This One\'s for David (General)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Friday, January 22, 2010, 23:40 (5417 days ago)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/aaft-sdm011510.php-You like to point out that we borrow from nature all the time, here's one that is a textbook case.
--
\"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.\"
This One\'s for David
by David Turell , Saturday, January 23, 2010, 00:53 (5417 days ago) @ xeno6696
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/aaft-sdm011510.php > > You like to point out that we borrow from nature all the time, here's one that is a textbook case.-Thanks for the push. I'd seen the headline but hadn't pursued it. It is interesting how clever DNA can be. I still wonder where all the intelligent info behind the code came from. Here's another interesting entry: how artifical selection pushed dogs beyond what natural selection would allow:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120093525.htm
This One\'s for David
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 23, 2010, 16:42 (5416 days ago) @ David Turell
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/aaft-sdm011510.php > > > > You like to point out that we borrow from nature all the time, here's one that is a textbook case. > > Thanks for the push. I'd seen the headline but hadn't pursued it. It is interesting how clever DNA can be. I still wonder where all the intelligent info behind the code came from. Here's another interesting entry: how artifical selection pushed dogs beyond what natural selection would allow: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120093525.htm-This should be a fun discussion!-The way I see it, natural selection would only allow changes if there was some need to change, ie, change in food, climate, etc. -Humans in domestic dogs provide the change in that we're actively selecting for some kind of trait. What the story confirms to me, is that wolves are extremely well adapted; they don't need to change, so they don't. Domesticated dogs have an artificial need to change. -Or said another way, you might say that natural selection is too passive, but it is a fitting explanation to why the possible variation displayed by dogs didn't happen in wolves.
--
\"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.\"
This One\'s for David
by David Turell , Saturday, January 23, 2010, 19:20 (5416 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The way I see it, natural selection would only allow changes if there was some need to change, ie, change in food, climate, etc. > > Humans in domestic dogs provide the change in that we're actively selecting for some kind of trait. What the story confirms to me, is that wolves are extremely well adapted; they don't need to change, so they don't. Domesticated dogs have an artificial need to change. > > Or said another way, you might say that natural selection is too passive, but it is a fitting explanation to why the possible variation displayed by dogs didn't happen in wolves.-You are the one who said it. I firmly believe it. Any evolutionary process based totally on natural selection is entirely passive. It must work on the variety of organisms presented to it, and it must respond to envoironmental changes, only if they appear.
This One\'s for David
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 23, 2010, 20:22 (5416 days ago) @ David Turell
> > The way I see it, natural selection would only allow changes if there was some need to change, ie, change in food, climate, etc. > > > > Humans in domestic dogs provide the change in that we're actively selecting for some kind of trait. What the story confirms to me, is that wolves are extremely well adapted; they don't need to change, so they don't. Domesticated dogs have an artificial need to change. > > > > Or said another way, you might say that natural selection is too passive, but it is a fitting explanation to why the possible variation displayed by dogs didn't happen in wolves. > > You are the one who said it. I firmly believe it. Any evolutionary process based totally on natural selection is entirely passive. It must work on the variety of organisms presented to it, and it must respond to envoironmental changes, only if they appear.-But it doesn't change the its the most fitting explanation. If there was an intelligence moving wolves to some teleological evolution, then we would see that. -But we don't. -We only saw changes when we humans deliberately started selecting for some specific traits. -Your case here is really weak. If intelligence guides evolution, then we should be seeing changes occurring NOW that cannot be attributed to selection. The case of wolves and dogs shows us only that when selection for a trait is applied, does evolution do its work. -It means that wolves have a form that is extremely well-suited for what they do and where they live, and it faces no pressure to change. This is an argument that supports natural selection, not undermines it.
--
\"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.\"
This One\'s for David
by David Turell , Monday, January 25, 2010, 01:24 (5415 days ago) @ xeno6696
> But it doesn't change that its the most fitting explanation. If there was an intelligence moving wolves to some teleological evolution, then we would see that. > > But we don't. -Why would we, if wolves are not coded to change but to simply be there? We see species all over the Earth, single-celled or sexual, that may vary a little bit as nature requires, but never become another species. > > We only saw changes when we humans deliberately started selecting for some specific traits.-Absolutely true. > > Your case here is really weak. If intelligence guides evolution, then we should be seeing changes occurring NOW that cannot be attributed to selection.-How would you prove that statement? Intelligent coding may or may not require any more selection than has occurred with the extant wolf species. In other words, wolves may not change unless DNA internal coding requires it. > > It means that wolves have a form that is extremely well-suited for what they do and where they live, and it faces no pressure to change. This is an argument that supports natural selection, not undermines it.-Only if you accept evolutionary theory as you do. I think you have the whole concept backwards. You keep forgetting that natural selection is totally passive. It cannot act, as I repeat over and over, unless there is a natural challenge, and variation, that is appropriate for the challenge, exists in advance of the challenge.