Natural Selection vs evolution

[REASON]

* The fact is, the implication in the title of this thread is flawed. *

Natural Selection is not in competition with Evolution. As it's been stated numerous times previous, Natural Selection is a contributing factor in the overall evolutionary process. It is inherent, not in opposition, or as a separate function.

This is known and accepted among dedicated scientists in the various fields of study relating to the processes of evolution. It is not even remotely considered a subject for debate. With this in mind, it seems utterly pointless to continue this discussion relative to this topic.

IMHO, discussions relating to the intrinsic processes of evolution should be started in a new thread, or continued in one of the countless other existing threads discussing evolution that can be found in these forums.

[Thunderbird]

[quote=

IMHO, discussions relating to the intrinsic processes of evolution should be started in a new thread, or continued in one of the countless other existing threads discussing evolution that can be found in these forums.[/QUOTE]

You are correct the subject of the thread is flawed in its assumption, but I would like to continue with are disscussion on lets say "morphological parameters in evolution" Are you game?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

You are correct the subject of the thread is flawed in its assumption, but I would like to continue with are disscussion on lets say "morphological parameters in evolution" Are you game?

If you're speaking directly to me, sure. I am not an authority on the subject but I'm always interested in the opportunity to learn.

And I'm confident that there will be others more qualified that will be happy to join in the fun.

Kick it off.

[HydrogenBond]

What I was saying is natural selection in any environment does not have to go to the most advanced genes, it can go to less advanced genes. If you look at the evolutionary tree, evolution went from dinosaurs to mammals. Since mammals had the more advanced genetic make-up, what you are claiming is they had selective advantage during the day of the dinosaurs. Where is the source of this data?

Let me give another scenario. Say one is in a seismically active area and a volcano goes off, will selective advantage go to the most advanced genetics? The odds are plants and bugs will be the first to appear.

I think where the confusion lies is that selective advantage and natural selection is usually restricted to comparing one species, out of context of an integrated environment. For example, the modern cat is the pinnacle of feline genetic evolution. If the precursor of cats, somehow had a modern kitten ,back in the day of the dinosaurs, even though it is highly evolved, it may not have much in the way of selective advantage. The lower genetics of the dinosaurs will continue to have selective advantage.

Here is how is appears to stack up, a snake is cold blooded and fairly retro genetically, but he is able to have selective advantage over mice, which are fairly smart, since they are used as the basis of medical studies. In the context of this two animal system selective advantage goes to the lower level genetics. But if we look at just the snake or just the mouse, out of context of the integrated system, one could say the mice who learn to better evade snakes will have selective advantage which better equates selective advantage with genetic improvements. Maybe one is not suppose to say the dealer is dealing off the bottom of the deck; sorry about that. Or maybe the definition is limited, so bottom dealing always wins for the house.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

What I was saying is natural selection in any environment does not have to go to the most advanced genes, it can go to less advanced genes. If you look at the evolutionary tree, evolution went from dinosaurs to mammals. Since mammals had the more advanced genetic make-up, what you are claiming is they had selective advantage during the day of the dinosaurs.

I am sorry H-Bond, but a) what do you mean by more advanced genes? and b) what makes you think mammal genes are more advanced than dinosaur ones.
Genes, or more likely genotypes, and certainly phenotypes, are neither advanced or primitive, they are fit, or unfit; fir or fitter. Advanced has no place in this discussion.

Thunderbird you make some interesting points. Would you agree there is a strong teleological aspect to what you are proposing?

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Thunderbird you make some interesting points. Would you agree there is a strong teleological aspect to what you are proposing?

Thanks Eclogite, is "Eclogite" a metamorphic rock, I have a large piece from India, its one of my favorites....Anyway I think teleology is a predisposition and egocentric . I prefer to see the logic of the universe without becoming anthropomorphic about it.

[M.J.]

Originally Posted by Mohit Pandey

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.

Sure, I'll clarify for you.
Well, they are similar since they involve change and time but in my opinion, I think they are different because evolution is how species have changed during time. On the other hand natural selection is like a harvester picking out his/her best crop. Also, if they were the same, why use the two different words that can describes something. (True, you have adjectives that mean the same time but, the concepts are different. You have the theory of how things change like the dinosaurs that might have survived to evolve to what we call birds. But, on the other hand, you have something that determines what will go on and lay the foundation for the new species down the road).

Aww! :]
That's very true about that we're part of a community helping each other! That's why I joined this site because I don't have friends that are into science and are willing to have a chat about these things.

P.S: Nice to meet ya!

[M.J.]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

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.

Hahaha :]
Funny thing is, I struggled in biology and I owe it to the hours of studying in order to grasp it well because for my final, I had to write an essay on Darwin and evolution.
Thanks :]

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by M.J.

Sure, I'll clarify for you.
Well, they are similar since they involve change and time but in my opinion, I think they are different because evolution is how species have changed during time. On the other hand natural selection is like a harvester picking out his/her best crop. Also, if they were the same, why use the two different words that can describes something. (True, you have adjectives that mean the same time but, the concepts are different. You have the theory of how things change like the dinosaurs that might have survived to evolve to what we call birds. But, on the other hand, you have something that determines what will go on and lay the foundation for the new species down the road).

MJ, please check out my previous post in this thread. It should clear up the confusion you are having regarding natural selection and evolution.
http://hypography.com/forums/biology...tml#post205872

[CraigLLeech]

Please, see my thread on "proposed: Law of Evolution of Species by Reproductive Selection"

Thanks,
Craig