Thread: The curious thing about natural selection

Is that everyone thinks they understand it. When they obviously [probably] don't.

So I just wanted to see if this was true. Describe to me in the highest detail you can without looking it up how natural selection and thus evolution works. I suppose you don't have to believe in natural selection and evolution in order to join in.

god did it, you athiest scum!!!! jk~~

how about I give you the briefest def? species get random mutations, some mutations are better suited for the enviroment they live in, thus the ones with these mutations live on to reproduce and pass on the mutation. Over time this process can create a new species instead of just variation in one species. so, mutations are random, who survives is not.

Go further if you can, into the branches as they go.

Natural selection and evolution have strange things that go together for example (I'll have to go and create a picture with lines N stuff to show what I'm trying to communicate.)

Here is sort of what I'm talking about. This picture isn't of "species" but of "traits." I made it myself in a rush so it is pretty crappy.

It doesn't say what I'm trying to convey accurately but let me see...



Alright, consider each trait being passed on is being passed on with other traits...now though the trait still exists...this same trait will have been passed on to other organisms (most likely) and even though it had this trait it still died. A species itself isn't really classifiable in a common sense because at what point and at what combination of genes does the animal stop being able to reproduce?

If we separate the beings into A B and C. If species can only reproduce with the same species, and A can reproduce with C but not be, however C can reproduce with both A and B does that mean that C is in both species category? Its complicated lol.

That was confusing... not very blandly put.

Species is just a way to group similar organisms. It's basically arbitrary, but it's based on a common set of rules among biologists and stuff so it's not really that arbitrary. It's still all in your head though.

That's where any ID-argument fails... They say "well, how did a monkey turn into a human?" so they assume that "species" is something external when it's not. The monkey just developed new traits, it's not really a monkey even, it's just a hairy thing walking around.

If I understood anything in your post, you're not asking about natural selection but how biologists classify organisms.

Really I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Here's a good example of Natural Selection in the modern world so people can understand it.

In the UK peppered moths used to be as white as the bark of the trees they made their habitat, however every generation a few peppered moths mutated to have darker pigments, thus causing them to be more easily seen by birds and gobbled up so the pigment coloration remained in a pretty narrow range for millions of years simply because outside of that range, they were targets.

Then the UK industrialized and coal turned the treebark black for this particular tree. Now, if you go back to those forests, all the peppered moths are dark and the lighter ones are getting eaten up.

Originally Posted by Korittke

That was confusing... not very blandly put.

Species is just a way to group similar organisms. It's basically arbitrary, but it's based on a common set of rules among biologists and stuff so it's not really that arbitrary. It's still all in your head though.

That's where any ID-argument fails... They say "well, how did a monkey turn into a human?" so they assume that "species" is something external when it's not. The monkey just developed new traits, it's not really a monkey even, it's just a hairy thing walking around.

If I understood anything in your post, you're not asking about natural selection but how biologists classify organisms.

Really I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

The post is about natural selection and "evolution." Most people deem evolutio as the rising of new species.

Meanwhile what I was saying was that there is no one point when a new species evolves...which is what most people who think of natural selection and evolution seem to misunderstand.

I have seen many video's online that show "evolution" sort of. But the one thing that every one i've ever seen fail to do is to show the fact that...


6 generations of new and combined traits usually mix with another 6 generations of such and such traits.

A^256 mixes with B^367


Most people think of it as here was this animal, and then its babies kept having random mutations until bamo it became a new species...

yeah, I get what you are saying. Im no expert on the "branches" as you say, but I do understand the abitrary nature of species. probably one of the best examples also is the dinosaur show on not too long ago where they could give a chicken more reptilian traits by tinkering with its genes. The succeeded in giving it a long tail and giving it teeth and more scales, it was quite interesting.