Natural Selection vs evolution

[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]

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? ;) :xx:

 

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

[peter]

 

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.

[freeztar]

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? :xx:

[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]

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. :confused:

[freeztar]

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. :confused:

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]

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 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. :confused:

[Eclogite]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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 name=

 

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]

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. :weather_rain:

 

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

 

Kick it off. :doh:

[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.