Yes, that is true, and as I know you, I would add that this is almost to a T a substantiation if someone saying that in the process of shift fro, natural to social selection, the product no longer resembles the agent . I was only trying to lay a logical foundation to a premature hypothesis. it just indicates the quality of the transition, and does not indicate a break. Sorry Arminius to have given that impression.
We all know this examples, Phoneutria, but I do not want to go in too many details again, because I have already mentioned those and similar examples in other posts. But “sexual selection” and “social selection” are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.
As I said several times.
Of course, they would, but they do not. It is a question of quality. And there is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.
Never mind, Orbie.
Actually they do, but not consciously.
Rabbits nibble the buds off tree buds and sapling but do not eat them. This maintains grassland where they can see predators coming; it also helps the grass remain pasture.
And of course all ruminants by nibbling grass, and defecating on the same spot maintain prairies; also trampling saplings in the migrations.
Many animals make beds, dens, nests etc… The number of examples goes on and on…
Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.
Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?
It doesn’t. In fact it asserts it. The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius’ view about what is or is not “best”.
Nature selects what is ‘best’ not because it is ‘best’. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.
NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.
The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.
I have given the answer already several times, Phoneutria. Just read the posts, please. In addition: I have no time now … because I have to get the airplane …: … Holiday … 
Arminius, none of your posts prove the darwinistic selection principle to be false.
Enjoy your holiday, even if it is just a cover for your human disguise, robot.
Your statement is false, Phoneutria.
Try again.
Thank you.
Maybe you are interested in the place where I spend my holidays.
It does not matter how many times you say a falsehood. It does not get more true by repeating it.
The statement he made asserts the truth of Natural selection. And whilst your posts make you think you have refuted it, in fact they assert it.
The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius’ view about what is or is not “best”.
Nature selects what is ‘best’ not because it is ‘best’. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.
NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.
The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.
Nature doe not “know” what is best. Nature does not “know” at all. And the law of Natural Selection is not intensional. What is selected, is simply by definition what remains.
I think, Lev, wer’e begging the question here. wHat is ‘best’ is defined as the best quality in nature, what is selected, right?
And , what is selected is, the best survival value, right? I can not get out of the convertibility of the terms, yet, not the concepts.
If beautiful woman chooses an inferior man , on basis of other than survival value, and the have offspring, does this mean, that. Within the woman’s genetic heritage there is more beneficial survival adaptable value? The male may , indeed be the product of less then optimal genetic value, in this regard, and may be on the verge of a disappearing genetic strain. Perhaps , had he not met this particularly stunning and succeful line in this woman,
The whole family line may have died out as a result. Happens all the time. But this woman chose him above all alpha males, other then on basis of survival value. She may not cared about it consciously, nor had let. Herself be driven by her own inherent natural impulses, fueled by sexual selection.
Here is a not too uncommon example, where the adaptability index may be offset by other than survival value based on genetic traits. I can question , whether survivability, as a conscious force in natural selection can be entertained as general rule.
Here, at least, a suspension of it is called for. Perhaps, this may also occur in lower species. If the above criteria would hold through , coming up from the annals of time, by now, nature would always present the most excellent of species, and inferior types would never present themselves, they would most certainly would have been weeded out by now.
I agree with Lev on this point. Most people have Darwin and natural selection backward. They’re approaching the idea from the wrong side. What is “best” is measured by female’s selection of males, not the inverse. The problem is that people invert this dyanmic, and blame “the evil white man!!!” irrationally.
Imagine for a moment that no males, not a single one on this planet, “Choose” to mate or reproduce, but that it is entirely and completely a female endeavor.
Just imagine, do a thought experiment. What does the world look like, through this lens, through this possibility?
What then can you say about Darwin and natural selection? How about sexual selection?
Redefining the word “best” to suit the preference.
So what you are saying is that whoever survives, by whatever means, is in fact “the most good”. If I kill off the entire world, it can only be because I am best, the most good, the superior. Whoever destroys the most (leaving himself the survivor), is the most good, the “best”.
Again, redefining “best” to suit the preference.
Good ==
- the most destructive force
- whatever women choose
I wonder what happens if a woman inadvertently doesn’t choose the most destructive force? Universe collapses in on itself?
Nope.
Nature does not give a rat’s arse about what YOU think it best.
As for Darwin, he never even used the word.
Now run along…
Nothing presented here has shown any Darwinian principle false.
There are more factors to consider than simply Natural selection that were identified by Darwin; Sexual Selection and Domestic Selection also play a part in explaining evolution.
Where these have been touched on, no effort or argument has been brought to bear the show them false either.
Without doubt the entire thread has been a blast of hot air from people who do not have the slightest clue about Darwin, nor the meaning of the words “false” or “principle”.
Quite the opposite.
That’s right. It is YOU who are redefining your words so as to make the theory sound good. Nature doesn’t know anything about “success” or “best”.
So why are YOU calling what nature does “best” and “success”?
I’m not. I’m talking about what Darwin called success. And he says that selection is reproductive success. And that is how evolution occurs
Not all individuals have reproductive success, but those that do pass their inheritance to their progeny.
The reason this is called ‘natural’ selection, is that it happens without interest, purpose or cognisance: automatic.
QED you are still wrong.
…as if you had even the slightest credibility in knowing the difference.
Lev, James isn’t a complete fool in how he’s approaching you here…
It would be more accurate to call evolution productive actualization, and any transference would be replicative actualization.
It would be a whole essay for me to give my actual observation of how these terms people throw around with “evolutionary theory” work with logical consistency.