Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 5, 2024, 6:02 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is artificial selection considered "evolution"?
#36
RE: Is artificial selection considered "evolution"?
(March 12, 2012 at 6:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But they are not changes based solely on human predation. They are changes directed by human beings with knowledge of what they are affecting (and possible alternatives) often in complete and utter disregard for the creature, not beneficial in any way except to be kept as livestock or crops. Often infertile, sometimes genetically modified, and done, all the while, by a conscious agent of change. The products of natural selection and artificial selection themselves are remarkably and noticeably different.

Nature is not a conscious agent of change. It does not select upon the metrics that we might (and even phrasing it this way is only an attempt to make it seem more easily understood to us), and while we are natural, not everything that we do conforms to the process by which nature has "formed" life. We are capable of inserting ourselves and exploiting. Ultimately, what we do is a product of nature, as it is a product of ourselves. That doesn't mean that it is not artificial selection. Oftentimes words mean different things in different areas, especially so of science. The mechanism by which nature facilitates evolution is called "natural". When that mechanism is deliberately tinkered with, it is called "artificial" (because it was here before us, handled the job before us, and gets to claim credit-Smile).

Think, artifice, artifact, artificial.

Yes, but all these artifice's are entirely natural to us. We can certainly make a distinction between our own tinkering VS nature in one sense, useful for classifying things from a science perspective, yet I believe we have to surrender to the ultimate issue of evolution itself, which gave rise to our ability to do the tinkering in the first place.

Was this kind of what the OP was asking? It is merely my opinion humans are not, and can do nothing beyond nature, no matter how grandiose it gets in the future. If we create advanced "artificial intelligence", and it takes over, replicates and improves, what has changed? The new forms will still have to deal with the limits of this planet, or wherever they might go. Like us, they will still go extinct.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain

Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Is artificial selection considered "evolution"? - by Modular Moog V - March 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is required for a human organism to be considered a rights bearer? DogmaticDownSouth 53 13975 July 6, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Last Post: Ben Davis
  Evolution VS Natural Selection [minute physics] pocaracas 2 1396 January 25, 2014 at 4:19 am
Last Post: pocaracas
  Artificial Heart available for Human Trials pineapplebunnybounce 11 3455 July 16, 2013 at 3:53 am
Last Post: Justtristo
  Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution. Mystic 59 31883 April 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Species: Artificial Life, Real Evolution PC Game QuQuasar 8 17136 November 27, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Artificial jellyfish created from heart cells frankiej 7 3206 July 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Last Post: Napoléon
  DNA, IC, natural selection and debating a Creationist MarcusF 11 4594 June 8, 2011 at 6:31 am
Last Post: MarcusF
  Natural Selection Strikes Again Minimalist 21 8234 August 26, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 27 Guest(s)