Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, April 21, 2014, 13:19 (3867 days ago) @ xeno6696

David has already dealt with some of the major points raised, but I'll continue my own dialogue with Matt (and Romansh) in the hope that this will lead to greater clarity. There are two points at issue between Matt and myself, summed up by the following:
1) Matt thinks Natural Selection is "the most important part of the process" of evolution.
2) DAVID: Natural selection never creates variety.
MATT: Yes it does. [...] Simple case: Asteroid crashes into the Earth. "THAT is the impetus that then FORCES organisms into rapid adaptation.-MATT: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection.-If you give an asteroid event as a "simple case" of NS, you are quite clearly conflating the two. That is why I asked you for a definition of NS, and you have responded with "Evolution by natural selection", which is not a definition. You then explain how you think evolution proceeds, which is fine, and I agree almost totally with your concluding summary:-MATT: I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment.-Our dispute only lies in your use of "Natural Selection", which initially you conflated with changes in the environment, and which here I would replace with "evolution", a word which automatically entails change,whereas "selection" only entails choice between organisms that already exist. I agree that without a changed environment there is NO evolution. Do you agree that without adaptation and innovation there is NO evolution? Do you agree that some creatures do adapt and others don't, and those that adapt survive and those that don't adapt perish? And that innovations that are unhelpful won't survive, and innovations that are helpful will survive? The latter is the phase that rounds off the process, and is the definition of Natural Selection that I offered you: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." I can quote you a dozen reference books with similar definitions. To sum up, please see my response to Romansh belowhw: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. 
ROMANSH: For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. 
Asteroids are major step changes in the environment...-I totally agree. But inseparable does not mean synonymous. Every part of evolution is indispensable and inseparable, from environmental change to adaptation to innovation to NS. My disagreement with Matt is over his apparent definition of NS as a change in the environment, and my question is: why single out one part as being "the most important"?-A final word to Matt. This is how I see evolution proceeding: environmental change triggers organic change, and NS decides which changes will survive and which ones won't. What is your objection to this description?