Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By MagiMaster
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Natural Selection thoughts

  1. #1 Natural Selection thoughts 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1
    Since the Publication of Darwin's origin of species book was released, it has been held as a based definition to date on the origins of the evolution of man and other spices throughout the world. Darwin research drove him to believe that man has grown and evolved through the years by natural selection. In which the only desirable traits are passed on to the offspring, and that through mutations over thousands of years species have adapted to their environment.

    I would like to exaime such claims as the ability for species to make radical changes through mutations to maintain a population. I wish to discuss how Darwin was right but in need of slight correction. One such correction would be how mates our chosen within the human race and other spices. If you follow Darwinism, one could say that traits within a mate is what draws them in such as a certain color of skin or vocal pattern to name a few. These traits our necessary for survival and over years have lead species to conquer their environment and to also perish due to their environment.


    I believe that it is not a survival need to go after desirable traits but a personal independent need. I have concluded that the survivability of a species based on selection of mates is merely a byproduct.


    Scientists have long believed that we have evolved through natural selection. I believe that we have evolved drastically through the years, but not by the ways of Darwin. The need to survive is not what drives countless men and women to mate. What cause man and women to mate is their ability to fulfill a need that cannot be otherwise filled by himself. There are three main components in deciding a mate attraction, negatives, and ability to fulfill need. Attraction could be physical and or mental, negative are a person weaknesses in character, and fulfilling need is person ability to fulfill a need that you cannot fill yourself. I have concluded that a mate is decided on {A} attraction minus {NpA} negatives in character time by{ IT} interdependence theory what does that person give to you, that you can't give to yourself.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Androcles08 View Post
    the ability for species to make radical changes through mutations to maintain a population. .
    there is no 'goal' in evolution. mutations are random. some benefit a species. some do not. those that benefit will stay. those that do not benefit will be lost. there is a lot of luck involved with natural selection.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Androcles08 View Post
    Darwin's origin of species book
    It might be worth your while reading that book, and catching up on the current view.
    You appear to have a skewed understanding of what "survival" means.

    What cause man and women to mate is their ability to fulfill a need that cannot be otherwise filled by himself.
    What evidence do you have to support this?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Welcome to Evolution 101!

    Evolution 101
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Androcles08 View Post
    Scientists have long believed that we have evolved through natural selection. I believe that we have evolved drastically through the years, but not by the ways of Darwin. The need to survive is not what drives countless men and women to mate. What cause man and women to mate is their ability to fulfill a need that cannot be otherwise filled by himself.
    That is absolutely true. And the reason we have that need is that evolution provided us with it. Without that need we would not reproduce; thus any humans born without "a need that cannot be otherwise fulfilled by himself" (i.e. a need to find a mate) dies and does not reproduce, and that genetic trait is eliminated. Humans born with the need to find a mate (i.e. most humans) do reproduce and that genetic trait is preserved.

    So while you are correct in your claim (that we have a need to find a mate) it is not an alternative to natural selection; it is a result of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Androcles08 View Post
    Since the Publication of Darwin's origin of species book was released, it has been held as a based definition to date on the origins of the evolution of man and other spices throughout the world. Darwin research drove him to believe that man has grown and evolved through the years by natural selection. In which the only desirable traits are passed on to the offspring, and that through mutations over thousands of years species have adapted to their environment.
    The use of "desirable" implies an external evaluation for which there is no evidence.



    I would like to exaime such claims as the ability for species to make radical changes through mutations to maintain a population.
    Darwin didn't imply there were radical changes--if anything most of his ideas about natural selection took a page from geology and were thought to be very gradual.

    I wish to discuss how Darwin was right but in need of slight correction. One such correction would be how mates our chosen within the human race and other spices. If you follow Darwinism, one could say that traits within a mate is what draws them in such as a certain color of skin or vocal pattern to name a few. These traits our necessary for survival and over years have lead species to conquer their environment and to also perish due to their environment.
    Again your language is somewhat strange. "Conguer?" If you simply mean adapt to survive, than say so...get rid of the flowery language.


    Scientists have long believed that we have evolved through natural selection. I believe that we have evolved drastically through the years, but not by the ways of Darwin.
    Darwin's ideas are nearly a century and a half old--of course scientist know much much more today. Don't lose the forest for the trees though--his key achievement was identifying adaptation by natural selection as the driver for species change or not changing. All the work since has reinforced and affirmed that key achievement.

    The need to survive is not what drives countless men and women to mate. What cause man and women to mate is their ability to fulfill a need that cannot be otherwise filled by himself. There are three main components in deciding a mate attraction, negatives, and ability to fulfill need. Attraction could be physical and or mental, negative are a person weaknesses in character, and fulfilling need is person ability to fulfill a need that you cannot fill yourself. I have concluded that a mate is decided on {A} attraction minus {NpA} negatives in character time by{ IT} interdependence theory what does that person give to you, that you can't give to yourself.
    All the features that attract us to one another, aka mate selection are byproducts of natural selection, or byproduct of the cultures we've created because of our highly adaptable brains that evolved by natural selection (though admitting leads to all sorts of odd cultural behaviors), or a hold over traits that haven't been selected against.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Androcles08, I agree with Dywyddyr - you should try actually reading the book. You would then realise that Darwin said almost nothing about the evolution of man within On the Origin of Species. All he did say, in the concluding chapter, was "Light will be thrown on the origin of man".

    As others have pointed out, your understanding of evolution is incomplete and somewhat faulty. Any of the following works would let you address that:

    Ernst Mayr 'What Evolution Is' Perseus Books 2001 ISBN:0-465-04425-5
    Daniel C. Dennett 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' Simon & Schuster 1995 ISBN:0-684-80290-2
    Stephen J. Gould 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory' Belknap Press 2002 ISBN:0-674-00613-5

    I am surprised that no one has mentioned that Darwin recognised part of what you are saying and introduced the concept of sexual selection. You could read this:

    Charles Darwin "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex" Darwin Online: The Descent of Man
    samsmoot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Pseudoscience Some's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44
    Natural selection can sometimes be a tautology (a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form, rather than by the substance of the statement), It means "survival of the fittest". Who is the fittest? Those that survive. Who survive? The fittest.
    The general characteristics of natural selection are:
    • Limited: It can only select from existing traits, and cannot create new traits;
    • Rapid: It can adapt a species to new environmental conditions within a few generations;
    • Increases Specialization: Natural selection adapts organisms to particular environments or niches.
    • Decreases Diversity: Traits disadvantageous in a particular environment (although potentially advantageous in another environment) are lost, leaving a less diverse gene pool narrowly suited to its environment.
    Men are four: He who knows not and knows not he knows not, he is a fool--shun him; He who knows not and knows he knows not, he is simple--teach him; He who knows and knows not he knows, he is asleep--wake him; He who knows and knows he knows, hi is wise--follow him!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That would only be true if mutations were non-existent. For more general information see here Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist and particularly here Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    The general characteristics of natural selection are:
    • Limited: It can only select from existing traits, and cannot create new traits.
    • Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Some;548361[B
    ][/B]Rapid: It can adapt a species to new environmental conditions within a few generations
    But we can equally say Slow. It can maintain a species with minimal change in phenotype over many generations and in some cases over millions of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Some;548361[B
    ][/B]Increases Specialization: Natural selection adapts organisms to particular environments or niches.
    Not always and not necessarily. Increases Generalisation. Natural selection can favours organisms that have a generalist approach. Omnivores over carnivores, or herbivores, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Some;548361[B
    ][/B]Decreases Diversity: Traits disadvantageous in a particular environment (although potentially advantageous in another environment) are lost, leaving a less diverse gene pool narrowly suited to its environment.
    Completely wrong. While natural selection may reduce the diversity of the gene pool of a particular species it is highly effective at increasing the number of species and hence the overall diversity of the composite gene pool.

    On balance, I think you've taken a rather narrow view of the nature of natural selection.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Androcles08 View Post
    I believe that it is not a survival need to go after desirable traits but a personal independent need. I have concluded that the survivability of a species based on selection of mates is merely a byproduct.
    This sounds like you are talking about "sexual selection" (another term that is almost as open to misinterpretation as "survival of the fittest").

    I believe that we have evolved drastically through the years, but not by the ways of Darwin.
    What evidence do you have to support this view?
    dan hunter likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is natural selection being overtaken by unnatural selection?
    By ox in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 19th, 2013, 08:55 AM
  2. Natural selection
    By Naemoekey in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 9th, 2013, 09:02 AM
  3. natural selection?
    By jam_rankin in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 26th, 2008, 03:43 AM
  4. NATURAL SELECTION EXPLAINED
    By leohopkins in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 27th, 2007, 04:37 AM
  5. Natural selection
    By BloodyValentine in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 31st, 2006, 05:19 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •