Natural Selection vs evolution

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by peter

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.

Or you could see it as negative selection (artificial selection) as it enables the non-climbers to continue to reproduce and not adapt, thus continuing negative traits in terms of the surrounding environment.

It is hard to distinguish the adaptation and evolution.

Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution, a component of it if you will.

Take a look at this wiki article:
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the right hand side you will see a list entitled "Mechanisms and processes".
Notice that both adaptation and natural selection appear on this list.
So saying it's hard to distinguish between adaptation and evolution doesn't make much sense. Indeed, the title of this thread is a false premise.
It's like saying "Cheerios vs. cereal" or "keyboards vs. computers".
So your phrase is the equivalent of saying "it's hard to distinguish between an engine and a car".

Does this make sense?

[HydrogenBond]

Natural selection does not appear to always apply to humans. It depends what one defines as important with respect to natural selection. For example, in poor areas natural selection goes to the predator males, even though this is primitive behavior by modern standards. The ingenious farmer, the educated teacher, the caring social worker may not have selective advantage even with more evolved behavior. It is possible, that depending on the environment, natural selection does not always have to go in the direction of evolution.

Let me give an example, at the time of the dinosaurs mammals were already starting to evolve. The dinosaurs were less evolved but with respect to the community environment enjoyed natural selection. The mammals that had natural selection in this environment were not the ones that may have evolved a warm rapport with the environment, even though this is advance behavior. This evolved behavior would make them food. Natural selection would go to semi-reptile behavior with armor plates. It is possible NS was the reason for slow evolution, which may help change to stick.

A good example is early humans. We think in terms of them inventing stone tools, thereby giving NS to those humans with these skills. But in the early years of this invention, it was probably taboo, like all invention, with the wood club and gang attack having NS. It may have taken generations and many aborted attempts, until NS selection finally evolved.

[peter]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Or you could see it as negative selection (artificial selection) as it enables the non-climbers to continue to reproduce and not adapt, thus continuing negative traits in terms of the surrounding environment.

The nature will force the children of the non-climbers to be better tree climbers in such environment. Eventually, all non-climbers will disappear.

Anyway, it is crystal clear that, in this thread, there is not much difference between the adaptation and evolution from a long term point of view.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by peter

The nature will force the children of the non-climbers to be better tree climbers in such environment. Eventually, all non-climbers will disappear.

And THAT is natural selection.

Anyway, it is crystal clear that, in this thread, there is not much difference between the adaptation and evolution from a long term point of view.

You're joking right?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Natural selection does not appear to always apply to humans.

It may not appear to, and may be masked by other factors in this day and age, but natural selection will always apply to humans and other organisms.

It depends what one defines as important with respect to natural selection. For example, in poor areas natural selection goes to the predator males, even though this is primitive behavior by modern standards.

Do you have a source for this, or is this pure speculation?

Since natural selection selects for favorable traits in the habitat, you could equally say that those that are protective and defensive stand the best chance to pass on their genes.

The ingenious farmer, the educated teacher, the caring social worker may not have selective advantage even with more evolved behavior.

I don't think you are looking at the big picture. You have to think long term. Indeed it is a tough thought experiment given the complexities of modern society and the enormous population.

It is possible, that depending on the environment, natural selection does not always have to go in the direction of evolution.

How so?

Since [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection]natural selection IS evolution, your statement does not make sense.

Let me give an example, at the time of the dinosaurs mammals were already starting to evolve. The dinosaurs were less evolved but with respect to the community environment enjoyed natural selection. The mammals that had natural selection in this environment were not the ones that may have evolved a warm rapport with the environment, even though this is advance behavior. This evolved behavior would make them food. Natural selection would go to semi-reptile behavior with armor plates. It is possible NS was the reason for slow evolution, which may help change to stick.

Huh? That made zero sense to me.

A good example is early humans. We think in terms of them inventing stone tools, thereby giving NS to those humans with these skills. But in the early years of this invention, it was probably taboo, like all invention, with the wood club and gang attack having NS. It may have taken generations and many aborted attempts, until NS selection finally evolved.

I think you are confused about NS and how it works exactly. Statements such as "NS selection finally evolved" make me believe this to be the case. I recommend you read the wiki on natural selection AND evolution as they explain these subjects very well.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

For example, in poor areas natural selection goes to the predator males, even though this is primitive behavior by modern standards. The ingenious farmer, the educated teacher, the caring social worker may not have selective advantage even with more evolved behavior. It is possible, that depending on the environment, natural selection does not always have to go in the direction of evolution.

You appear to be confused. Evolved behaviour, in the sense you use it here, relates to a particular value judgement as to the quality, or elegance, or amiability, or finesse, of behaviour. An example would be the individual who sits decorously and silently in the cinema, watching the film, in contrast with the unkempt slob, who scatters popcorn everywhere and farts loudly at every opportunity. This sense of 'evolved' has absolutely nothing to do with evolution from a biological standpoint.
You seem to think that evolution has a direction. That it moves from the primitive to the advanced. This is simply not the case. It moves from the unfit to the fit, or from the fit, to the fitter (or from the unfit to extinction). And with every change in environment the definition of fit changes.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Let me give an example, at the time of the dinosaurs mammals were already starting to evolve. The dinosaurs were less evolved but with respect to the community environment enjoyed natural selection. The mammals that had natural selection in this environment were not the ones that may have evolved a warm rapport with the environment, even though this is advance behavior.

If they were less evolved would you explain why they were more succesful.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

You seem to think that evolution has a direction. That it moves from the primitive to the advanced. This is simply not the case. It moves from the unfit to the fit, or from the fit, to the fitter (or from the unfit to extinction). And with every change in environment the definition of fit changes.
If they were less evolved would you explain why they were more succesful.

Hi Eclogite,
Evolution may not have a direction, but morphology does have certain probabilities that form around inherent preexisting possibilities. These archetypal forms are in my humble opinion….. universal.

Just as the periodic table, and basic laws of physics are the same throughout geological time and the universe, terrestrial conditions that sustain life would also contain certain optimizing limits for morphologies.

These basic geometric forms would act as basins of attraction… and therefore will invariably follow the arrow of time and emerge.

These basins are not created solely by the environmental conditions, but are generated more accurately by a feedback between life and the environment.. These feedback systems would oscillate within certain terrestrial and biological parameters, that are governed first and foremost by physical laws which do not change.
For instance, I believe even without the outside incursion of an asteroid 65 million years ago, there would quite possibly exist, at this moment a humanoid like reptile sitting here typing this out on a computer much like this one…..
The conversation on evolution would be historically dissimilar. But the basic morphology and technology would be much the same.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

For instance, I believe even without the outside incursion of an asteroid 65 million years ago, there would quite possibly exist, at this moment a humanoid like reptile sitting here typing this out on a computer much like this one…..
The conversation on evolution would be historically dissimilar. But the basic morphology and technology would be much the same.

You make some good points T-bird, until the ones above. It doesn't follow for me that there is any guarantee, even in consideration of the physics of morphology, that natural selection will lead to highly intelligent life. Eclogite has already addressed this above. We humans are evidence that it can, but that is strictly due to the specific evolutionary path of our species.

Why would a reptilian dinosaur manage to evolve over the last 65 million years to the level of sitting at a computer, when it was nowhere near such a level of intelligence after 160 million years of evolution prior to that? And why would it have to take a humanoid form?

Out of the vastness of diversified life forms that have ever existed on this particular planet humans are the only ones to have achieved this level of intelligence, suggesting that in nature, the odds of it occurring are minute.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

You make some good points T-bird, until the one's above. It doesn't follow for me that there is any guarantee, even in consideration of the physics of morphology, that natural selection will leed to highly intelligent life. We humans are evidence that it can, but that is strictly due to the specific evolutionary path of our species.

Why would a reptilian dinosaur manage to evolve over the last 65 million years to the level of sitting at a computer, when it was nowhere near such a level of intelligence after 160 million years of evolution prior to that? And why would it have to take a humanoid form?

Out of the vastness of diversified life forms that have ever existed on this particular planet humans are the only one's to have achieved this level of intelligence, suggesting that in nature, the odds of it occurring are minute.

Hi Reason,
If you agree with the first part of my post {and I’m not sure if you do} which addresses physical forms being inherently inevitable, than why not intelligent reptiles? What would make this morphological niche any different than wings that evolved in separate species.

These sorts of adaptations are clearly advantages. Flight over fleet, brain over brawn.
The cycle of Genetic sampling driven by adaptation would eventually form into a basin of attraction around lager brains and reasoning. It seems reasonable that once this became a exploitable niche it would develop expediently in a very short time just as every other evolutionary advance. Our own sudden dominants over our bigger, faster and much more teether brethren is solid proof of this.

Although these reptiles would first need to follow a similar morphological path as an arboreal dwelling- bipedal-grasping-hunting and in social-migrating, tool making etc. The brain would form around these inherent terrestrial basins of attractions, as would the optimum body plan for this particular linear niche.
I’ll go one step further and farther and use these extrapolations and pose that if we were to some day meet with civilizations from other worlds we would all have almost identically formed hands.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

If you agree with the first part of my post {and I’m not sure if you do} which addresses physical forms being inherently inevitable, than why not intelligent reptiles? What would make this morphological niche any different than wings that evolved in separate species.

I don't reject the notion of intelligent reptiles per se, I rejected the notion that if there hadn't been a devastating collision 65 million years ago, we would be blogging along side our humanoid reptilian dinosaur counterparts.

These sorts of adaptations are clearly advantages. Flight over fleet, brain over brawn.
The cycle of Genetic sampling driven by adaptation would eventually form into a basin of attraction around lager brains and reasoning. It seems reasonable that once this became a exploitable niche it would develop expediently in a very short time just as every other evolutionary advance. Our own sudden dominants over our bigger, faster and much more teether brethren is solid proof of this.

Maybe I don't completely agree with your initial assertion. Although I'm not an expert, I am open to ideas. While I understand the influence of morphology, I'm not convinced of the concept of inevitability when it comes to the evolutionary process. Inevitability seems clear when tracing backwards, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict an evolutionary outcome for any particular species. For example, if there were were no animal species on this planet with the capability of flight, why would we assume that it is inevitable that some species will develop that capability as it evolves? What are some examples of inevitable traits in plants and animals that we have yet to observe?

Although these reptiles would first need to follow a similar morphological path as an arboreal dwelling- bipedal-grasping-hunting and in social-migrating, tool making etc. The brain would form around these inherent terrestrial basins of attractions, as would the optimum body plan for this particular linear niche.

Your first sentence here reflects exactly what I'm saying. Why would you assume that it is inevitable that reptiles, or any other particular species, are likely to follow a similar morphological path as humans? The data doesn't support this as brain development in reptiles has remained relatively static for millions of years, even with diversification. From the standpoint of natural selection, advanced brain functioning in reptiles hasn't proven to be necessary.

I’ll go one step further and farther and use these extrapolations and pose that if we were to some day meet with civilizations from other worlds we would all have almost identically formed hands.

This is pure speculation, and a bit egocentric don't you think? Besides, my understanding is that current theory holds that bipedalism had a greater bearing on human evolution than our opposable thumbs.