Natural Selection vs evolution

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Would you explain what you believe this significant difference to be. It's quite flown past my head without a sound.

Sorry Eclogite, It's my fault she won't reply. It appears I ran her off by calling her out as a Creationist on another thread. That wasn't my intention. I believe you're aware of it.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by REASON

Sorry Eclogite, It's my fault she won't reply. It appears I ran her off by calling her out as a Creationist on another thread. That wasn't my intention. I believe you're aware of it.

No problem.
I genuinely didn't understand exactly what she meant in her opening remarks, though it did seem to carry a creationist sub-text.

Originally Posted by mohit pandy

It is a progress from simpler body designs to complex ones.

I'd like to echo and expand on a point made by freeztar. Evolution is very definitely not (primarily) about increases in complexity. The majority of species on the planet, the majority of individual organisms on the planet, the greater part of the biomass of the planet is made up of single celled organisms. These have been happily evolving for over three billion years and only a few of them evolved into something more complex. (Indeed not only are most organisms single celled, I think most are probably prokaryotes, and you don't get any simpler than that.)
Complexity is a natural consequence of evolution, but it is not the dominant force of evolution, though it produces the more obvious - to us - changes.

[Mohit Pandey]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

I'd like to echo and expand on a point made by freeztar. Evolution is very definitely not (primarily) about increases in complexity. The majority of species on the planet, the majority of individual organisms on the planet, the greater part of the biomass of the planet is made up of single celled organisms. These have been happily evolving for over three billion years and only a few of them evolved into something more complex. (Indeed not only are most organisms single celled, I think most are probably prokaryotes, and you don't get any simpler than that.)
Complexity is a natural consequence of evolution, but it is not the dominant force of evolution, though it produces the more obvious - to us - changes.

I think that you are thinking me as equationg evolution with progress. I do know that evolution is not 'real' progress. The only progressive trend in evolution seem to be that more and more complex bodies have emerged over time. Moreover, there are multiple branches possible at each and every stage of this process.Also, it is not as if the newly generated species are in any way better than the older one.

[M.J.]

I agree, natural selection and evolution are different, but I think evolution depends on natural selection.
Stating the known, what I learned in biology is that natural selection is just how nature picks out the weak and leaves the strong. "The weakest will die and the strongest will survive".
Evolution is just how something changes over time, like the us humans evolved from the ape.

Anyhow, with natural selection, there are usually changes in the gene pool and therefore, after a while, the changes in the gene pool leads to evolution.


Well, those are just my thoughts. I apologize if I sound stupid, but I'm just 15

[Mohit Pandey]

Originally Posted by M.J.

I agree, natural selection and evolution are different, but I think evolution depends on natural selection.

Could you clarify that how natural selection and evolutiom can be different as well as same? What are the reasons for saying that natural selection and evolution are different.
M.J! You can find your friends who are also young including me. In fact, we are a community helping each other.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by M.J.

Well, those are just my thoughts. I apologize if I sound stupid, but I'm just 15

You have a better grasp of evolution than I had when I was fifteen! As an overview your statements are correct. Evolution, as you say, is a process of change. Today we generally talk about the frequency of particular genes within a population from one generation to the next. If this frequency changes (which might mean entirely new genes have emerged through mutation) then evolution has occured. Changes in frequency are driven by natural selection, but also by sexual selection and genetic drift.

[Buffy]

"Evolution" is the theory describing how changes occur and why. "Natural Selection" is one of the mechanisms that theory uses to explain the theory.

"Natural Selection" does not explain why species diverge, or why mutations occur. "Evolution" does.

If you're a mathematician, "Natural Selection" is a proper subset of the set "Evolution" in the universe of "Theories".

Does that help?

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos,
Buffy

[peter]

I think that the natural selection is a short term process and the evolution is the result of accumulation of the natural selections in long term. The purpose of the both is to better fit the environment and survive. It does not matter whether this process is to be simpler or more complex.
Image if we send 10000 men and women into a remote forest, there is pretty fruit on the trees but no food on the ground. Who can survive? of course, only those people who can climb trees to reach the fruit survive, this is the natural selection. Those survived people may not be good tree climbers, but their children will be better tree climbers. After many many generations, people will be naturally-born good tree climbers like monkeys. This is the evolution.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by peter

I think that the natural selection is a short term process and the evolution is the result of accumulation of the natural selections in long term.

It might do some good to re-read through this thread from the beginning. This topic has been covered already by both myself and Buffy's post directly above yours.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.
As an analogy, I have a printer sitting on my desk. Let's call natural selection the paper (genetic drift the ink, etc.). The final printed page that comes out of the printer is evolution. We can say that without the blank paper, we wouldn't have the final printed page, but we can not say the opposite.

Image if we send 10000 men and women into a remote forest, there is pretty fruit on the trees but no food on the ground. Who can survive? of course, only those people who can climb trees to reach the fruit survive, this is the natural selection. Those survived people may not be good tree climbers, but their children will be better tree climbers. After many many generations, people will be naturally-born good tree climbers like monkeys. This is the evolution.

Well, what if I climb the tree and throw down fruit to those less able to climb?

You're example is indeed evolution, more specifically, adaptation.

[peter]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well, what if I climb the tree and throw down fruit to those less able to climb?

You're example is indeed evolution, more specifically, adaptation.

You are talking about another natural selection: "sharing". When you throw fruit down, you share your stuff with other people, this means that people with better social relationship will have better chance to survive.
During the "adaptation", genes will change also -- evolution. A very good example is the whales. It is believed that whales were land animals long time ago with four legs; now they have adapted to the water environment so well, their legs are almost invisible.
It is hard to distinguish the adaptation and evolution.