Sticking a fork in Natural Selection (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 11, 2011, 00:45 (4710 days ago) @ xeno6696

But I really don't understand what's wrong about the idea of a demand-based evolutionary system--the one we have.

I do agree with you that the environment produces demands on each organism to which it must respond if those demands are serious enough.

Normal reproduction results in a great deal of non-deleterious mutations. If the environment is stable over time, I understand that these changes will accumulate--but likely not manifest, because largely, mutations that don't result in death result in:

1. Dormant abilities that don't appear to have any immediate use.

2. Completely benign changes.

The changes don't manifest themselves until "Natural Selection," ie,

3. the organism gains a pure benefit.

4. The environment shifts (either through mobility, seasons, or something else like disaster...)

From my perspective, Natural Selection IS the prime motivator of change. IF an organism isn't required to change until its under stress,

Whoa: You or we need to define terms. Natural selection is by my definition is a process that comes into play as the organism is challenged by changes in its milieu. The motivator is the changing environment. NS is the result of the competition of the organism with the changes.

I realize David and you both consider this a passive process, but it's only passive from a naive perspective... ie, the process of a new individual being created (sexually or asexually) is hardly what I would call passive. It's passive from an individual perspective--yet none of us would have a problem with the argument that after the act of intercourse, our kids came about by processes nearly completely uncontrolled from ourselves. (I don't see how the "passive" argument holds...)

This is apples and oranges. The act of reproduction is NOT any form of selection. Selection occurs AFTER reproduction produces a new organism in a hopefully new and capable form.