be most at home, we drift invariably into traditions and schools. Darwin’s hypothesis of chance variations and natural selection has not merely become a dogma of science, but has been erected into a philosophy of the universe; and the limitations of the hypothesis and the empirical spirit of its creator have been lost sight of in an intolerant tradition which has had serious consequences, not only for the development of natural science but for the social ideals and progress of the race. This is only one instance where mysticism has supplanted reason in science and where the authority of facts has been forced to yield to the authority of tradition. In every field of science we are haunted by ghosts of the past to which lesser minds pay superstitious reverence and by which even greater minds are misled into false assumptions. And the most dangerous ghost of all is that mechanical materialism which, while it has no scientific credentials but is simply a false dogma tacked on to science, has become fashionable among scientists. If science is always in danger of subordinating reason and experience to dogmas, the danger is even greater iii philosophy and art where the emotional element naturally plays a greater part – John E. Boodin. “The Law of Social Participation”, American Journal of Sociology, 27, 1921: 22-53.

Imagine, 1921… Well before Mencken on the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) and Buck v. Bell (1927). Also:

The modern point of view which finds its typical expression in Darwinism emphasizes change, history, mechanical causes, flux of species, determination of the higher by the lower. History runs on like an old man’s tale without beginning, middle, or end, without any guiding plot. It is infinite and formless. Chance rules supreme. It despises final causes.

More on Boodin’ approach here. See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Comments

EugeneS @ 26. It is just as simple as that. Well stated!Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Notice how evolutionary examples are often given in teleological terms like, "seeing better". That points to a hierarchy of value. But in a mindless worldview, vision is not 'better' than non-sight. In fact, survival is not 'better' than extinction. Natural selection not only doesn't create better sight, it doesn't care or know what is better or worse anything. It doesn't define what fitness is for any organism. That's all driven by the environment. Selection doesn't determine that "better" vision makes an organism more fit. What is the cost of improved vision? Energy, nutrition, neural complexity, confusion or distraction (seeing more than needed)? In that case, worse sight may make an organism more fit. With that, the process is random. Mutations are only beneficial with respect to the environment. The mutations occur randomly and the environmental conditions change on a random basis. The only non-random variable is the survival instinct which, it is assumed, moves all organisms in a direct line, at equal strength, towards survival. It is believed to be like water running down hill, which we can predict the path of because gravity is constant. But if the survival instinct evolved (evolution depends on it, so it couldn't evolve from a non-existent precursor), then how did it end up with exactly the same intensity (desire to survive) in every organism? That's something nobody talks about, but Darwin assumed it at the beginning and everybody just fell in line after. That's Darwin's theology at work. Supposedly, there are "advanced" organisms that do things "better" than bacteria. Supposedly also, all organisms "want to survive" with exactly the same intensity. How do we know that organisms do not simply give up the struggle for survival at some point? We see humans doing that. They not only don't want to survive, they actively end their own lives in some cases and cut off life for progeny (as declining birth rates indicate). If so, then even the survival instinct is a random variable. This makes all the well-known mathematical calculations of the astronomically improbable nature of evolution quite correct.Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Both selection and genetic drift remove diversity from the population.Mung_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Origenes #38
You are a victim of Darwin’s inappropriate use of reificational and teleological terms. NS neither “prefers” nor “filters”. Certain organisms don’t survive low temperatures. However it is inappropriate use of language to say that low temperatures “prefer” penguins, since low temperatures don’t have preferences.
Fine, you don't like the wording. But it's always made clear that the process is unguided and targetless.
Not only do I not like the words, they are misleading as they suggest a positive causal relationship between the virus and the surviving half of the population.
Fine, but it's always clear if you read about the science that there is no conscious choosing going on.
Nope. Elimination is never creative. Not a single round and not multiple rounds. Those new morphologies would also be there without the cull(s).
All the breeds of modern dogs point out the flaw in your argument. As do almost all the modern varieties of food plants we consume.
Elimination of half the population “focusses” the next round of variation, but it does not in any way help find new morphologies. Elimination is simply not creative.
The combination of sequential cull and variation, repeat creates the new morphologies. Just like it does with breeding programs.
The elimination has zero positive effect on the creating. What’s even worse, it continually removes acquired information.
Elimination 'prefers' certain varieties over others, in that sense it helps direct the evolutionary process. 'Information' might be lost but species grow and split and are created.
Neither one round of elimination nor successive rounds of elimination are creative.
No one says it's just elimination. You can keep arguing against a strawman if you like but people will stop taking you seriously.
Dogs exemplify loss of information and are therefor illustrative for the not creative nature of culling.
What about the brassicas? Besides, how do you know dogs exemplify loss of information? Are you saying that ever single modern breed of dog is the result of culling from the thousand year old wolf genome? That dogs have no new genes from wolves? Are you really saying that? Lets take a look at whales. Their fossil record only extends back so far. Are you seriously suggesting that modern whales are the result of a loss of information from land dwelling creatures? Really? How about birds? If you go back far enough they didn't exist. Are you seriously suggesting that they are the result of a loss of information? Some time, many moons ago, there was some uber-animal which had an immense genome and that all living things are culls from that? It must have been a fern since they have the largest genomes of all living things. Is that what you believe? (I suspect is here where you're going to bring out your designer argument. An undetected, undefined, unobserved, not subject to experiment designer.) Seriously, I think you're being led astray by some people with a religious agenda.ellazimm_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Origenes: As I understand evolution, there is no “adaptation”. That is incorrect. Take a simple case, tallness. If tallness provides a reproductive advantage (think of eating tree leaves), then those variations within the population that entail tallness will become predominant. That is adaptation. Origenes: So kindly explain how you use the term “adaptation”, and explain the relationship between natural selection and adaptation. "An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_31 Origenes: The cull destroys information and variety. Sure, but mutation and selection don't work in isolation. Consider again tallness. Let's take it very schematically: Tallness is distributed in a wide normal curve; some short, some tall, a few very short, a few very tall. Let's cull the short and very short. Given some replacement reproduction, we again have a bell curve, but it is narrower and the mean is higher. During reproduction, some mutations occur. The bell curve spreads out, only at a higher mean tallness. If continued tallness is advantageous, this process will continue to increase the mean height of the population. If tallness is no longer an advantage (such as matching the height of the trees), then the final result will stabilize at the current tallness. Notice the accumulative nature of the process. If we take a picture over generations, it will look like the organism is growing taller. This is adaptation. EugeneS: Those are the causes of the dominance of a trait in the population. Natural selection is an effect in that case. That's right. Natural selection is the result of competition due to fecundity and phenotypic variation. Natural selection can be considered as a mechanism, just like a machine can be considered a mechanism even though it is made up of other parts. Origenes: You seem to be arguing that destroying information multiple times in a row is better than a single round of information destruction and beats a blind search. It does, because it limits the search to only those areas of the fitness landscape that provide a reproductive advantage.Zachriel_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm ,
Origenes: NS did not create the surviving organism.

ellazimm: It didn’t create it but it ‘preferred’ it. It filtered out the less fit.
You are a victim of Darwin’s inappropriate use of reificational and teleological terms. NS neither “prefers” nor “filters”. Certain organisms don’t survive low temperatures. However it is inappropriate use of language to say that low temperatures “prefer” penguins, since low temperatures don’t have preferences.
ellazimm:
Origenes: A deadly virus can be said to eliminate half of the population, but it doesn’t make sense to say that it “preserves” half of the population and it makes even less sense to say that it “creates” half of the population.
So, you don’t like the words. The fact is that organisms that resist the virus are ‘selected’ in that they survive and pass on their fitness to another generation.
Not only do I not like the words, they are misleading as they suggest a positive causal relationship between the virus and the surviving half of the population.
ellazimm: The ‘creation’ part comes from multiple rounds of variation and selection.
Nope. Elimination is never creative. Not a single round and not multiple rounds. Those new morphologies would also be there without the cull(s).
ellazimm: Not necessarily. The culls focus the next round of variation.
Elimination of half the population “focusses” the next round of variation, but it does not in any way help find new morphologies. Elimination is simply not creative.
Origenes: Like EugeneS said: “novelty cannot be created by elimination.”

ellazimm: IT’S NOT JUST ELiMINATION THAT DOES THE CREATING!!
The elimination has zero positive effect on the creating. What’s even worse, it continually removes acquired information.
ellazimm: I’m starting to think that you are being purposely obdurate. It’s not just elimination, it’s successive rounds of elimination and then new variation which is centred around the new genome ‘average’.
Neither one round of elimination nor successive rounds of elimination are creative. ----- edit: Dogs exemplify loss of information and are therefor illustrative for the not creative nature of culling.Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Natural selection works like artificial selection? It chooses? Really? But not really.... Natural selection sure acts like a Creator God doesn't it? Or does it? So you believe nothing is responsible for everything? I see you have copious amounts of faith. I honestly think that you have a problem. You should go see someone.Andre_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Origenes Breeders have been creating new varieties and breeds for thousands of year via a process of culling from successive rounds of naturally occurring variation. Their culling directs a line of descent towards the goal they are trying to achieve. Natural selection works in much the same way. There is no conscious goal or guiding hand so the process is slower. But you can't say a breeder can't develop new breeds via successive rounds of elimination. And, you can't say that those variations would have arisen naturally either. In the wild wolves never became dogs. Dogs arose from lots and lots and lots of culling acting on lots and lots of successive randomly occurring variation.ellazimm_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes #34
Natural selection (NS) does not preserve. All it does is eliminate stuff. What survives is untouched by NS.
Incorrect. If a variation gives one genome's expression an advantage then 'natural selection' will favour it. So the 'good' variation will be preserved. On average.
“Untouched” in every sense of the word. NS did not create the surviving organism.
It didn't create it but it 'preferred' it. It filtered out the less fit.
A deadly virus can be said to eliminate half of the population, but it doesn’t make sense to say that it “preserves” half of the population and it makes even less sense to say that it “creates” half of the population.
So, you don't like the words. The fact is that organisms that resist the virus are 'selected' in that they survive and pass on their fitness to another generation. The 'creation' part comes from multiple rounds of variation and selection.
Nope. Elimination is never creative. Not a single round and not multiple rounds. Those new morphologies would also be there without the cull(s).
Not necessarily. The culls focus the next round of variation.
Like EugeneS said: “novelty cannot be created by elimination.”
IT'S NOT JUST ELiMINATION THAT DOES THE CREATING!! I'm starting to think that you are being purposely obdurate. It's not just elimination, it's successive rounds of elimination and then new variation which is centred around the new genome 'average'. Clearly there is something about that concept that you cannot grasp or refuse to acknowledge. It doesn't make you right but it might mean it's time for me to stop trying to explain it to you.ellazimm_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm: You seem to be intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying. I don’t understand why you focus on the bad variation that is culled and refuse to accept that the preserved, good variation (…)
Natural selection (NS) does not preserve. All it does is eliminate stuff. What survives is untouched by NS. “Untouched” in every sense of the word. NS did not create the surviving organism. A deadly virus can be said to eliminate half of the population, but it doesn’t make sense to say that it “preserves” half of the population and it makes even less sense to say that it “creates” half of the population.
Ellazimm: (…) and multiple rounds of selection/honing can introduce new morphologies.
Nope. Elimination is never creative. Not a single round and not multiple rounds. Those new morphologies would also be there without the cull(s). Like EugeneS said: “novelty cannot be created by elimination.”Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

Origenes #31
You seem to be arguing that destroying information multiple times in a row is better than a single round of information destruction and beats a blind search. Well, you are free to hold that belief.
Sigh. You seem to be intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying. I don't understand why you focus on the bad variation that is culled and refuse to accept that the preserved, good variation and multiple rounds of selection/honing can introduce new morphologies. New variation arises at each generation. The 'spread' of that variation starts from a different 'average' than previous generations. During each generation some variation (mostly bad, deleterious variation) is lost. Generally, variation that improves fitness (ability to exploit the local environment and resources) IS KEPT. Which shifts the 'average' for the next generation towards a higher level of fitness.ellazimm_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Me_Think: How? As I said,the trait of better sight is what causes scarcity of food. Because the bird with better sight exploits its environment better.
Okay.
Me_Think: The differential survival into the next generation is due to the superior adaptation to environment enabled by the better sight.
What's being discussed here is what this has to do with "natural selection". Let's have a look again: The better sight is offered by mutation — not natural selection. "Superior adaptation" is a deceptive description of what is nothing over and beyond sheer dumb luck — not natural selection. Lastly, there is no “selection”, there is only the elimination of normal birds due to lack of resources.Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: Evolution performs better than a blind search because it’s a cumulative process.
You seem to be arguing that destroying information multiple times in a row is better than a single round of information destruction and beats a blind search. Well, you are free to hold that belief.Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 29 How? As I said,the trait of better sight is what causes scarcity of food. Because the bird with better sight exploits its environment better. The differential survival into the next generation is due to the superior adaptation to environment enabled by the better sightMe_Think_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, I already incorporated scarcity of food in your story. My objections still stand.Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 27
If we incorporate this scarcity, then what part of your story is “natural selection”? The production of the trait is not natural selection. The fit in the environment is by sheer dumb luck — not natural selection.
I am not assuming unlimited resource.The scarcity of food for the 'normal' bird is due to the higher consumption of food by the better sighted bird. The trait of better sight is what causes scarcity of food. Because the bird with better sight exploits its environment better, it gets selected to survive the next generation. IOW, the number of better sighted birds are more in the next generation because the trait of 'better sight' led to selection of those birds.Me_Think_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Me_Think #23, In your example mutation produces a trait which offers a bird better eyesight than other birds. According to you, other things being equal, this bird will dominate in the environment. You go on to state: “This is Natural Selection.” What’s lacking in your story is the assumption of scarcity of resources for normal birds, because if there is plenty of food for them, then the new trait would prove to be irrelevant for survival. N.B. not all birds have the eyesight of a hawk. If we incorporate this scarcity, then what part of your story is “natural selection”? The production of the trait is not natural selection. The fit in the environment is by sheer dumb luck — not natural selection. The only activity of natural selection is the elimination of normal birds by lack of resources.
Me_Think: As you see, there is nothing magical about adaption and selection.
Recap: the adaptation is produced by mutation, the fitness of the new trait is by sheer dumb luck and lastly, there is no “selection”, there is only the elimination of normal birds due to lack of resources.Origenes_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Zachriel cannot understand the simple thing that novelty cannot be created by elimination. "Existing or novel" he says. How funny! Novelty must exist BEFORE it is naturally selected. This leaves evolutionists with only one novelty generator - chance. As simple as that. But I always forget that to expect an understanding from them is too much. Even Dawkins cannot get his head around it... Not only does volutionism lacks empirical support but it also lacks substance.EugeneS_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Z
Those are the mechanics of natural selection, competition being due to fecundity and phenotypic variation.
Those are the causes of the dominance of a trait in the population. Natural selection is an effect in that case. You could say that natural selection causes natural selection but that statement lacks clarity.Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

Origenes #22
If Generation2 has more genetic variation than Parents1, then this is because of mutations. If, in its turn, Generation2 is culled down and still has more genetic variation than Parents1, then this is despite the cull.
One of the important points here is that Parents2 will have genetic variation but it will be starting to be somewhat molded by the environment. It's off spring will have new variations that are on top of other preserved variations on top of other preserved variations. The selection and variation have a cumulative effect.
The cull destroys information and variety. The most positive thing one can say about the cull is that organisms that — by sheer dumb luck — have the capability to withstand the effect of the cull survive. IOWs if the mutations part is a blind search, then the cull, by continually removing acquired information, makes things a lot more difficult to find. Yet IOWs: evolution performs worse than a blind search, thanks to the cull.
Evolution performs better than a blind search because it's a cumulative process. Generation1000 will look different than Generation1 because, on average, the variations that give an environmental advantage will be preserved and new variations will be working from that new basis. Yes, there is a cull at each generation and a lot of those culled will be much less fit. The ones that survive might have just been lucky but some are better able to beat the competition; they are more fit. It's not sheer dumb luck. At each generation a new fan of variation is created but it's starting from a slightly different node from the previous generation. That's why cumulative culling and variation beat a blind search: the stuff that works or is neutral is kept and the stuff that doesn't work is abandoned. I'm not sure this is really worth arguing about. I'm sure you've heard all this before but continue to focus on one aspect of the situation.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT}

Origenes @ 20
So kindly explain how you use the term “adaptation”, and explain the relationship between natural selection and adaptation.
Say a mutation allows birds to discern green insects on leaf clearly (by increasing the Green light receptor in cone cells of the eye or by ultraviolet light detection) - this allows the bird to better adapt to its environment. These birds will be able to glean more insects from leaves and will have better growth and survival rates than 'normal' birds. Over time the ability to pick out camouflaged insects gives the birds advantage over other 'normal' birds and hence the species with better eyesight will dominate in the environment. This is Natural selection. As you see, there is nothing magical about adaption and selection.Me_Think_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Ellazim #21, My mistake I didn't notice your reply. Allow me to answer you in this thread:
ellazimm : Every new generation has more genetic diversity than its parents, those ‘selected’ from the previous generation.

Origenes: If so, then despite the cull.

ellazimm : You’re not understanding me I think. Generation1 is culled down to a subset which generate offspring. Call them Parents1. Generation2 comes from Parents1 and Generation2 has more genetic variation than Parents1. Has to. Because of mutations during breeding.
How does this contradict anything I have said? If Generation2 has more genetic variation than Parents1, then this is because of mutations. If, in its turn, Generation2 is culled down and still has more genetic variation than Parents1, then this is despite the cull.
ellazimm : The cull helps ‘direct’ evolution.
The cull destroys information and variety. The most positive thing one can say about the cull is that organisms that — by sheer dumb luck — have the capability to withstand the effect of the cull survive. IOWs if the mutations part is a blind search, then the cull, by continually removing acquired information, makes things a lot more difficult to find. Yet IOWs: evolution performs worse than a blind search, thanks to the cull.Origenes_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Origenes #20 I'm sorry you seem to have abandoned our discussion on this other thread: https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/we-didnt-know-randomness-could-be-subtle/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+uncommondescent%2FJCWn+%28Uncommon+Descent%29 Am I to assume you have conceded or just lost interest?ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,
Adaptation is the result of the interaction between sources of variation and natural selection.
As I understand evolution, there is no "adaptation". Instead organisms are fit by sheer dumb luck.
Chance alone, is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation. [Jacques Monod]
So kindly explain how you use the term "adaptation", and explain the relationship between natural selection and adaptation.Origenes_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Elimination of the unfit leads to a remainder of fit organisms if and only if the latter already exist. That's right. Natural selection works on existing variation. Adaptation is the result of the interaction between sources of variation and natural selection. Silver Asiatic: Competition (not caused by selection), Fecundity Those are the mechanics of natural selection, competition being due to fecundity and phenotypic variation.Zachriel_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Z
Selection is the mechanism that causes the citrate metabolizing E coli to become dominant in the population. Selection is the result of fecundity and differential reproduction due to heritable differences.
The mechanism that caused the trait to become dominant was: The presence of the trait (not caused by natural selection) Competition (not caused by selection) Fecundity and reproduction rates (not caused by selection) The inheritance of the trait (not caused by selection) Winners in the competition for resources (not caused by selection). What remains after those causes is a pattern in the data - where the trait is dominant. That is where it is claimed that the trait was 'selected' - when actually, what is observed is the effect of factors not caused by selection. So, natural selection does not act as a cause or mechanism. Natural selection has no creative power. The environment, resources, reproduction rates and fitness determine which organisms will survive or dominate. I added "the survival instinct" to that list. That is either stronger or weaker or entirely equivalent in all species.
There are many survival strategies, not all of which entail fierceness or competitiveness.
This says nothing about the origin of a survival instinct - or about empirical measures of strength or weakness in that instinct found in various species. Some humans have less of a desire to survive than others. Some human communities have less of a desire to reproduce than others. The same may be true for all biological organisms. Natural selection is entirely dependent on a pre-existing survival instinct. Natural selection cannot have created it. The NS concept has to assume that the survival instinct is consistent and is possessed with equal strength among every species.Silver Asiatic_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: It is the interaction between these two mechanisms that leads to adaptation.
Nope. Elimination of the unfit leads to a remainder of fit organisms if and only if the latter already exist. Obviously elimination of the unfit (a.k.a. “natural selection”) does not create fit organisms.Origenes_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Origenes: Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of information loss. Shannon information is generally lost due to selection, but Shannon information is increased due to mutation. It is the interaction between these two mechanisms that leads to adaptation. Origenes: IOWs natural selection is a destroyer of information, variety. Diversifying selection can increase variety.Zachriel_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Zachriel,
Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of adaptive evolution (...)
Let me correct that for you:
Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of information loss.
IOWs natural selection is a destroyer of information, variety. ------
Silver Asiatic: Since organisms have this non-random ‘desire’ to survive, the reductionist belief is that any physical feature that makes them more fit to survive, will necessarily cause them to be selected.
Interesting observation.Origenes_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Mung: Zachriel claims natural selection is both the cause and the effect. Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of adaptive evolution, the effect of fecundity and differential reproduction due to heritable differences. Are you saying a phenomenon can't be an effect of something, and the cause of something else? Or for that matter, that it can't be part of a feedback of cause and effect?Zachriel_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply