Natural Selection

Here is a question for you, do you think Hospitals and Medical treatment personel are screwing up natural selection, Only the strong survive...

Someone asked me this one time, and it made me think about it... just wanted to see what you guys thought!

still a little iffy with this topic. Care to give more info on natural selectiuon

Dictionary.com Definitions

natural selection
n.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characters in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.


Main Entry natural selection
Function noun
a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes



natural selection
n.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

isnt that survival of the fittest?

"Survival of the fittest" is when those who are healthy and strong out live the weak. "Natural Selection" is when certain animals die out or adapt to there environments through some sort of physical change.

[quote10f610d66f="thehacker010"]"Survival of the fittest" is when those who are healthy and strong out live the weak. "Natural Selection" is when certain animals die out or adapt to there environments through some sort of physical change.[/quote10f610d66f]

Like mutate?

natural selection=God

natural selection is when one group of individuals of a population outlast (over time and many generations, usually) a strong environmental pressure.

I would never consider modern humans a part of natural selection. We have the darwin awards and some things kill of stupid people, but genetic change will only come gradually, if at all, and maybe will punctuate if something like nuclear war breaks out.

Hospitals are AWESOME in NOT screwing up natural selection. Take bacteria for instance. Hospitals use so much antibacterial crap, that now, only the antibacterial resistant strains are surviving. That's natural selection at its best. Sweet! Super staphococcus infections! Mega chlamydia, and Ultra syphilis!

You have to take human intelligence into the equation in order to vote no, and intelligence is only a means to an end, the survival of the species.

To sustain the lives of those who cannot survive on their own, not only drains resources, but allows the possibility of them procreating, and passing on negative traits. So yes, it would interfere.

That's cold, and hard, but essentially true.

evolution is bullshit and that's all i have to say about that.

[quote305de3a405="Tholek"]You have to take human intelligence into the equation in order to vote no, and intelligence is only a means to an end, the survival of the species.

To sustain the lives of those who cannot survive on their own, not only drains resources, but allows the possibility of them procreating, and passing on negative traits. So yes, it would interfere.

That's cold, and hard, but essentially true.[/quote305de3a405]

True, in some cases, but what about an otherwise healthy, intelligent man who is in a near-fatal accident? The hospital saves his life, and he's allowed to pass those traits on to his children.

[quote5ccb4aa9e4="PokerNerdAA"]evolution is bullshit and that's all i have to say about that.[/quote5ccb4aa9e4]

We already had the evolution discussion, so put that comment back up your ass until you are in church next.

We play in to natural selection because with our ability to create medicine we are adapting to our environment. Saying otherwise is like saying that when we evolved thumbs and were able to hold clubs we were destroying the natural selection process... not at all, we are just a strong species and able to adapt.

[quote58fe31e38b="slease"][quote58fe31e38b="PokerNerdAA"]evolution is bullshit and that's all i have to say about that.[/quote58fe31e38b]

We already had the evolution discussion, so put that comment back up your ass until you are in church next.

We play in to natural selection because with our ability to create medicine we are adapting to our environment. Saying otherwise is like saying that when we evolved thumbs and were able to hold clubs we were destroying the natural selection process... not at all, we are just a strong species and able to adapt.[/quote58fe31e38b]

i don't see what your problem is. You can debate natural selection, but as soon as God gets thrown into the equatin, you get all defensive. what's up w/ that? but anyways i don't want a repeat of those theads so let's stop the flaming here.

i believe in natural selection, but i don't believe that it's necessary. People starte being selfish and putting themsleves above everyone else, crushing those smaller than them, and called it natural selection. how can that be good?

LOL. Hospitals liAREli part of Natural Selection. Natural Selection involves people liADAPTINGli to their environments. An example is the Galapagos turtle(discovered by Darwin himself), moving it's neck up so often over so many years, that it's shell slowly mutated to let it stick it's neck up higher so it could reach leaves.

Hospitals are something that humans created to help us survive in our environment longer, we are adapting to it which IS natural selection.

[quote67e8b4de9e="shamash"]An example is the Galapagos turtle(discovered by Darwin himself), moving it's neck up so often over so many years, that it's shell slowly mutated to let it stick it's neck up higher so it could reach leaves.[/quote67e8b4de9e]

so what did it do [b67e8b4de9e]befor[/b67e8b4de9e]e it could eat the leaves on the plants, eat the dirt on the ground? eat the leaves that fell off the plant? examples like that don't really make sence and don't really help you out much

i don't know, i read that shitty book like 2 years ago. it's been a while / read "Natural Selection" by darwin if you want a better explanation of his theory lol

[quotea8e21e2d04="PokerNerdAA"]evolution is bullshit and that's all i have to say about that.[/quotea8e21e2d04]

Claims that the earth is 6000, 12000, or 20,000 years old are equally preposterous.

[quote3dc8f377c2="Jake"][quote3dc8f377c2="PokerNerdAA"]evolution is bullshit and that's all i have to say about that.[/quote3dc8f377c2]

Claims that the earth is 6000, 12000, or 20,000 years old are equally preposterous.[/quote3dc8f377c2]

why? is that so hard to beleive? science proves it, a lot more than it proves evolution or natural selection at least.

if you have to admit that the earth isn't 10 billion or whatever years old, then you have to admit that it was created some other way, which makes you admit that there is a God. is that why you're so afraid to accept that evolution is bogus? is that why you're so againt anything biblical? You're posts don't defend evolution or natural selection, they attack the bible. i don't get it...could you explain this a little more?

[quote4be790eee8="crazyates"]
why? is that so hard to beleive? science proves it, a lot more than it proves evolution or natural selection at least.
[/quote4be790eee8]

Lets see.

There is evidence that Chinese cultures existed 6000 years ago. Therefore, that claim is out the window.

We see evidence of civilizations in Africa and the Middle East 12,000 years ago. Goodbye to that one.

We see evidence of prehistoric men on various continents 20,000 years ago (the native americans being one of them).

I didn't attack the bible anywhere in my statement. I just said that these fairy tales of the earth being so young are completely ridiculous when faced with real evidence.

[quoteaa62cf6215="Jake"][quoteaa62cf6215="crazyates"]
why? is that so hard to beleive? science proves it, a lot more than it proves evolution or natural selection at least.
[/quoteaa62cf6215]

Lets see.

There is evidence that Chinese cultures existed 6000 years ago. Therefore, that claim is out the window.

We see evidence of civilizations in Africa and the Middle East 12,000 years ago. Goodbye to that one.

We see evidence of prehistoric men on various continents 20,000 years ago (the native americans being one of them).

I didn't attack the bible anywhere in my statement. I just said that these fairy tales of the earth being so young are completely ridiculous when faced with real evidence.[/quoteaa62cf6215]

so there's evidence of people living 12,000 years ago, how does that prove that the earth is 10 billion years old? I don't see why it can't be only 6000 years old. There would be people living on the earth 6000 years ago, so evidence of them would be expected.

and no you didn't explicity attack the bible in that post, but you have in the past and by claiming that the earth isn't 6000 years old, you attact the biblical story of creation, which is the same thing

what do you mean "real evidence" supporting a young earth? is that your example of "real evidence" that the earth is billions of years old, that there may have been people living on the earth 20,000 years ago? that dosn't make sence. If God created the earth, then he created the people living on it, and of course there would be evidence of that.

and keep in mind that those "evidences" and timeframes are only close approximates. They may be 12,000 or however, but that's a lot better than say 1,000,000

[quote8f6eee61d0="crazyates"]
so there's evidence of people living 12,000 years ago, how does that prove that the earth is 10 billion years old? I don't see why it can't be only 6000 years old. There would be people living on the earth 6000 years ago, so evidence of them would be expected.
[/quote8f6eee61d0]

I didn't say that the earth was 10 billion years old either. I just said that it was most definitely older than 6, 12, or 20 thousand like some people seem to believe against all the evidence to the contrary.

[quote8f6eee61d0="crazyates"]
and no you didn't explicity attack the bible in that post, but you have in the past and by claiming that the earth isn't 6000 years old, you attact the biblical story of creation, which is the same thing
[/quote8f6eee61d0]

That is your interpretation of the matter and not mine. If you think I am attacking your beliefs, then go ahead and feel that way. I don't see that I am doing this.

Either way, I don't remember anywhere in the bible saying that the earth is the age you claim it to be.

The biblical story of creation is a metaphor and was an explanation of how things came to be that was written at a time when people didn't understand these things any better. If you look at ancient books like the Torah, they explain (on a very elementary level) the theories that Darwin formulated about how various organisms evolved [i8f6eee61d0]before the bible was even written![/i8f6eee61d0]

I know plenty of Christians who understand this as well and don't go off telling people that the earth is 20,000 years old. My parents are a prime example.

[quote8f6eee61d0="crazyates"]
what do you mean "real evidence" supporting a young earth? is that your example of "real evidence" that the earth is billions of years old, that there may have been people living on the earth 20,000 years ago? that dosn't make sence. If God created the earth, then he created the people living on it, and of course there would be evidence of that.
[/quote8f6eee61d0]

The real evidence supporting an [i8f6eee61d0]older[/i8f6eee61d0] Earth than you believe, I already pointed out. The Earth is most definitely older than 20,000. There WERE people living on earth 20,000 years ago. Not 'may have.'

Once again, I never said that the Earth is 10 billion years old because [i8f6eee61d0]I don't have a time machine to verify this with.[/i8f6eee61d0] P

However since science has always served me well and offered explanations, I can't help but believe carbon dating techniques, the pieces of the fossil record discovered (albeit incomplete but still reliable and ever evolving), geological studies that have been done on various parts of the earth, the volumes of evolutionary studies that have been done since the time of Darwin, etc etc etc.

Jake gets really heated when it comes to the evolution/natural selection debating.. lol, I remember the last one.

[quote334406188f="CollidgeGraduit"][quote334406188f="Tholek"]You have to take human intelligence into the equation in order to vote no, and intelligence is only a means to an end, the survival of the species.

To sustain the lives of those who cannot survive on their own, not only drains resources, but allows the possibility of them procreating, and passing on negative traits. So yes, it would interfere.

That's cold, and hard, but essentially true.[/quote334406188f]

True, in some cases, but what about an otherwise healthy, intelligent man who is in a near-fatal accident? The hospital saves his life, and he's allowed to pass those traits on to his children.[/quote334406188f]

In that situation, to expend additional resources on his preservation that would be used to sustain several healthy individuals, would be counterproductive.

The good of the many....etc, etc.

/good2speed is glad he isn't knowledgable with this subject and gracefully exits stage left

http//www.drdino.com/downloads.php

Lies in the Textbooks is one I watched.

[quote67bed6e421="crazyates"][quote67bed6e421="shamash"]An example is the Galapagos turtle(discovered by Darwin himself), moving it's neck up so often over so many years, that it's shell slowly mutated to let it stick it's neck up higher so it could reach leaves.[/quote67bed6e421]

so what did it do [b67bed6e421]befor[/b67bed6e421]e it could eat the leaves on the plants, eat the dirt on the ground? eat the leaves that fell off the plant? examples like that don't really make sence and don't really help you out much[/quote67bed6e421]


yeah..actually, what shamash was describing is not a theory of Darwin...What he is describing is Lamarkism. Lamarkism is taught in every introductory biology class as being false. Behavior does not cause speciation or genetic drift. AS stated in the Hardy-Weinburg theory, evolution is a change in gene frequencies in a population.

Evolution occurs through genetic mutations and natural selection. For the turtle example, the turtles now tend to have longer necks because of negative selection against the turtles with short necks, because the turtles with longer necks can get more food and generally live longer to produce more offspring (pass their "long" genes on) After generations of this selection, the turtles will end up with longer necks.