Re: Think religion isn't a product of evolutionary forces?

On Feb 24, 12:01 am, "John W Edser" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (DK) wrote:-\
"The statistical test results clearly revealed that the functional canoe
design elements changed more slowly over time, indicating that
natural selection could be weeding out inferior new designs."
Gosh, is "natural selection" now a synonym for everything that
exists? Are improved atomic bomb designs and ancient DNA
PCR protocols also results of natural selection?

JE:-

Natural selection acting as an alone, irrefutable, default process has to be
separated from natural selection operating within falsifiable Darwinian
evlutionary theory. They are not at all the same because natural selection
as just an alone process has no frame of reference (you cannot tell what is
being selected for and what is being selected against). Also "bottom up"
selection must always remain separated from "top down" selection within
evolutionary theory because only the latter remains cognitive. I like to
call "top down" selection, "unnatural selection" in an attempt to stress the
critical difference between them (I do not mean to imply that top down
selection is somehow, outside of nature). It is noteworthy that the likes of
Hitler et al failed to make this critical distinction in their utter misuse
of Darwinian theory within proposed social theory.

unnatural selection redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
who says Darwin coined it and he certainly did mentioning it only once
"...Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest...."

Is this what you are refering to ? If so what do you make of the word
"Fittest" in the passage which Darwin got from Herbert Spencer, were
you any way whatsoever having Spencer in mind with AS, which includes
fitness, which was lifted from Spencer because I can't for the life of
me find any reference as to what was Spencer's intent and if we don't
know his intent then why are we using his label ?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... want to know why "natural selection... ... *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were ... There is no evidence that natural selection is teleologic - I agree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Selection timescale
    ... >> The time span that one act of Darwinian natural selection ... > process manifested at the scale of populations of individuals. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity? ... Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved ... nobody claims that Natural Selection and Random Mutation (I ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading