Is Natural Selection a Belief or a Fact

[Bogie]

...
Hmmmm .... 'to weed out' is an action that appears premeditated. How about ... Natural selection is a process that describes the inability of unfit specimens to maintain they're population in the gene pool and the ability of the fit specimens to do so.

For Evolution to occur in this manner it is assumed that resources are limited. ie: conservation laws apply.

Good.

yes ... agreed ...... a rider ... Biological Evolution is only a description of Evolution that applies to life, whereas I believe that Evolution is responsible for accounting for all change since the Big bang.

Wait. I don't think there is any disagreement yet.

Where is the beef?

[Bogie]

BTW, am I getting paid OT? If not, night night .

[SteveA]

No, you have to speak English. What does "how we observe life in terms of something external to life" mean?

Well there is an issue that appears to be a problem with the conventional view of life. The body is supposed to be a product of DNA, as well as an environment, but the source of an individual is supposed to be defined by that initial DNA structure itself, which similarly influences the growth of the rest of the body.

From that perspective, everything we see "out there" would be a product of this initial DNA. The issue is that, sure, we could observe aspects of DNA present in the environment but that can also be a product of seeing how our own DNA influences the information we observe externally.

And an example I gave was of the internet here - if we assume a computer and communication with the world is defined by various capabilities, such as memory size, instruction types, input/output devices and communication protocols, then the world "out there" appears to be in terms of all of this hardward that is actually just a property of the "observer" and not truly a restriction or property possessed in any redundant external fashion.

This appears a real issue to me, though not everyone appears to recognize the significance of this "observational bias". As another example of an observational bias. If we asked everyone how many siblings they had and found the average to be 2, then we might assume this means that the average family size is 3, but this is a distortion of reality as families with more children are overrepresented in the sample.

It's not an obvious bias, but if we're truly trying to refer to what an "external"/objective reality would be for life, it would appear we can't ignore that fact that we're obviously making these observations from a preferentially selected platform and there might be no way to know whether or not the universe exists as we perceive it in any manner external to life - the universe we see could be a unique product of life.

[SteveA]

BTW, am I getting paid OT? If not, night night .

I've got 2 brownie points for you Those and about a buck fifty might buy you a cup of joe

[SteveA]

Just rewording the above for easier reference:

Natural selection is a process that describes the ability of fit specimens to increase they're percentage population in the gene pool at the expense of the unfit which eventually go extinct. For Evolution to occur in this manner it is assumed that resources are limited. ie: conservation laws apply.

greg

Well I think "conservation" is misleading in that it appears to ignore production of resources. The resources used for life require some element of work to generate though they can be increased.

I'm not talking about cubic volumes or masses because these in themself do not support life, but instead it's the utilized quantities and efficiencies of these that determine how and what life can be supported.

[Graybeard]

In sexual reproduction we have the additional influence of sexual combinations, which can act along lines similar to mutation ... not particularly relevant in this case though ... it still requires mutations to derive sexual reproduction and so it would just be similar to a form of inertia for mutations.

It takes two to tango ... this is a later adaptation .... before that it only took one to tango ... and before that simple cell-splitting and joining.

Do you believe the laws of physics are persistent? Ultimately would there not be a singular evaluation function for fitness? That could be similar to premediation

I am unsure what you mean by singular. If we are talking biological evolution .... then our only life forms ever found are carbon and water based. For carbon and water based life forms to evolve and prosper requires geological activity within the Planet they are on.

A carbon cycle MUST be present. In order for the Carbon Cycle to be present tectonic plate activity MUST be present. Both volcanoes and earthquakes are necessary for the carbon cycle to operate. Preparation for life, (tho random and coincidental ... Steve), was necessary long before life evolved on this Planet, (which randomly evolved Steve)

In this sense a 'singular evaluation function' doesn't make sense. Evolution is dynamic causing changes in the environment, which causes changes to life, which causes changes to the environment, which causes .....

Greg

[Graybeard]

Steve ... when you ask a question ... you then continue posting before I get a chance to answer ..... the questions are stacking up in front of me.

How about you propose a serious question that challenges natural Selection, but limited in scope, so that I can answer ...... I only got a small brain

greg

[Graybeard]

Well I think "conservation" is misleading in that it appears to ignore production of resources.

Resources are not produced ...... only converted .... ?

The amount of resources are finite. On Planet Earth the only incoming supply is energy from the Sun .... and the outgoing is radiated heat loss .... lets leave them about equal ...... we're in balance

greg

[Graybeard]

As another example of an observational bias. If we asked everyone how many siblings they had and found the average to be 2, then we might assume this means that the average family size is 3, but this is a distortion of reality as families with more children are overrepresented in the sample.

This is flawed logic ...... if you ask 'everyone' how do you distinguish between 'those you have asked' and they're 'two siblings'. If you cannot define who you have asked, then you cannot define a mean or average ?

greg

[Graybeard]

Well there is an issue that appears to be a problem with the conventional view of life. The body is suppose to be a product of DNA, as well as an environment, but the source of an individual is suppose to be defined by that initial DNA structure itself, which similarly influences the growth of the rest of the body.

From that perspective, everything we see "out there" would be a product of this initial DNA. The issue is that, sure, we could observe aspects of DNA present in the environment but that can also be a product of seeing how our own DNA influences the information we observe externally.

Your convoluting a principle that is quite readily understood. The body is not a meta-DNA. It is a transport vehicle that propagates the spread of the DNA. It is a tool of the genes charged with the DNA's reproduction. The selfish Genes.

We are part of the Universe, and yet we have no issue with questioning its workings ?
We are a multicelled organism, and so we have no issue questioning our own workings.

We are a multicelled organism, with nearly ALL our cells working to an automated program that we have no control over (all our organs operate without our 'consciousness' making any decisions).

There is no law against it. Every cell in our body is replaced within 10 years ... so we are never more than 10 years old physically. Yet scars can be older, tattoo's can be older ... because the genes replace like for like ... Older cells with new 'older' cells.

cool bananas ... greg