Chimps have been known to design tools, though their involvement in the design is often argued, I'm willing to let them have it. They have an outcome in mind, they search for appropriate material, and this all translates to a desired effect (hopefully, for the chimp). NS does nothing of the sort. The "designs" of chimps and the "designs" of human beings are markedly different, and we have a pretty good idea of why that might be (and why we might be able to say that chimps "design" anything at all). Again, a bit of poetic license is necessary. We have to bend the word, because the observed effect seems unwilling to bend.

Why not, are we not natural? Any selection by anything natural is natural selection in my book.

(March 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Are you entirely sure you're responding to my post? What human beings do is ultimately a product of nature, but what does not involve human beings, while being a process of nature, does not involve consciousness or intelligence in all cases (or even most), as these are characteristics of ourselves, how we go about "artificial selection". Natural selection is not bound to leveraging intelligence or consciousness in its ministrations, and if it were, we'd be in trouble, because we can't seem to find the "consciousness or intelligence of natural selection" anywhere we look. NS is not a force, it is a description of a collection of pressures. It is not wandering around placing blocks where it chooses or pleases, it makes no choices, it does not please. It is unthinking because it does not have a mind, it is not a conscious process for that same reason. That is the important distinction. "Artificial selection" can provide predetermined outcomes, can weigh the possibilities, makes plans, sticks to plans, discards the unplanned, works faster, and is altogether more reliable insomuch as the parameters are specified. Natural selection does none of these things, cannot provide any of these things, and works from an entirely different toolkit.

If humans are natural, there is no possibility of "artificial" anything. It is what we do as critters on this rock.

The points that way fellas. I've really got to brush up on my communication skills, it seems.

I know, I know, you like to carve a little cubby hole out of nature to pretend you are better than nature. We'll humor you.

Just kidding

"Natural" Selection describes one type of process.

"Artificial" Selection describes another, one with at least one, massive, difference.

These words don't have anything to do with the mechanism by which either effect is achieved. That's the same biology in both cases. It's the agent that causes us to make the distinction.
(neither of you are actually disagreeing with me, as I've already made this same criticism of how human beings word things and perceive things many many posts ago, nevertheless, there is a distinction)

God I hope you're kidding...lol, since I argue against this everytime it crops up...and even did so in this very thread.

(March 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Natural" Selection describes one type of process.

"Artificial" Selection describes another, one with at least one, massive, difference.

These words don't have anything to do with the mechanism by which either effect is achieved. That's the same biology in both cases. It's the agent that causes us to make the distinction.
(neither of you are actually disagreeing with me, as I've already made this same criticism of how human beings word things and perceive things many many posts ago)

Certain types of ants "farm" aphids, and some farm fungus. Are the ants doing anything artificial? They have certainly cultivated very specific qualities in the other species they are farming. How are we different?

They haven't done so consciously, again. They don't actually have any idea what effect they're having on the aphids. They haven't considered any alternatives (and there are alternatives for the ants btw). They don't plan or build their structures to be accomodating to the aphids. There was actually a point where we weren't very much different, even though we were fully modern human beings. That point has long since past. Early domestication would be better described as cooperation, or even natural selection. Husbandry is conscious control, artificial selection. That's the difference between "natural" and "artificial" selection, insomuch as we define them, and as it relates to this conversation.

Why don't we have a fun little convo about how plants have artificially selected us btw? Or have they naturally selected us? Or do they not even realize we're here, but have nevertheless caused us to be exactly what they need us to be through means that could not accurately be called NS or AS?

(March 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They haven't done so consciously, again. They don't actually have any idea what effect they're having on the aphids. They haven't considered any alternatives (and there are alternatives for the ants btw). They don't plan or build their structures to be accomodating to the aphids. There was actually a point where we weren't very much different, even though we were fully modern human beings. That point has long since past. Early domestication would be better described as cooperation. Husbandry is conscious control. That's the difference between "natural" and "artificial" selection, insomuch as we define them, and as it relates to this conversation.

In terms of the ants, that is not true. The aphids are cared for in a most specific way, and the fungus the others grow requires perfect conditions. Only specific food is harvested for the fungus gardens, and it must be kept at specific moisture conditions.

However, it may be the word artificial itself that needs pruning. How can a naturally occurring creature do anything artificial? Likely this should be a new thread in philosophy or something.

Trolling me, right?