Matt, there is unfinished business 'twixt thee and me. Just before you went on holiday, you gave us your definition of Natural Selection. I replied on 28 July at 15.51(under "Science vs Religion") but would prefer it if we started a new thread. I'm therefore reproducing my reply here. -MATT: The definition I use is the one I was taught and used in the laboratory; "Natural Selection is the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure, and responds to that pressure in its genotype."-This is a truly shocking revelation, partly because many of the disagreements we've been having are due to the fact that your "understanding of Natural Selection has thus far been drastically different from everyone on this forum." Too right it has. The above seems to me to be far more appropriate as a definition of adaptation (which I would link to microevolution and epigenetics). I have at least a dozen reference books ... general dictionaries, specialist dictionaries and encyclopedias, many of them published within the last ten years ... not one of which offers anything but the standard definition I quoted on July 12 at 22.37. An Oxford Science Encyclopedia (2003) for schools describes it in the same way, the consultant editor being one Richard Dawkins. May I therefore ask you the following questions:-1) What name do your "professional scientists" give to the process by which those plants and animals best suited to a particular environment are most likely to survive and breed? -2) Do please give me a reference that authenticates your claim that "professional scientists" no longer use the Darwinian definition.-3) What does the word "selection" have to do with your definition?-I shall now condense and revise the reply I drafted last night concerning the Barry Hall experiment, since most of the disagreements are explained by your definition. You described this experiment as "a perfect example of a bacteria gaining a completely novel protein by entirely random mutation", and as "an example of creation of a new function by random mutation and natural selection only." If an organism responds to environmental pressure in its genotype, how can the new protein be attributed to "random" mutation? In other words, how does random change constitute a response? Also you emphasize that the beta-lactamase function was NOT integral to the species, and "several generations continued with the bacteria moving along just fine." In that case, what was the environmental pressure to which the bacterium responded? Either this was a random mutation or it was a response to the environment, but you seem to be trying to have it both ways, which makes no sense to me. -You have argued in any case that you see "no reason at all to assert that Natural Selection isn't enough." Even if we were to accept your definition, it is clear that NS is far from enough. It does not explain innovations such as sex, flight, sight (i.e. totally new organs, which I would associate with macro-evolution), it excludes random mutations (according to my interpretation of "random"), and as it is worded, it doesn't even indicate any kind of change, let alone the all-important factor of survival, without which the organism's response will be of very little use!
 
Please don't get the wrong idea here. I'm telling you what I don't understand, and why. A clear explanation may prevent a lot of future misunderstandings.

Matt: We also have unfinished business; please look at the following entry of mine from several days ago;-> > First,
> > 
> > This isn't the definition I use (or have used) for natural selection. The definition I use is the one I was taught and used in the laboratory; "Natural Selection is the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure, and responds to that pressure in its genotype."
> > 
> > An extension: "Evolution is the frequency of change to Alleles from generation to generation." (Allele is the $10 word for "gene.")
> > 
> > dhw, David, (and now you) take issue with me on this, but I will stick to the definitions and processes that are used by professional scientists.
> 
> Matt: You will have to accept new definitions. I haven't read the book as yet but I have plucked out some quotes re NS from James Shapiro's book:
> 
> "The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact."..."Genome sequencing has confirmed major roles played by'natural genetic engineering' in the course of evolutionary change."...Natural genetic engineering represents the ability of living cells to manipulate and restructure the DNA molecules that make up their genomes." (pg1-2)
> 
> 
> pg 144: "The role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove to be non-fuctional and interfere with adaptive needs. SELECTION ACTS AS A PURIFYING BUT NOT A CREATIVE FORCE." (my CAPS)
> 
> NS is active only at the very end of the whole process. I was never taught your definintion when I was back in college biology. It was always accepted as a process that passively accepted what was presented to it and then competition among species decided the outcome of who survived. That competition was the only active part of selection.

Matt, there is unfinished business 'twixt thee and me. Just before you went on holiday, you gave us your definition of Natural Selection. I replied on 28 July at 15.51(under "Science vs Religion") but would prefer it if we started a new thread. I'm therefore reproducing my reply here. 
> 
> MATT: The definition I use is the one I was taught and used in the laboratory; "Natural Selection is the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure, and responds to that pressure in its genotype."
> 
> This is a truly shocking revelation, partly because many of the disagreements we've been having are due to the fact that your "understanding of Natural Selection has thus far been drastically different from everyone on this forum." Too right it has. The above seems to me to be far more appropriate as a definition of adaptation (which I would link to microevolution and epigenetics). I have at least a dozen reference books ... general dictionaries, specialist dictionaries and encyclopedias, many of them published within the last ten years ... not one of which offers anything but the standard definition I quoted on July 12 at 22.37. An Oxford Science Encyclopedia (2003) for schools describes it in the same way, the consultant editor being one Richard Dawkins. May I therefore ask you the following questions:
> 
> 1) What name do your "professional scientists" give to the process by which those plants and animals best suited to a particular environment are most likely to survive and breed? 
> -That falls under Natural Selection; but again, I learned it as an entire process, not the one-off 'filter' that I have struggled with both you and David upon. Either I was taught the wrong thing or I wasn't, but many of my views are echoed by Massimo Pigliucci, and if I have to, at this point I will ship the book to you at my own cost.-> 2) Do please give me a reference that authenticates your claim that "professional scientists" no longer use the Darwinian definition.
> -Here we pause, because after an hour I realize I will need to reread Pigliucci's book to find the exact page and quote... bookmark the thread...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

In my post of 01 August at 19.33 I challenged Matt's definition of Natural Selection as "the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure, and responds to that pressure in its genotype", and I also challenged his interpretation of the Barry Hall experiment.
 
Dhw: 1) What name do your "professional scientists" give to the process by which those plants and animals best suited to a particular environment are most likely to survive and breed? -MATT: That falls under Natural Selection; but again, I learned it as an entire process, not the one-off 'filter' that I have struggled with both you and David upon. Either I was taught the wrong thing or I wasn't, but many of my views are echoed by Massimo Pigliucci, and if I have to, at this point I will ship the book to you at my own cost.-That is kind of you, but I'm sure I can get it here, and in any case it might be months before I can read it. Besides, I've always felt that you were an independent thinker, and it seems to me that you should be able to justify your arguments without asking me to read a whole book. I would suggest to you that what you call the "entire process" is actually evolution, which (if I may be so bold as to summarize it) comprises the theory that all living organisms are descended from earlier organisms, and have reached their present forms by way of adaptations and innovations; those organisms best suited to particular environments are the ones that have survived. The latter phase is called Natural Selection. (I'm open to correction, of course.)-Dhw: 2) Do please give me a reference that authenticates your claim that "professional scientists" no longer use the Darwinian definition.-MATT: Here we pause, because after an hour I realize I will need to reread Pigliucci's book to find the exact page and quote... bookmark the thread...-No, please don't bother. Life is too short! I'm afraid I'd have great difficulty anyway taking Pigliucci's/your word for it that "professional scientists" have rejected the Darwinian definition of NS in favour of his/yours, when my own references suggest this is not so. Please just go ahead with the rest of my questions and my critique of your interpretation of the beta-lactanase experiment. I'm sorry to have made you waste an hour.

Thought this might interest your readers:-http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/genome-structure/-Genome structure more important than genetic mutations.-This has surely moved on from "Darwinism" or even "Dawkinsism".-Genetic science has moved on a long way since 1859, 
when it scarcely existed.

--
GPJ

Thought this might interest your readers:
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/genome-structure/
> 
> Genome structure more important than genetic mutations.-
This comment is the same point made in the book "Not A Chimp". DNA in both species is about 98% the same if all the parts are simply totalled up. But if studied structurally about 82% the same. -Thank you for a good article, George.

While the article is interesting and news to me, I don't see why it should alter the way we define natural selection. Natural selection as I understand it is merely a way to describe the way an organism or its mutation acquires domain over an environment by virtue of being better suited to exploit it. ("Domain over" grates a little but the gist squares with what I mean.) I've always assumed that genetic mutation -whether of the parts or their connections- is random. So organisms to don't craft adaptions in their genomes, they just vary a bit and the best version may gain a reproductive advantage.

While the article is interesting and news to me, I don't see why it should alter the way we define natural selection. Natural selection as I understand it is merely a way to describe the way an organism or its mutation acquires domain over an environment by virtue of being better suited to exploit it. ("Domain over" grates a little but the gist squares with what I mean.) I've always assumed that genetic mutation -whether of the parts or their connections- is random. So organisms to don't craft adaptions in their genomes, they just vary a bit and the best version may gain a reproductive advantage.-Your assumptions are not currently correct. The past ten years have opened up an enormous amount of information on how organisms under environmental pressures alter their own genetics, a field called epigenetics. But your view of natural selection is correct in that the best suited organisms survive.

dhw,-I guess I misinterpreted your desire... if you don&apos;t care to have direct quotes...-When Darwin wrote his book, he had no access even to the contemporary work done by Gregory Mendel, which demonstrated the actual mechanism of change-->genetics. Genetics became molecular biology, in which the central dogma is DNA-->RNA-->protein. -When we got knowledge that change was propagated down through the DNA, natural selection was expanded by the addition of DNA. When we gained knowledge that cells can modify their own DNA, this added into the model as well. -The short version is that modern biology as I experienced it, doesn&apos;t accept that organisms simply undergo a process of passively waiting for mutations as I understood the original Darwin theory. To the extent that a creature is evolve-able it engages actively with its environment. Natural selection cannot happen without a selection event; Natural selection decides which organisms live, and ultimately THAT decision is what provides fodder for future rounds of evolution. So... Natural Selection isn&apos;t JUST what gets left behind, you NEED to look at the entire process, and I think that&apos;s why I was taught Natural Selection as the ENTIRE process, and not the pared-down version I see you and David using. -The version of evolution that I see David attacking in his book is Darwin unchanged; NOT the version I learned in school which combined several different mechanisms for genetic change. -As for Beta-Lactamase:-&quot;In other words, how does random change constitute a response?&quot;-In the case of Hall&apos;s experiment, it wasn&apos;t a response. The change that resulted in gaining a function of beta lactamase came about by frame-shifts over generations. The key point from Miller is precisely that raw natural selection could result in something novel--something both yourself and David have previously rejected. The fact that it happened at LEAST once... means that the statement that nothing new can be created by classic Darwinian selection is false.-&quot;In that case, what was the environmental pressure to which the bacterium responded? Either this was a random mutation or it was a response to the environment, but you seem to be trying to have it both ways, which makes no sense to me.&quot;-The pressure didn&apos;t occur until some of the bacteria first gained the ability to process Lactose again: suddenly able to process lactose, their population exploded while those that could not process lactose remained about the same. In this case there was no extinction because the population that couldn&apos;t process lactose wasn&apos;t in competition with the population that could. But in accordance with the accepted scientific definition of evolution, &quot;A change in the frequency of Alleles from generation to generation,&quot; we just witnessed an evolution event. If you don&apos;t accept that definition, I can at least tell you that it exists in two textbooks I remember from undergrad, as well as in professional writings from Pigliucci and Miller. ->You have argued in any case that you see &quot;no reason at all to assert that Natural Selection isn&apos;t enough.&quot; Even if we were to accept your definition, it is clear that NS is far from enough. It does not explain innovations such as sex, flight, sight (i.e. totally new organs, which I would associate with macro-evolution), it excludes random mutations (according to my interpretation of &quot;random&quot;), and as it is worded, it doesn&apos;t even indicate any kind of change, let alone the all-important factor of survival, without which the organism&apos;s response will be of very little use!<-I don&apos;t see where NS as I understand it excludes random phenomenon at all...-Here&apos;s the issue; Evolution by NS explains by my estimation about 70% of biological phenomenon. At present there is not an existing theory that matches it; and if we&apos;re to operate under methodological materialism, THERE IS NO OTHER THEORY. (right now) Methodological materialism is essentially the idea that scientists don&apos;t invoke the supernatural in their theories, relying upon a general assumption that AT BEST we can&apos;t tell the difference between the natural and supernatural. The best theory at present doesn&apos;t have to explain everything, it has to explain more than any other theory. I&apos;m ignorant of current views of how organs evolved, so I can&apos;t really defend anything there. -But I accept (again) the theory as it sits right now, and I await for the story to expand&#226;&#128;&#148;or maybe even replaced&#226;&#128;&#148;I&apos;m not particularly attached to NS beyond the aforementioned &quot;better than the alternatives.&quot;

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Thought this might interest your readers:&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/genome-structure/&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Genome structure more important than genetic mutations.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> This has surely moved on from &quot;Darwinism&quot; or even &quot;Dawkinsism&quot;.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Genetic science has moved on a long way since 1859, &#13;&#10;> when it scarcely existed.-George, -Yes, this is precisely one of the points I&apos;m driving at!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

&#13;&#10;> Matt:The version of evolution that I see David attacking in his book is Darwin unchanged; NOT the version I learned in school which combined several different mechanisms for genetic change. -What I see is an age difference problem. I stated re-reading about Darwin in 1998 when encouraged to do so by my first editor, from the now defunct Huntington House Publishers. The key epigenetic discovery I could find was the N.Y. Times article on Reznick and his guppies, and then I looked at his articles. That is when I realized that old-style Darwin was going by the wayside with these new discoveries. A great deal of epigenetics has appeared now, and changed my thinking even further, which is why I have this book revision idea in my head, but not on paper. I&apos;ve kept on reading, Shapiro coming next, even I can ever get though the Jesuit philosopher and his re-proving First Cause.-We both know scientific advance changes everything as it goes along. That is why our differences. I learned about Dawrin in the 1940&apos;s.I still view NS as an end process which is active as competition between living organisms for survival, plant or animal. We now know there are both passive and active processes leading to the starting gate of the race for survival. I don&apos;t see how NS has any difference from that analogy.

&#13;&#10;> > Matt:The version of evolution that I see David attacking in his book is Darwin unchanged; NOT the version I learned in school which combined several different mechanisms for genetic change. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> What I see is an age difference problem. I stated re-reading about Darwin in 1998 when encouraged to do so by my first editor, from the now defunct Huntington House Publishers. The key epigenetic discovery I could find was the N.Y. Times article on Reznick and his guppies, and then I looked at his articles. That is when I realized that old-style Darwin was going by the wayside with these new discoveries. A great deal of epigenetics has appeared now, and changed my thinking even further, which is why I have this book revision idea in my head, but not on paper. I&apos;ve kept on reading, Shapiro coming next, even I can ever get though the Jesuit philosopher and his re-proving First Cause.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> We both know scientific advance changes everything as it goes along. That is why our differences. I learned about Dawrin in the 1940&apos;s.I still view NS as an end process which is active as competition between living organisms for survival, plant or animal. We now know there are both passive and active processes leading to the starting gate of the race for survival. I don&apos;t see how NS has any difference from that analogy.-Pretty much took the words out of my mouth; I just didn&apos;t want to be the first one to bring up age. (not negatively, mind!) I entered college when many findings were already accepted and things were assimilated into a &quot;newer&quot; theory of evolution. I think this might be a difference for dhw and myself as well... we&apos;ll see...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth; I just didn&apos;t want to be the first one to bring up age. (not negatively, mind!) I entered college when many findings were already accepted and things were assimilated into a &quot;newer&quot; theory of evolution. I think this might be a difference for dhw and myself as well... we&apos;ll see...-My brain is shrinking, his is also (at age 71-72):>))

PART ONE&#13;&#10;Matt, I have split this post into two, but please read both before considering a response, as they are interlinked. I would greatly welcome comments from others on this subject, as evolution is such a key topic for all of us.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;Matt&apos;s definition of NS is: &quot;the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype&quot;. He has been taught that NS is &quot;the ENTIRE process&quot;, which I take to mean the entire process of evolution. I object to any attempt that makes NS and evolution synonymous, as this is a device used by some atheist scientists to ridicule sceptics. NS is scientifically proven, whereas many other aspects of evolution are not. For instance, I pointed out that your definition does not cover &quot;innovations such as sex, flight, sight (i.e. totally new organs, which I would associate with macro-evolution)&quot;, and you have ignored this in your response. (N.B. I believe evolution happened, and acknowledge that we cannot make clear distinctions between adaptations and innovations, but the complex mechanisms that lead to NS are the area of contention. That is why they need to be given their own terminology.) My contention, then, is that NS is only part of the process ... namely that which follows adaptations and innovations, and ensures that they survive. Your definition only covers adaptation and doesn&apos;t even mention survival. If anything, it corresponds to a definition of epigenetics that I found on Google (I&apos;m afraid I lost the reference):-&quot;an epigenetic trait is a stably inherited phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence.&quot; Shilatifard and colleagues have also proposed three categories of signals that operate in the establishment of a stably heritable epigenetic state. The first is a signal from the environment, the second is a responding signal in the cell that specifies the affected chromosomal location, and the third is a sustaining signal that perpetuates the chromatin change in subsequent generations.&quot;-Are you, then, arguing that evolution IS epigenetics IS Natural Selection?&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;MATT: dhw, I guess I misinterpreted your desire... if you don&apos;t care to have direct quotes...-You had wasted an hour looking in vain for quotes to prove that &quot;professional scientists&quot; no longer used the Darwinian definition of NS. Do by all means keep searching if you wish. Meanwhile, here are two of several similar definitions of NS googled at random:-Wikipedia: the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. &#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;biologyon line: A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations. - N.B. In all the current definitions I found, and in all my many reference books, the organisms already have/possess the beneficial traits. -I agree with almost everything in the remainder of this section of your post, except where you continue to make NS synonymous with evolution, and so I will comment only where necessary.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;MATT: So... Natural Selection isn&apos;t JUST what gets left behind, you NEED to look at the entire process, and I think that&apos;s why I was taught Natural Selection as the ENTIRE process, and not the pared-down version I see you and David using.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;NS is an ongoing process: whatever is selected will also be subject to changing environments etc., and so every adaptation and innovation (stage one) will be followed by NS (stage 2) ad infinitum. But adaptation is adaptation and NS is NS, and although they are interdependent, they are not the same thing. The entire process is evolution. See Part Two.

PART TWO-As for Beta-LactamaseHW: In other words, how does random change constitute a response?-MATT: In the case of Hall&apos;s experiment, it wasn&apos;t a response. The change that resulted in gaining a function of beta lactamase came about by frame-shifts over generations. The key point from Miller is precisely that raw natural selection could result in something novel--something both yourself and David have previously rejected. The fact that it happened at LEAST once... means that the statement that nothing new can be created by classic Darwinian selection is false.-I can&apos;t follow your logic. You said the experiment was an example of random mutation and natural selection (the latter, according to you, being a response). If it was not a response, it was not an example of your definition of NS. If anything, it is an example of organisms &quot;passively waiting for mutations&quot;, and the mutation is what provides the novelty (classic Darwin).&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;MATT: The [environmental] pressure didn&apos;t occur until some of the bacteria first gained the ability to process Lactose again: suddenly able to process lactose, their population exploded while those that could not process lactose remained about the same. [...] in accordance with the accepted scientific definition of evolution, &quot;A change in the frequency of Alleles from generation to generation,&quot; we just witnessed an evolution event.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;Yes, yes, yes, an evolution event, but environmental pressure did not cause the initial response! The genotype had changed before the explosion, i.e. the mutation proved to be beneficial, and when it did, NS ensured that the change survived and flourished. Classic Darwinian evolution.-MATT: If you don&apos;t accept that definition, I can at least tell you that it exists in two textbooks I remember from undergrad, as well as in professional writings from Pigliucci and Miller.-I have not commented on this definition of evolution. Our dispute is over your definition of NS. -MATT: I don&apos;t see where NS as I understand it excludes random phenomenon at all...-Your definition specifies only a response to environmental pressure. I repeat: how can a random mutation be a response?-MATT: Here&apos;s the issue; Evolution by NS explains by my estimation about 70% of biological phenomenon. At present there is not an existing theory that matches it etc. etc. -There is absolutely no disagreement between us here, and never has been, except when you substitute NS for evolution. So let me finish with a sensational suggestion, for we are all independent thinkers, are we not? Here is a compromise that will end forever this sequence of misunderstandings between us: let us call it The Theory of Evolution by Adaptation, Innovation and Natural Selection.-***********-A note for newcomers to this forum, concerning references to age and shrinking brains: David, Matt and I have been arguing furiously for several years now, and although unfortunately we have never met, we are the best of friends!-David is older than me, and shrinkage is certain to be more advanced. However, it is only fair to point out that the effects of shrinkage in relation to the brain capacity of others will be proportionate to the brain capacity with which one started.

PART ONE&#13;&#10;> Matt, I have split this post into two, but please read both before considering a response, as they are interlinked. I would greatly welcome comments from others on this subject, as evolution is such a key topic for all of us.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Matt&apos;s definition of NS is: &quot;the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype&quot;. He has been taught that NS is &quot;the ENTIRE process&quot;, which I take to mean the entire process of evolution. ...&#13;&#10;> -I can see why you&apos;re having some issues with me here. Evolution by natural selection could be naively described in an equation that I hope won&apos;t drive you batty: &#13;&#10;Natural Selection = ((random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure) -Natural Selection is the combined act of random mutations and epigentics, acted upon by pressure of selection. Selection can&apos;t happen without pressure.-But this is an iterative process... and my understanding of iterations is driven by a concept in mathematics called recursion: the results of the current step rely upon the results of ALL the prior steps. I can&apos;t do subscripting here, so take (something)1 to mean &quot;generation&quot; and not something * 1.-The term f(something) means that we&apos;re talking about a function whose right hand side (RHS) is the function&apos;s description.-[So the old f(x) = x^2 means &quot;square anything you put in x.&quot;-I think we can agree that evolution is a function of generations, yes? Please note here, in the following description that it is possible to have multiple selection events each generation... I&apos;m just trying to keep this simple.]-generation = g.-[evolution](g) = (Natural Selection)Total -Where-(Natural Selection)Total = &#13;&#10;(total selection events)g1 [1st individual]&#13;&#10;(total selection events)g2 + (total selection events)g1 [2nd individual]&#13;&#10;(total selection events)g3 + (total selection events)g2 + (total selection events)g1 [3rd individual]&#13;&#10;... ad infinitum-This is the most intuitive stage. An organism is a function of ALL selection events in its history, known and unknown. -...&#13;&#10;continued:-selection event = (random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure-So if we take any number &quot;n&quot; and evaluate the function evolution(n)-((random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure)1 + &#13;&#10;((random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure)2 +&#13;&#10;((random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure)3 +&#13;&#10;...&#13;&#10;((random mutations + epigenetics ) * selection pressure)n-Where &quot;n&quot; is the original number of events you&apos;re studying. -Any given organism is defined as a collection of selection events: selection pressure can be food, predation, disease, behavior, etc. So when I talked about evolution with my professors, we talked about the state of a member in a particular lineage, and the collected changes that caused the organism to be in its current state. And this could get really hairy, as &quot;selection pressure&quot; could be caused BY a random mutation. But I only tell you that to give you an idea of how fast this can get really hairy, if you&apos;re not already losing any... -You ask if I equate evolution with Natural Selection. I took a number of days to meditate on that question. (see above) My only response, from what I&apos;ve learned, combined with what I formulated above, I do not see how you can separate them. You made me think very hard about how these different forces operate, and I have formulated... as concisely as possible how the process of evolution works from the perspective of working scientists. -We may have to just part on disagreement if this doesn&apos;t work... I&apos;m at a loss to describe this in any other way... Evolution is a function of natural selection. -...&#13;&#10;> Are you, then, arguing that evolution IS epigenetics IS Natural Selection?-See above... should be clear as mud... (or not, I hope...)-Our key disagreement here is in the different uses of Natural Selection by scientists vs. laypeople.-[EDITED] Some minor edits to give more (I hope) clarity...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Natural Selection is the combined act of random mutations and epigentics, acted upon by pressure of selection. Selection can&apos;t happen without pressure.-I use the word competition with the environmentqal pressure or rival species pressure.&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> I think we can agree that evolution is a function of generations, yes? -Yes&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> This is the most intuitive stage. An organism is a function of ALL selection events in its history, known and unknown. -Agreed using your terms. -> We may have to just part on disagreement if this doesn&apos;t work... I&apos;m at a loss to describe this in any other way... Evolution is a function of natural selection. -Evolution is the result of natural selection, a process which choses among candidates presented by passive processes and epigenetics (I&apos;m reading Shapiro)-> Our key disagreement here is in the different uses of Natural Selection by scientists vs. laypeople.-Not the way Shapiro looks at it.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> [EDITED] Some minor edits to give more (I hope) clarity...)-Your math example, sorry.....Yipe!!!

MATT (Under &quot;Science and Religion&quot;, 9 August at 15.58): I will return to the tangled mess I seem to have made regarding Natural Selection. Whether or not I can cleanly cleave those threads is beyond me, the damage may be too great here!-&quot;Tangled mess&quot; is an excellent description. I&apos;m touched by the trouble you have now taken to reduce your ideas to mathematical formulae, and I fear it will seem very ungrateful of me when I express my total agreement with your description of your efforts: &quot;clear as mud&quot;. I&apos;m sorry, but if you cannot use layman&apos;s language to counter arguments put to you in layman&apos;s language (even Dawkins is able to do this, and he is no amateur scientist), I can&apos;t help feeling there is something wrong with your arguments. This is going to sound horribly schoolmasterly, and I apologize in advance, but I&apos;m now going to put some direct questions to you as I think this is the only way I can pin you down. -1) You have defined Natural Selection as &quot;the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype.&quot; How does this definition differ from the description of epigenetics I gave you in my last post? -2) Do you agree that innovations and adaptations must take place BEFORE Nature decides whether they will survive or not? -3) A repeat question: Are you saying that Natural Selection IS epigenetics (IS random mutations) IS Evolution? I.e is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.&#13;&#10;You say you took a number of days to meditate on this question, but you appear to have spent all that time looking for a cop-out:&#13;&#10; &quot;I do not see how you can separate them.&quot;&#13;&#10;The process of evolution entails adaptations and innovations and natural selection. Of course they are interdependent, and so can&apos;t be separated. But they are not the same thing. What I consider to be me consists of various interdependent mechanisms, but that does not mean that my brain IS my heart IS my blood IS my lungs.-4) I have quoted uniformly similar definitions of NS from a large number of sources. Please provide a reference confirming your claim that &quot;professional scientists&quot; now reject the conventional Darwinian definition and adhere to your own, as above in 1).-5) I have given you a point for point analysis of the beta-lactamase experiment which you regard as a perfect example of your definition. I have explained why I see it as a perfect example of Darwinian evolution. Please explain as briefly as possible why this is not an example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of Natural Selection.-My apologies again for setting you an examination paper, but I can see no other way of unravelling what you have so aptly called the &quot;tangled mess&quot;!

It is obvious that chance mutations can help evolution advance, be neutral, or stop evolution&apos;s advance, with or wihtout natural selection. This is an elegent study on one protein as analyzed by Michael Behe. Don&apos;t be frightened. It all makes sense to me. I use all contributions from all sources to make up my mind:-http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2011/10/new-work-by-thorntons-group-supports-time-asymmetric-dollos-law/

From his 1994 article in Sci. Am.:

The late S.J. Gould described the limits of this supposed creative process, &quot;Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress.&quot;

5. S.J. Gould, Scientific American, October 1994, p. 85.

Natural Selection
by dhw , Saturday, August 13, 2011, 07:31 @ xeno6696
MATT (Under “Science and Religion”, 9 August at 15.58): I will return to the tangled mess I seem to have made regarding Natural Selection. Whether or not I can cleanly cleave those threads is beyond me, the damage may be too great here!
“Tangled mess” is an excellent description. I’m touched by the trouble you have now taken to reduce your ideas to mathematical formulae, and I fear it will seem very ungrateful of me when I express my total agreement with your description of your efforts: “clear as mud”. I’m sorry, but if you cannot use layman’s language to counter arguments put to you in layman’s language (even Dawkins is able to do this, and he is no amateur scientist), I can’t help feeling there is something wrong with your arguments. This is going to sound horribly schoolmasterly, and I apologize in advance, but I’m now going to put some direct questions to you as I think this is the only way I can pin you down.
1) You have defined Natural Selection as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype.” How does this definition differ from the description of epigenetics I gave you in my last post?
It doesn’t really: I simply group epigenetics into the same morass. It’s another variable in the equation.
2) Do you agree that innovations and adaptations must take place BEFORE Nature decides whether they will survive or not?
That’s a little harder. We know that some genetic combinations are guaranteed to be disastrous, so I think that in some cases nature “decides” BEFORE something happens. But largely I would agree: There must be something there (OR NOT there) for a selection event to occur.

3) A repeat question: Are you saying that Natural Selection IS epigenetics (IS random mutations) IS Evolution? I.e is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.
You say you took a number of days to meditate on this question, but you appear to have spent all that time looking for a cop-out:
“I do not see how you can separate them.”
The process of evolution entails adaptations and innovations and natural selection. Of course they are interdependent, and so can’t be separated. But they are not the same thing. What I consider to be me consists of various interdependent mechanisms, but that does not mean that my brain IS my heart IS my blood IS my lungs.

Evolution in the way that I have learned it from both training and study—is a function. Like a calculator. However it’s a recursive function. In another attempt at explaining recursion to you, my parents were the inputs that resulted in a temporary output, me. Myself and my wife will be the inputs that result in another temporary output, my child. When I referred to each stage of the equation before, where we choose to stop and study—that is the “Generation” under consideration.

To me, its hard to separate natural selection in any practical sense, because as I said before—the filter is the most important part of the process. My child is the result of the filter I passed through. I am the result of the filter my parents passed through. They are the result of the filter that… [ad nauseum]

The view I take… well brace yourself. You said I was supposed to use “plain language” to try and explain something I understand much more clearly with the language of math.

Life is NOT a sequence of events. Life is an ocean.

Where does an ocean wave begin? Where does it end? We look at creatures based on snapshots of time, and ask ourselves “what happened?” But Heraclitus is right: Everything is in flux. I am not the same being I was even a moment ago.

I am the sum of all the previous events that happened before me.

As life is an ocean, so too can evolution NOT be broken down into constituent pieces. Remove Natural Selection from the equation, and you no longer have speciation—everything gets to stay. Hopefully this answers your question: There is NO evolution without natural selection. Do I equate the moving pieces as identical? No.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

4) I have quoted uniformly similar definitions of NS from a large number of sources. Please provide a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” now reject the conventional Darwinian definition and adhere to your own, as above in 1).
The conventional Darwinian view was purely one that looked at life synonymously with geological processes. Slow. Gradual. We now know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw In 3 generations, aggressive behavior started to disappear. By generation 50… we basically have small, cute, dogs.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1383570  This paper discusses a speciation event that took less than 34 years to create.
http://www.livescience.com/3224-super-predators-humans-force-rapid-evolution-animals.html  Human involvement increases lifecycle rates by 300% in some animals.
The basics are still there: No evolution happens without pressure. However, Darwin’s understanding was on a geologic timescale, and modern understanding demonstrates that speciation can occur much more rapidly.

5) I have given you a point for point analysis of the beta-lactamase experiment which you regard as a perfect example of your definition. I have explained why I see it as a perfect example of Darwinian evolution. Please explain as briefly as possible why this is not an example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of Natural Selection.

The view I presented to you is a modification of Darwinian theory in the same way that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a modification of Newton’s theory. The basic equations are still valid, but the understanding and subsequent results are not. The view I discussed that I had learned while working in a laboratory is an extension and displacement, not a complete replacement of the original Darwinian Theory.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt defined Natural Selection as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype.” He has also repeatedly claimed that NS covers the whole process of evolution. My argument is that NS is one stage of evolution, and I subscribe to the following definition: “the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.” (Wikipedia). Matt insists that this definition is no longer used by professional scientists.

On 13 August I tried to untangle the mess by asking you specific questions. I shan’t repeat these, or your answers where they confirm – sometimes grudgingly – that your own definition is the same as that for adaptation (epigenetics), and that innovations and adaptations must take place before they can be selected.

3) Is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.
You respond by giving me a lecture on recursion, stressing the importance of the filter, describing ocean waves (everything is in flux), and emphasizing that there is NO evolution without natural selection, all of which I agree with. Then at last: “Do I equate the moving pieces as identical? No.” Thank you. NS is not identical with epigenetics, adaptation, random mutations, innovations. It is one of several inseparable elements but is not synonymous with the term evolution and does not cover the entire process.

4) Please provide a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” now reject the conventional definition and adhere to your own, as above…
You have provided various links to show that Darwin’s gradualism has been discredited. What on earth has that got to do with the conventional and so-called “professional” definitions of NS as above, let alone with your insistence that NS covers the whole of evolution?

5) Please explain why [the beta-lactamase experiment] is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.
You reply that your view is a modification, an extension, a displacement, but not a complete replacement of Darwinian theory, and “the basic equations are still valid, but the understanding and subsequent results are not.” Please explain why the experiment is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.

Alternatively, why don’t you just agree that the conventional definition of NS (as above) is still valid, NS is not synonymous with the WHOLE process of evolution, and the beta-lactamase experiment illustrates the conventional definition of NS and not the one you have given us above?

dhw,

Errors in my thought will be numbered here.

The (possible) error(s) in my thinking is/are this/these:

1. The criticism that you (and possibly David) are leveling against current evolutionary thought, is that Natural Selection alone is not sufficient for change.

2. You and David accuse current thought as one that is too passive to account for the change we have witnessed.

My contention was this:
Current evolutionary thought does not think that natural selection *alone* is responsible for change.

3. David and yourself challenge that current evolutionary thought thinks the opposite to my previous sentence.

4. Darwinian thought as it originated from Charles, placed Natural Selection as the primary mechanism of why we see the species we see. (Italics here are ultra-important.)

5. With the above statement, I see no reason to refute THAT part of Charles&apos; theory, and I think you and David are opposed to THIS thought.

I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we&apos;re not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The (possible) error(s) in my thinking is/are this/these:

1. The criticism that you (and possibly David) are leveling against current evolutionary thought, is that Natural Selection alone is not sufficient for change.

NS alone is not sufficient for change. It is passive and must be preented with changes, and then NS is a major helper in the choices.

2. You and David accuse current thought as one that is too passive to account for the change we have witnessed.

Which current thought do you mean?

My contention was this:
Current evolutionary thought does not think that natural selection *alone* is responsible for change.

True

3. David and yourself challenge that current evolutionary thought thinks the opposite to my previous sentence.

False

4. Darwinian thought as it originated from Charles, placed Natural Selection as the primary mechanism of why we see the species we see. (Italics here are ultra-important.)

OK

5. With the above statement, I see no reason to refute THAT part of Charles&apos; theory, and I think you and David are opposed to THIS thought.

Theories change with time and new discoveries. CD&apos;s contentions are no longer correct. NS can never initiate change, only pass judgement on what is presented to it.

I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we&apos;re not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

MATT: I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we&apos;re not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

David has answered most of your numbered points, so I’ll summarize what I see as your fundamental problems. The main one is that you’ve obviously been under such pressure lately that you’ve forgotten what we were actually discussing! I asked you five specific questions on 13 August, and on 14 November you gave direct, very grudging answers to only two of them. The bones of contention between us were your insistence 1) that your definition of NS as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype” had superseded the conventional one, which for brevity’s sake I will simplify to “NS is the process by which those forms of life best suited to the environment will survive”; 2) that NS and evolution were synonymous.

You agreed that your definition applies to adaptation, and that adaptations and innovations must take place before they can be selected. You did not give me the straight answer I asked for to the question whether NS was SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution, you did not give me a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” reject the conventional definition in favour of your own, and you did not explain why the beta-lactamase experiment is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing as per the Darwinian definition of NS.

As regards current evolutionary theory, both David and I have consistently argued that NS is NOT responsible for adaptations and mutations. Only you have pursued that argument, by insisting that NS and evolution are synonymous. This is a device often used by atheist evolutionists to ridicule their opponents, because it’s against common sense and observed experience to reject NS, whereas evolutionary theory as a whole contains a great deal of disputed speculation. Your fourth point is a similar sort of equivocation. You say that NS is “the primary mechanism of WHY WE SEE THE SPECIES WE SEE.” Yes, because Nature selects those species best suited to survive, and gets rid of those that are unsuited. We see what we see, and we don’t see what we don’t see. But no, because NS does not explain the mechanisms that cause adaptation and innovation. NS is therefore not the primary mechanism for the physical changes without which we would not see the species we see.

As far my own view of evolution is concerned, I firmly believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent and in the process of Natural Selection as I have defined it. Current areas of dispute, as I see them, include his insistence on gradualism (I would opt for Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), and the mechanisms that lead to change, with the possibility that epigenetics may play a far greater role than random mutations.

******
Sadly, Matt, I think Abel has given up on us, so I doubt if you’ll get a reply from him on the ID thread.

As far my own view of evolution is concerned, I firmly believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent and in the process of Natural Selection as I have defined it. Current areas of dispute, as I see them, include his insistence on gradualism (I would opt for Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), and the mechanisms that lead to change, with the possibility that epigenetics may play a far greater role than random mutations.

Right on!!!

Sadly, Matt, I think Abel has given up on us, so I doubt if you’ll get a reply from him on the ID thread.

He might reappear. We have given him full disclosure time, and I was willing to study his slides.

MATT: I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we&apos;re not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

David has answered most of your numbered points, so I’ll summarize what I see as your fundamental problems. The main one is that you’ve obviously been under such pressure lately that you’ve forgotten what we were actually discussing! I asked you five specific questions on 13 August, and on 14 November you gave direct, very grudging answers to only two of them. The bones of contention between us were your insistence 1) that your definition of NS as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype” had superseded the conventional one, which for brevity’s sake I will simplify to “NS is the process by which those forms of life best suited to the environment will survive”; 2) that NS and evolution were synonymous.

I don&apos;t see a material difference between my definition of evolution or the one you provide here in 1. 2 is harder for me to tackle, because again, if you remove it from the equation of evolution, you no longer have evolution. It is irreducible. Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism. I have attempted (and failed) to explain why I hold this view, both through a mathematical argument as well as an attempt to explain the mathematical argument in plain english. Is it synonymous? Not syntactically, but Natural Selection is such an important part of the process that I cannot remove it. Does this clear the mud for you?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism.

I don&apos;t understand the problem here. NS is not synonymous as a title, for a portion of a process, with the word for the total process, evolution. NS is just a portion of the process. NS is not syonymous with the word evolution.
I don&apos;t need to repeat the definition of &apos;synonym&apos; here.

Dhw: The bones of contention between us were your insistence 1) that your definition of NS as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype” had superseded the conventional one, which for brevity’s sake I will simplify to “NS is the process by which those forms of life best suited to the environment will survive”; 2) that NS and evolution are synonymous.

MATT: I don&apos;t see a material difference between my definition of evolution or the one you provide here in 1. 2 is harder for me to tackle, because again, if you remove it from the equation of evolution, you no longer have evolution. It is irreducible. Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism. I have attempted (and failed) to explain why I hold this view, both through a mathematical argument as well as an attempt to explain the mathematical argument in plain english. Is it synonymous? Not syntactically, but Natural Selection is such an important part of the process that I cannot remove it. Does this clear the mud for you?

1) Then you can’t see a material difference between adaptation and natural selection. If an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds in its genotype, it adapts. Some organisms don’t respond, i.e. they don’t adapt. Natural selection is the process whereby those organisms that do not adapt will die out, and those organisms that adapt best will survive and flourish. Nature will only select when the adaptations have (or haven’t) taken place. The two processes are inseparable, just as cause and effect are inseparable (i.e. you can’t have one without the other), but you don’t say that cause is synonymous with effect (i.e. “cause” does not mean the same as “effect”). Your definition of natural selection stops before it reaches natural selection.

2) Nobody has ever at any time at any point in any way even indirectly, implicitly or remotely suggested that NS should be removed from evolution! My objection is to the ruse of synonymising the two terms, as is sometimes used to divert attention from the gaps in the overall theory. NS is the stage of evolution that follows on from reproduction, adaptation, innovation. All of these are integral phases of the one process we call “evolution”, but “reproduction”, “adaptation”, “innovation”, &quot;natural selection&quot; and “evolution” do not mean the same thing (i.e. they are not synonymous). Does that clear the methodological materialist mathematical mud for you?

2) Nobody has ever at any time at any point in any way even indirectly, implicitly or remotely suggested that NS should be removed from evolution! My objection is to the ruse of synonymising the two terms, as is sometimes used to divert attention from the gaps in the overall theory. NS is the stage of evolution that follows on from reproduction, adaptation, innovation. All of these are integral phases of the one process we call “evolution”, but “reproduction”, “adaptation”, “innovation”, “evolution” do not mean the same thing (i.e. they are not synonymous). Does that clear the methodological materialist mathematical mud for you?

Bravo. You did a better job of taming Matt than I did.

dhw: 2) Nobody has ever at any time at any point in any way even indirectly, implicitly or remotely suggested that NS should be removed from evolution! My objection is to the ruse of synonymising the two terms, as is sometimes used to divert attention from the gaps in the overall theory. NS is the stage of evolution that follows on from reproduction, adaptation, innovation. All of these are integral phases of the one process we call “evolution”, but “reproduction”, “adaptation”, “innovation”, &quot;natural selection&quot; and “evolution” do not mean the same thing (i.e. they are not synonymous). Does that clear the methodological materialist mathematical mud for you?

DAVID: Bravo. You did a better job of taming Matt than I did.

Thank you, David. Only on reading this do I realize that I got so carried away by Matt&apos;s muddy mess of muddled m&apos;s that I left out the main item in my own list of non-synonyms! Thanks to the mysterious and magical powers invested in me by the almighty Neil, I can step back in time and put in the missing words.

I don&apos;t want to tame Matt. His unpredictability keeps us all on our toes. In this particular case, I just want him to acknowledge what you and I regard as obvious.

dhw,

I think I&apos;m finally fully on board with you here, but I just want it to be acknowledged that I don&apos;t view evolution as a linear process.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

dhw,

I think I&apos;m finally fully on board with you here, but I just want it to be acknowledged that I don&apos;t view evolution as a linear process.

Hurray!

And hurray from me too! Let&apos;s move on.

Essence Of Evolution, Natural Selection
[link=http://] http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/[/link]

Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:

Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.

This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

Essence Of Evolution, Natural Selection
[link=http://] http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/[/link]

Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:

Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.

This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

The above website from October is available in the achives of the site. Interesting counter-view to world science.

DOV HENIS: Essence Of Evolution, Natural Selection
[link=http://] http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/[/link]
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

DAVID: The above website from October is available in the achives of the site. Interesting counter-view to world science.

Welcome to the website, Dov. As a scientist, David is better able to follow this than I am, but we&apos;ve just had a very long discussion on the dangers of synonymising evolution and natural selection, as you appear to do in your first sentence. If I’ve understood the rest correctly, it boils down to the fact that living creatures need to eat (gain energy) in order to survive until they die, at which time their energy returns to the sum total of the universe’s energy. Would that be a fair summary? If so, I can’t see what natural selection has to do with it, since the energy of those creatures that are not selected will simply return to the sum total before those that are selected. They/We all end up the same way anyway!

I’m intrigued by your “comments from the 22nd century”. Perhaps you could explain this to us? Once again, welcome to the forum.

Not with Darwin: - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-debunk-the-debunkers/ - &quot;Sutton&apos;s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea &#151; consciously or not &#151; from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. - *** - &quot;Some context: The Patrick Matthew story isn&apos;t new. Matthew produced a volume in the early 1830s, &#147;On Naval Timber and Arboriculture,&#148; that indeed contained an outline of the famous theory in a slim appendix. In a contemporary review, the noted naturalist John Loudon seemed ill-prepared to accept the forward-thinking theory. He called it a &#147;puzzling&#148; account of the &#147;origin of species and varieties&#148; that may or may not be original. In 1860, several months after publication of &#147;On the Origin of Species,&#148; Matthew would surface to complain that Darwin &#151; now quite famous for what was described as a discovery born of &#147;20 years&apos; investigation and reflection&#148; &#151; had stolen his ideas. - &quot;Darwin, in reply, conceded that &#147;Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection.&#148; But then he added, &#147;I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew&apos;s views.&#148; - &quot;That statement, suggesting that Matthew&apos;s theory was ignored &#151; and hinting that its importance may not even have been quite understood by Matthew himself &#151; has gone unchallenged, Sutton says. - *** - &quot;After all his months of research, Sutton says he found clear evidence that Matthew&apos;s work did not go unread. No fewer than seven naturalists cited the book, including three in what Sutton calls Darwin&apos;s &#147;inner circle.&#148; He also claims to have discovered particular turns of phrase &#151; &#147;Matthewisms&#148; &#151; that recur suspiciously in Darwin&apos;s writing. - &quot;In light of these discoveries, Sutton considers the case all but closed. He&apos;s challenged Darwin scholars to debates, picked fights with famous skeptics such as Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, and even written letters to the Royal Society, demanding that Matthew be given priority over Darwin.&quot; - Comment: Interesting history, nothing more.