"Natural Selection" Is Flawed...

[Vastator]

Selection... That is the problem. It seems that the choice to use the word selection, has been a large impedance to the understanding of evolution. Selection invokes in the minds of many, the notion that some "choice" has been made. Which simply isn't the case.
No creature ever made a conscious decision to alter its genetic make up. The environment never made a conscious decision, as to which creatures will survive, and which will perish.
A more suitable, and easily understood method of describing how evolution works would be Natural Elimination.
As situations, and conditions change; those who are not suited to survive the change are eliminated from the breeding pool. Leaving all that do remain, suited to their current environment.
It just seems like a poor choice of wordings to aptly describe what really happens in the evolutionary process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ok

 

[Vastator]

ok

No. It isn't okay.

 

[Vastator]

ok

No. It isn't okay.

Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.
Educators need to do better.

 

[TNHarley]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

 

[Vastator]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

Not quite sure what you're saying.... Lay it on me.

 

[TNHarley]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

Not quite sure what you're saying.... Lay it on me.

I mean like its nature selecting
"well these spiders need 8 eyes because..... These animals are so small they need to be in the air" Something like that.
Like "selection" is meant towards "mother nature" doing the "selecting"
You ever find it hard to explain what you are thinking? This is one of those times lol.

 

[emilynghiem]

Selection... That is the problem. It seems that the choice to use the word selection, has been a large impedance to the understanding of evolution. Selection invokes in the minds of many, the notion that some "choice" has been made. Which simply isn't the case.
No creature ever made a conscious decision to alter its genetic make up. The environment never made a conscious decision, as to which creatures will survive, and which will perish.
A more suitable, and easily understood method of describing how evolution works would be Natural Elimination.
As situations, and conditions change; those who are not suited to survive the change are eliminated from the breeding pool. Leaving all that do remain, suited to their current environment.
It just seems like a poor choice of wordings to aptly describe what really happens in the evolutionary process.

Dear Vastator

I think the other terms for this are

* cause and effect, we choose and have biases based on what we see will get us the outcome we want
(BASED ON EXPERIENCE - what we've seen or have taught or been taught)
or will cause undesirable outcomes we don't want. We all have the capacity for free choice,
but the logic isn't pure. It's skewed by emotions, by FEARS. so if the FEAR of change or FEAR of
a certain group/person/outcome is GREATER in our minds, we can make decisions based on FEAR instead of actual truth of what would or would not occur.
Big problem with humans. We have intuition to sense dangers and avoid them, but this can go either way.

* avoidance of pain and suffering and seeking of pleasure and peace
Again, this gets subjective and since everyone's interests are relative, we get into trouble trying
to manage and balance collectively. So we guess and do the best we can. And our learning curve? well, you can see how tortuous that has been...

Now as for reproduction
it looks like there are as many factors going against humanity
as going for it. With the drive to survive strong enough to outweigh the tendency to self-destruct
when we don't get our way.

* the part of the brain that religion/god appeals to tends to be DOMINANT
and is used for SURVIVAL
* but with education that provides BENEFITS, it also correlates with
lower birth rates than say people in poor countries with such a HIGH infant
mortality rate due to poverty and lack of resources that they have "more babies"
because so many will die. When the survival rate and life expectancy and quality
is higher, well that also means stable couples and families won't be turning out
100 kids with different parents or partners with no future game plan.
so it seems a give and take. the quality of life is higher than it used to
be, so perhaps stability of populations will follow from greater stability

* on a more personal/individual level, there are different studies on
how women and men "select partners"
https://scienceblog.com/72137/the-real-difference-between-how-men-and-women-choose-their-partners/

I've also seen another study on whether men and women were picking
partners based on intelligence or good looks. If I recall the findings on tendencies accurately:
the intelligence ran genetically with the gender chosen by the other for looks,
and the looks ran genetically with the gender chosen by the other for intelligence.
So this ran COUNTER to what would be ideal for survival of the best traits.
If the OPPOSITE was going on, as the study implied, then this pattern would lead to
breeding out the higher intelligence and the good looks instead of passing them on.

[Personally I believe selection and relations are spiritually/divinely inspired.
Because personalities/souls are UNIQUE then we attract and build
UNIQUE connections and relations between us like points that have unique lines.
I don't see it as competing for mates, but trying to wade
through the massive backlog of drama and problems in society
TO FIND each other and CARVE out the relations and solutions we want.
I believe those solutions already exist in the future,
and we are trying to map out the path to realize them from
wherever we are starting today, using the past as experience to learn and teach from.
so to me it isn't random at all, but a learning curve that is driven to find
stability based on common values of truth, of equal justice, and peace and harmony
with others in society]

 

[Vastator]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

Not quite sure what you're saying.... Lay it on me.

I mean like its nature selecting
"well these spiders need 8 eyes because..... These animals are so small they need to be in the air" Something like that.
Like "selection" is meant towards "mother nature" doing the "selecting"
You ever find it hard to explain what you are thinking? This is one of those times lol.

There is no evidence to suggest a "consciousness", of any type, or form; choosing, or "selecting".
What were really looking at here; are the ones who have managed to survive the ever-changing world. So far...
99.9% didn't...

 

[TNHarley]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

Not quite sure what you're saying.... Lay it on me.

I mean like its nature selecting
"well these spiders need 8 eyes because..... These animals are so small they need to be in the air" Something like that.
Like "selection" is meant towards "mother nature" doing the "selecting"
You ever find it hard to explain what you are thinking? This is one of those times lol.

There is no evidence to suggest a "consciousness", of any type, or form; choosing, or "selecting".
What were really looking at here; are the ones who have managed to survive the ever-changing world. So far...
99.9% didn't...

Valid. I guess im just trying to say maybe it is just a metaphor for mother nature.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Sorry. The discovery of DNA did away with the idea of evolutionary progress. Once science realized that even a single celled amoeba has an embedded complex digital code, the question of the origin of life becomes, "Who designed the digital code?"
Then they found out that DNA is self correcting. What that means is for a species to "morph" into a different species, it would have to make the exact same DNA "mistake" millions of times to create something new. And yet DNA does the opposite. It attempts to correct. If Darwin was right, we should be walking on the bones of the transitional process from one species to another. Yet we can't even find one monkey/man. The pretend evolutionary chart was made up of jaws of monkeys glued onto the craniums of men. It is fake.

 

[Vastator]

Sorry. The discovery of DNA did away with the idea of evolutionary progress. Once science realized that even a single celled amoeba has an embedded complex digital code, the question of the origin of life becomes, "Who designed the digital code?"
Then they found out that DNA is self correcting. What that means is for a species to "morph" into a different species, it would have to make the exact same DNA "mistake" millions of times to create something new. And yet DNA does the opposite. It attempts to correct. If Darwin was right, we should be walking on the bones of the transitional process from one species to another. Yet we can't even find one monkey/man. The pretend evolutionary chart was made up of jaws of monkeys glued onto the craniums of men. It is fake.

I need links to the information you're citing before an appropriate response can be given.

 

[Vastator]

Sorry. The discovery of DNA did away with the idea of evolutionary progress. Once science realized that even a single celled amoeba has an embedded complex digital code, the question of the origin of life becomes, "Who designed the digital code?"
Then they found out that DNA is self correcting. What that means is for a species to "morph" into a different species, it would have to make the exact same DNA "mistake" millions of times to create something new. And yet DNA does the opposite. It attempts to correct. If Darwin was right, we should be walking on the bones of the transitional process from one species to another. Yet we can't even find one monkey/man. The pretend evolutionary chart was made up of jaws of monkeys glued onto the craniums of men. It is fake.

Can you cite any names, or bodies of work to support your claim? Or is everyone supposed to just have "faith", and take your word for it?

 

[task0778]

The environment constantly changes world-wide, albeit slowly. As a result, some species that previously thrived could not adapt to the new conditions and went extinct, or they actually did adapt through various changes in they genetic makeup. That process is called 'natural selection'; it's a biological term that has nothing to do with any decision by anything or anybody. If you don't like the term, fine. But I don't think it's going to be changed anytime soon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Selection... That is the problem. It seems that the choice to use the word selection, has been a large impedance to the understanding of evolution. Selection invokes in the minds of many, the notion that some "choice" has been made. Which simply isn't the case.
No creature ever made a conscious decision to alter its genetic make up. The environment never made a conscious decision, as to which creatures will survive, and which will perish.
A more suitable, and easily understood method of describing how evolution works would be Natural Elimination.
As situations, and conditions change; those who are not suited to survive the change are eliminated from the breeding pool. Leaving all that do remain, suited to their current environment.
It just seems like a poor choice of wordings to aptly describe what really happens in the evolutionary process.

Silly parsing of words. Natural selection implies that nature selects, by those best adapted to survive in the environment of the time, those who will survive. Among a species with a large number of members, there will be some members with significant mutations. Most will not survive, those that do, have a mutation that either neutral, or helpful in that environment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Couldn't "selection" be exclusive towards Nature?
It doesn't necessarily have to be the species

Not quite sure what you're saying.... Lay it on me.

I mean like its nature selecting
"well these spiders need 8 eyes because..... These animals are so small they need to be in the air" Something like that.
Like "selection" is meant towards "mother nature" doing the "selecting"
You ever find it hard to explain what you are thinking? This is one of those times lol.

There is no evidence to suggest a "consciousness", of any type, or form; choosing, or "selecting".
What were really looking at here; are the ones who have managed to survive the ever-changing world. So far...
99.9% didn't...

On the contrary, all those species that have contributed to the DNA of the present living species have passed their inheritance down, even if the species have evolved and change in the interim.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry. The discovery of DNA did away with the idea of evolutionary progress. Once science realized that even a single celled amoeba has an embedded complex digital code, the question of the origin of life becomes, "Who designed the digital code?"
Then they found out that DNA is self correcting. What that means is for a species to "morph" into a different species, it would have to make the exact same DNA "mistake" millions of times to create something new. And yet DNA does the opposite. It attempts to correct. If Darwin was right, we should be walking on the bones of the transitional process from one species to another. Yet we can't even find one monkey/man. The pretend evolutionary chart was made up of jaws of monkeys glued onto the craniums of men. It is fake.

LOL Another person demonstrating a total ignorance of what the DNA mapping has told us. Each of us, in every cell of our body, has the evolutionary history of our species. We can show our relationship to all the other life that has been, or is, at present.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

ok

No. It isn't okay.

Labeled as it currently is; sounds every bit as absurd as the creationists argument. Its time the scientific, and educational system got with the times; and updated the way they explain this topic. If you need any proof go over to the religion section. Even in this day and age you have grown adults who are ignorant about evolution, and still prefer superstition, and fairy tales, over evidence, and facts.
Educators need to do better.

Why? What difference does it make if somebody doesn't accept evolution? Sounds like you just want to argue, but the reality is that there are plenty of successful and productive people who do not accept evolution, and renaming or giving it another label is not going to change their mind. Further more, there are many successful and productive people who accept strict creationism. You're trying to fix a problem where one doesn't exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because the creationists are trying to have their drivel taught as science. They can believe whatever they please, and espouse whatever mythology they please. Just keep it out of the science classroom.

 

[Lastamender]

The OP is flawed.