Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 21:31 (4663 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

...gle mRSA.) It explains how, at least one bacteria was able to eventually eat lactose again after having that part knocked out of its genome. It explains why software projects work better using agile vs. waterfall.
> 
> Natural Selection
> 
> 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.
> -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. I think its more important to use the definitions of working scientists in the process of doing their job than to stick with the ones we have been attacking for a number of years. (Not directed at any one person.)-My understanding of Natural Selection has thus far been drastically different from everyone on this forum.-...
> Here is why I say NS has no explanatory power. NS does not say WHICH genotypic characteristics will survive, as you can see clearly by the pure definition. Only 'those that make them better adjusted to the environment', which makes it scope so broad, so malleable that it can and IS used to call anything and everything natural selection. 
>
> Natural Selection explains why we're here and not Neanderthals.
> No. All evidence indicates that the Neanderthals and modern humans merged. Additionally, the evidence also indicates that Neanderthals were MUCH better suited for the environment than humans. If that were not enough,NS has yet to come up with any real explanation as to why we are here instead of Neanderthals. What it does is say that we are here, and they are not, so it must be Natural Selection. 
> -Human intelligence plays a stronger role here; one thing I've discussed with David previously is that I think that Natural Selection plays less of a role as soon as intelligence begins playing a role. As there is strong evidence that we converged with Neanderthals, this was really a poor choice on my part. Conceded. -> It explains how life traveled from single-celled to what we see today.
> If NS defines, expounds, or makes how we evolved from single celled organisms plain and comprehensible, then please enlighten me. DHW and I have been going back and forth on the issue of speciation(which is not proven), and have no answer. According to you, NS explains this, so please explain it. Make it plain and comprehensible.
> -You already know the textbook story: the geological history of life starts with single cells and ends with today. There is clear progression from simple to complex. Without resorting to a deity, the only explanation you can have is that we came about by successive changes to each generation. The speed of which may have drastically increased (punctuated equilibrium) during periods. -You don't accept this explanation, but at a high level, natural selection clearly FITS this. -> 
> It explains how most people living in Northern Europe are resistant to Bubonic Plague.Not really. NS does not explain WHY they were resistant in the first place. -Yeah, actually it does. Those that were exposed to bubonic plague and survived, passed those genes to the next generation. G1 survived because they had a gene that resisted plague toxin. Those people 40 generations later inherited that resistance. You're right, it didn't explain HOW those G1 had the gene, (maybe a related bug in the past?) but it doesn't have to. It only describes WHY northern Europeans are resistant to plague. This is a very narrow explanation, and you proved my case right here.->It also does not account for those who are NOT resistant, 
Out of question scope, but they were selected against.->or did not die through the original plague, or for those that did not pass on their resistance to their children. In fact, it does not explain anything regarding heredity except that it exists. That is the province of evolutionary theory.
> -I'm not quite sure what you were driving at here, but I think I've covered your objections here.-
> 
> It explains why software projects work better using agile vs. waterfall.
> Definitely not, and a classic example of my statement that it NS is much to broad to have any explanatory power.-Actually you're 100% right here. Evolutionary processes explains Agile; and the "selection events" here are completely unnatural. (ie, man made)-So the only good example I have so far is Plague. But I think it should suffice for now.

--
\"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.\"