It seems more than a stretch to assert that the dogs or corn "have adapted through natural selection". If I as man graft a limb from one tree to another or cross breed somthing that is NOT natural selection.
Natural selection challenged?
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
It seems more than a stretch to assert that the dogs or corn "have adapted through natural selection". If I as man graft a limb from one tree to another or cross breed somthing that is NOT natural selection.
Just a thought. If entropy increases, and the information become more and more disordered, shouldn't we instead look back to find the truth, instead of constructing theories that more and more equalises everything else? Perhaps the groundbreaking theories that comes (and have come in the past) are just a example of this entropy, that we tend to want everything to equal everything else?
Otherwise we only realise what we have in front of us and not what has been.
Certainly a reasonable POV, but also reasonable is a definition of "natural" which does not exclude some part of nature. Namely does not exclude man or the changes he has made. Other organisms have also, like man, produced changes it several species. For example lions (and other carnivores) have selected for survival the faster gazelles etc. If you are going to exclude the change man has made from "natural selection" why not also exclude the changes that these carnivores have made?
Summary: Man is part of nature. You are giving him a "special status" - This reminds me of old Earth is at center of the universe POV. You could be correct or wrong. - It is just a question of the definition of "natural." Your definition is probably the the more common one, but I prefer one which does not assume a "special position" for man.
PS - Nice to argue/discuss with you again. You are intelligent and often hold different and interesting pov. I expect you to come back with something like "But man makes intentional changes." To which I will reply (after "So what difference does that make - being intentional is part of man's NATURE") "True but he also makes unintentional changes. - E.g. seen any dodo birds recently? (They blacken the sky 300 years ago but were easy to kill for food. Man certainly did not intend to make them extinct.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually I suspect my view is a composite here. That is some affects of man would seem part of the natural process. i.e. - producing CO2 and comsuming O2 or consuming resources - timber, water, food is clearly a natural process from our existance.
But once you go beyond survival processes and enter the realm of man's activities such as cross breeding, DNA maipulation or detonation of an A bomb I tend to not see those as natural processes. The Oklo excursion however was a natural process.
But you are correct in that it all depends on onces definition of natural and that would be difficult to argue either way successfully.
fatandlazyfool
Registered Member
Before engaging in contemplative suggestions on how Natural Selection does or doesn't enforce complexity one must objectively look at the idea (time, place and thing) considered. Is it all interactions of living to non-living matter at Time A or is it simply a species interaction to living and non-living things at the peak period Time P. Everything is flux. Whatever is optimal for today (ie burning gas fuel for the economy because of the superfluous auto factories) won't necessarily be for tomorrow. But to question that Time P, when the highest level of efficiency occurs for whichever factor, exists or not is absurd. There will be an extreme on the plot of time. So, yes, natural selection is leading on to more complex and less complex life ways, but then again the real question is what happens after the optimal?
Perhaps that is what this discussion should be about, what you believe occurs after the most ideal circumstance arises...or do we cross our fingers that that day never comes?
Perhaps that is what this discussion should be about, what you believe occurs after the most ideal circumstance arises...or do we cross our fingers that that day never comes?