Secular Pinoy

Selection does seem to imply concious decision-making. Darwin should've used Filtration instead (since that's what Nat Sel does, it filters). Natural Filtration doesn't sound as good, though.

sakrilege

It does when brewing coffee (as I am just at this moment).


I found this book very informative (tho slow going). It helped me to view evolution as a universal part of the natural world, not just species selection.

Marcel

Natural selection is a blind force. It is the uncontrolled, random decimation of random mutations that is described as natural selection.
Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable is a real must-read for anybody who wants to be introduced to modern evolution theory.

Oolon Colluphid

Erm, no it's not.

Yes, it's not controlled (unless god's hand guides it in just such a way as to appear uncontrolled!).

Yes, mutations are random (more or less: it seems that some parts of genomes are more open to accidental change than others).

But the "decimation of [these] random mutations" is absolutely not random. It is the opposite of random, which is why it's called 'selection'.

Only those accidental changes that are environmentally neutral, and those that are improvements, are allowed through to the next round of the game; only those accidental changes that are detrimental in some way -- which is the easy majority -- are 'decimated'. Being that these are not randomly affected groups, selection isn't random. That non-randomness is the key to the theory working.

Marcel, did you just miss out the 'non-'?
Agreed; that and Blind Watchmaker, and possibly Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Those three are the clearest ones I know of for showing the absolute non-randomness of the process.

Cheers, Oolon

Marcel

Oolon, you're right.
Of course it's not completely random. It is the occurrence of mutations that is being restricted to constant factors such as external ones (climate, peers) and internal ones (previous mutations, etc.).

What I actually meant, was that there is no teleological idea behind these changes. There is no purpose hidden in the selection that nature imposes on lifeforms. In other words, the selecting factors are as little subject to a purpose or a plan as the mutations are.

I was mixing a philosophical concept like the vanity of teleology into the discussion (I just like arguing against theism and the related premises too much).

I haven't read The Blind Watchmaker, but in Climbing Mount Improbable Dawkins mentions the book regularly.

About Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea; a friend of mine, whom I got to know when he was still involved in one of the gloomiest Calvinistic-Reformed congregations, acquired the book. He says that it has fundamentally changed his views on life. He lost his religion thanks to Dennett. Previously he had been reading about the logical flaws of the cosmological argument and St Anselm's argument, but maybe that was all too abstract. It was the naturalistic view that convinced him.

Duvenoy

How To Blow Up A Jillion Baloons Without Ruining Your Circulatory System:

Go to Wal(gag)Mart and get one of those cheap, 12 v compressors that plug into the cigarette lighter of your car. They come with several attachments, one that will work for baloons.

There, already we've helped you!

Welcome to II, and wishing your son a happy birthday!

doov

KC

What has always impressed me about Darwin is his sheer readability. Not to mention how many times I say to myself 'Dang! Darwin was right again!

KC

Secular Pinoy

I'd still prefer to call it Natural Filtration.

Kosmo

Chalk up another recommendation for Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett. I can't imagine anyone giving that book an honest read and not being blown away. The kind of book you read in bed, and then think about what you've just read for an hour in the dark after you put it down for the night.

When I was applying to medical school, one of the essays I had to write was about 'the most influential book or poem you have read, and why?' I wrote about that book.

RBH

I'm going to pick a nit here that bothers me when I read it (no offense, Oolon). Oolon wroteActually, deleterious mutations aren't necessarily 'decimated.' If they're not lethal but only mildly deleterious, they can hang around for quite a while. In fact, in the recent Lenski, et al., paper in Nature , occasionally deleterious mutations in effect set the stage for later selectively advantageous mutations. So it's not as simple as 'all deleterious mutations are weeded out immediately.'