Natural Selection

[Burry The Rag]

Hey All,

I’ve been reading the “Knowledge” thread which contains a fair amount of discussion regarding natural selection. Just for the sake of clarity I believe an accurate description to be:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural%20selection[/url]]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.

 

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I’m no scientist, but I understand as the generations pass (which is a very long time for some and very, very short for others) the strong survive, the weak die and thus the species either gradually becomes better suited to its environment or slowly dies off. This is considered to be a good thing. I plan to use this principle in my vegetable garden. By reseeding from only the best producing plants, as season follows season, I anticipate slowly crafting a strain of vegetables which will be better able to grow in the conditions my yard provides than were the seeds I originally purchased.

 

But isn’t protecting an endangered species or maintaining a wildlife habitat interfering with what is seen as not only an effective, but desirable, process? Does not this intervention enable the weak, which would otherwise pass on, to survive? Won’t this medaling, over time, yield negative results?

 

I’m not advocating disengagement. As a Christian, I feel I have an obligation to care for the Earth and its creatures. But I’m confident most here view that as bunk. I’m sure someone has a rational explanation how these two ideas are congruent.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

PS: This isn’t a straw man, I’m really wondering about it.

[Ro-bear]

This doesn't require much thought. Endangered species are endangered by us. The encroachment of humans on the habitats of some species, as well as the overall effect of human society on the environment at large are responsible for the peril facing nearly all endangered species. It's not that they aren't adapted to their environment; it's that their environment is changing. Protecting these species is compromising with nature, not interfering with it.

 

Trying to maintain an earth that can sustain the life that has evolved upon it is not meddling. I don't see the contradiction at all.

[Skankboy]

The easiest answer is there is no way for us to know what environmental pressures will exist in the future and what traits will therefore be successful in those environments. The safest course is to preserve as much genetic diversity as possible allowing for the most genetic flexibility in the future.

 

PS this can also apply to why evolution does NOT support eugenics. There's no way for us to know what genetic heritage "disadvantaged" people might be able to contribute to the future. Thinking we know what is the "best" result is often short-sighted and dangerous...

[Burry The Rag]

In other words, humans have the capabiities to meddle, so we meddle.  I don't see anything wrong with that, christians meddle too, and they believe God is in control of everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Madame M,

 

(This is not straw man, it really, really isn’t.) I see no problems with it either. In my initial post, I indicated I was “medaling” with my vegetable garden. It just seemed to me, what is professed as good is in conflict with how we act.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Thurisaz]

But isn’t protecting an endangered species or maintaining a wildlife habitat interfering with what is seen as not only an effective, but desirable, process?

 

I'd say it's kind of working against natural selection indeed, but then, we aren't forced to "dance to the tune" of evolution. Indeed, we humans are (as far as we know?) the only species on this world able to understand how this selection works. Thus, we are the only ones able to "bend the rules" of evolution to our advantage... or at least our will. I doubt that all our decisions will really result in an advantage for us - we're not infallible after all.

 

There are, without doubt, cases where it would be good for us humans to stop evolution. There are other cases where this would be a very bad idea. As a shoot-from-the-hip reply, I'd say that in the long run it's probably better to let evolution take its course. But I may well be wrong.

[Burry The Rag]

It's not that they aren't adapted to their environment; it's that their environment is changing. Protecting these species is compromising with nature, not interfering with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Ro-bear, Skankboy and Thurisaz,

 

In natural selection theory, is not the changing environment the main (or only?) premise why any species could become extinct? I think it's good we're involved and think we would benefit if humans were moreso. It simply seems to me there is a wrinkle in theory and practice.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

Burry, I would say there is a difference between a naturally changing environment and one changing through artificial means. Earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, droughts, ice ages, etc. have occured through the ages. The rapid changes brought on by man's destuction of the environment (deforestation, global warming, pollution, etc.) are a relatively new and decidedly unnatural development. Man can live in harmony with nature, but we choose not to. Environmentalism is about making responsible choices.

 

I make a distinction between naturally occuring changes and those brought on through man's technology and ignorance.

[Thurisaz]

I guess this is also a major "thrill" in all those "nature strikes back at humanity" movie flicks

[Burry The Rag]

I make a distinction between naturally occuring changes and those brought on through man's technology and ignorance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Ro-bear,

 

I don't. My wife and I were staying at a national park several years ago when a lighting strike sparked a forest fire. Everyone was pretty calm until it jumped a four-lane road. (Imagine ash landing in the swimming pool you’re in, it’s rather upsetting.) Those in charge did an excellent job of evacuating all the people and as many of the animals as they could. I thought that was a good move, don’t you?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Skankboy]

Let's also keep in mine that human's are decidedly selfish when it comes to environmentalism. We aren't trying to save the world, we are try to save the world that is inhabitable for human life. In a way, we do this in a "reverse evolutionary" manner, changing the environment to fit us and not vice versa.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

It just seemed to me, what is professed as good is in conflict with how we act.

I'm not sure that I consider natural selection to be "good" - it's just how nature seems to work on its own. Natural selection isn't always capable of keeping species viable anyway - there are thousands, if not millions of species that have become extinct over time without interference from humans. In those cases, the traits selected turned out not to be the best ones in the long run due to changes in the environment, etc.

 

Anyway, humans tamper with nature all the time, and tampering with natural selection to benefit our environment (and hopefully us in the long run) is just another example of that.

[Burry The Rag]

Let's also keep in mine that human's are decidedly selfish when it comes to environmentalism.  We aren't trying to save the world, we are try to save the world that is inhabitable for human life.  In a way, we do this in a "reverse evolutionary" manner, changing the environment to fit us and not vice versa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Skankboy,

 

True! Obviously humanity has done great and irrevocable damage to our environment. But is changing our environment necessarily bad? I would much rather go to my garden (or grocery store) for something to eat than roam the streets of my suburb as a hunter/gatherer.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

I'm not sure that I consider natural selection to be "good" - it's just how nature seems to work on its own.  Natural selection isn't always capable of keeping species viable anyway - there are thousands, if not millions of species that have become extinct over time without interference from humans.  In those cases, the traits selected turned out not to be the best ones in the long run due to changes in the environment, etc.

 

Anyway, humans tampers with nature all the time, and tampering with natural selection to benefit our environment (and hopefully us in the long run) is just another example of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Texas Freethinker,

 

Interesting point, I understand this perspective. From my training in biology (mind you, we're looking at college level 101) I was taught this was necessary to free resources for more successful species. It was not presented to me as a neutral process.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

Hey Ro-bear,

 

I don't. My wife and I were staying at a national park several years ago when a lighting strike sparked a forest fire. Everyone was pretty calm until it jumped a four-lane road. (Imagine ash landing in the swimming pool you’re in, it’s rather upsetting.) Those in charge did an excellent job of evacuating all the people and as many of the animals as they could. I thought that was a good move, don’t you?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. I think fleeing danger is a good idea. It's not like I'm saying I'd run from one and not the other. Are you saying avoidable mankind-inflicted damage to the environment deserves no more scrutiny than natural phenomena? That seems kind of irresponsible to me.

-Rob

[Burry The Rag]

Are you saying avoidable mankind-inflicted damage to the environment deserves no more scrutiny than natural phenomena?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Ro-bear,

 

By no means! In fact I believe just the opposite. I took issue with your statements…

 

…I would say there is a difference between a naturally changing environment and one changing through artificial means.

 

[snip]

 

I make a distinction between naturally occuring changes and those brought on through man's technology and ignorance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Peace!

 

BtR

[sonofspong]

Thats the great thing about being a human. We dont give a flying fuck about natural selection, whether it is right or wrong. We'll do our damndest to fight off nature; we dont care if disease is "natural", we develope vaccines and tell Ebola to fuck itself. We dont give a shit about animal species; hell I'd personally annihilate the entire mosquito genus if could, to hell with bats and birds. Domination over "natural selection" is one of, if not the, ultimate goal of mankind.

 

TAKE THAT, FUCKING NATURE.

[Ro-bear]

I'm confused. How can you say you make no distinction between man-made and naturally occuring environmental damage and yet agree that mankind should be aware of and seek to minimize its negative impact on the environment? That is inconsistent.

[Skankboy]

True, it is easier this way.

 

But consider this, almost all of the food we eat are from several very similar genetic stocks. They are much hardier and grow faster than the previous "unaltered" stocks. For us they have a much greater advantage for food production. But their similarity also makes all of our food vunerable to diseases. Without variation a single disease could wipe out say, ALL of the corn in the US.

 

There's even a movement now to perserve less used strains of veggies and livestock for just such reasons. Indeed, bananas have been selected to the point that they no longer have seeds, they are all clones. Now there's a disease wiping them out left and right and the industry is scrambling to find "unaltered" stock that is resistent...

[Burry The Rag]

I'm confused. How can you say you make no distinction between man-made and naturally occuring environmental damage and yet agree that mankind should be aware of and seek to minimize its negative impact on the environment? That is inconsistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ro-bear,

 

Regardless if a forest fire created by a lightning strike or started by an arsonist I feel we should attempt to minimize damage. Please explain the inconsistency.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

True, it is easier this way.

 

But consider this, almost all of the food we eat are from several very similar genetic stocks.  They are much hardier and grow faster than the previous "unaltered" stocks.  For us they have a much greater advantage for food production.  But their similarity also makes all of our food vunerable to diseases.  Without variation a single disease could wipe out say, ALL of the corn in the US.

 

There's even a movement now to perserve less used strains of veggies and livestock for just such reasons.  Indeed, bananas have been selected to the point that they no longer have seeds, they are all clones.  Now there's a disease wiping them out left and right and the industry is scrambling to find "unaltered" stock that is resistent...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Skankboy,

 

Yes, biodiversity is a good thing.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

Gladly. The response to each may be the same, as in your example, but that's not all there is to consistency. Do you think we should devote as much time and effort to preventing lightning strikes as to preventing arson? Would that be fruitful?

[Burry The Rag]

Gladly. The response to each may be the same, as in your example, but that's not all there is to consistency. Do you think we should devote as much time and effort to preventing lightning strikes as to preventing arson? Would that be fruitful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ro-bear,

 

I see both as destructive and recommend expelling our resources in relation to the greatest threat. I maintain our response should be that of intervention, when possible, regardless of the source of the damage. How am I inconsistent?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

You didn't answer my question. Let's assume that arson is responsible for more environmental damage than lightning. Let's further assume that it is more easily preventable. Neither assumption is, I think, unreasonable. Should we or should we not focus our prevention efforts on arson? If you answer "yes", you are inconsistent with your making no distinction claim. If you answer "no", you are not a practical person.

-Rob

[Burry The Rag]

Do you think we should devote as much time and effort to preventing lightning strikes as to preventing arson? Would that be fruitful?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't answer my question. Let's assume that arson is responsible for more environmental damage than lightning. Let's further assume that it is more easily preventable. Neither assumption is, I think, unreasonable. Should we or should we not focus our prevention efforts on arson? If you answer "yes", you are inconsistent with your making no distinction claim. If you answer "no", you are not a practical person.

-Rob

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Ro-bear,

 

The threat should be assessed and proper the actions taken. If, as you present: Arson is responsible for more environmental damage than lightning and it is more easily preventable. Then obviously that should dictate the focus of our efforts. Given different parameters, when possible, I would make a greater attempt to prevent natural disasters. We should strive to minimize the damage regardless if the cause is natural or generated by humans.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ro-bear]

You are a slippery one, Burry. Long on equivocation, short on direct responses. But no matter.

 

Are you clear yet as to haw environmentalism is consistent with natural selection? To me, it's as simple as recognizing that natural selection is an undirected, unconscious process and that the willful destruction of species is quite the opposite. The decline of the dinosaurs has little in common with the decline of the bison.