Can the history of life on earth be proven to be the result of any natural process?

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Your “examples” do not reflect the whole story, and show your usual focus on the specific rather than the whole.

The whole is that those who carry those mutations in their hemoglobin gene survive malarial infections at a higher rate that those without the mutations. This isn’t due to acquired immunity as you tried to claim.

@RichardG

Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation,.

Natural selection is about the change in allele frequencies over time within a population due to environmental pressures. For example, the mutations that allow humans to produce lactase into adulthood started out in single individuals. Over time selection caused the mutation to spread to a large portion of some human populations (e.g. Europeans). That’s an increase in the frequency of the lactase persistence alleles within the human population.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

That’s an increase in the frequency of the lactase persistence alleles within the human population.

No, it s only within a distinct group of humans, so unless you are going to claim a subspecies it is not Natural Selection.(as defined by Darwin)

You are just being stubborn

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

No, it s only within a distinct group of humans,

In what way do you think humans who are lactose intolerant are a distinct group separated from people who aren’t lactose intolerant?

@RichardG

so unless you are going to claim a subspecies it is not Natural Selection.(as defined by Darwin)

Do you think there are subspecies of humans based on blood type (ABO)?

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation,. It is you who is trying to justify his misue of terminology.

Just when did you get a PhD in biology? Everyone here who has a science degree uses the terminology the same way; you appoint yourself the judge of those who know what they’re doing!

As Roy notes:

@Roy

@T_aquaticus just quoted the passage from Origin in which Darwin coined ‘Natural Selection’. It explicitly refers to individuals, not to species.

Did Darwin get it wrong?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation,. It is you who is trying to justify his misue of terminology.

Just when did you get a PhD in biology?

Believe it or not I have the actual book.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Believe it or not I have the actual book.

Which one? The Selfish Gene? Why Evolution is True? The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution? Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life? Maybe The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History? How about Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters?

I suspect that the biologists here have either read those or know the material they discuss. They also know that there is no “the actual book”.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Believe it or not I have the actual book.

Which one?

The Origin of Species, where that quote came from!

The one that started all this. The one where he coins the phrases…

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

The Origin of Species, where that quote came from!

In case anyone cares, Talkorigins has a digital copy of Origin of Species that is in plain text which makes it easier to search.

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

The Origin of Species, where that quote came from!

The one that started all this. The one where he coins the phrases…

So you admit you’re 'way behind things in terms of biology and evolution.

On the Origin of Species is not a bible, it is a starting point.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

The one that started all this. The one where he coins the phrases…

So you admit you’re 'way behind things in terms of biology and evolution.

On the Origin of Species is not a bible, it is a starting point.

Kindly keep up with the conversation, before making false accusations and assertions

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation,. It is you who is trying to justify his misue of terminology.

Just when did you get a PhD in biology?

Believe it or not I have the actual book.

Then you know Darwin defined Natural Selection in reference to competition between individuals, without mentioning species.

If you’ve read it.

If you haven’t read it, you might not know that Natural Selection wasn’t defined in terms of species or speciation.

There only seem to be two three possibilities here.

(I thought of a third possibility - that @RichardG may be incapable of understanding what he reads)

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

Then you know Darwin defined Natural Selection in reference to competition between individuals, without mentioning species.

From the book
This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Kindly keep up with the conversation, before making false accusations and assertions

I am keeping up – that’s why I made my post.

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

Then you know Darwin defined Natural Selection in reference to competition between individuals, without mentioning species.

From the book
This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

So you do know that Darwin defined ‘Natural Selection’ without mentioning species.

So this:

@RichardG

Natural Selection, in Evoltion, is about Species. and speciation

was wrong, and this:

@RichardG

Natural Section (capitals for specific usage) was coined within Evolutionary theory for one species surviving over another.

was wrong, and this:

@RichardG

Natural Selection is about species or opulations, not individuals.

was wrong, and this:

@RichardG

… you are not actually talking Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, you are taliking of individual survival, …

was wrong, as was every other statement you’ve made concerning ‘Natural Selection’ being about species rather than about individuals.

How did you get it wrong so often?

Why haven’t you corrected your previous incorrect statements?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

So you do know that Darwin defined ‘Natural Selection’ without mentioning species.

I quote one line…

You have made your feelings clear, even if they were detleted.
I will just call you Ahab.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

So you do know that Darwin defined ‘Natural Selection’ without mentioning species.

I quote one line…

If you’ve got another line from Darwin’s definition of ‘Natural Selection’ that does mention species, then feel free to quote it.

But we both know you can’t, because there isn’t one.

You just can’t admit that you’re wrong even when it’s obvious to everyone - including you.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

But we both know you can’t, because there isn’t one.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but that does not prevent the understanding being there.

Your hatred of me makes you contradict anything I say whether it is accurate or not.

You are the Kingon who cried “Worf”

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

But we both know you can’t, because there isn’t one.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible, but that does not prevent the understanding being there.

Then quote the part of Darwin’s definition of ‘Natural Selection’ that indicates it is about species without stating so directly.

We both know you can’t, because there isn’t one. That’s also why you haven’t quoted it already.

[EDC1]

Isnt evolution about individuals AND species?

The traits within a species change based on natural selection and other mechanisms - the infamous moths is an obvious example. Those populations were made up of individual moths who were picked off by birds depending on their wing colour, and this depended on a specific environmental factor. Then due to reproduction, those moths with a particular colouring survived the most and so became dominant.

But evolution is also about new species developing over time. How that works is beyond my very basic knowledge, as in how does one decide a new species has started?

But it’s both individuals which then leads to changes in populations and ultimately to new defined species. Darwin didnt have to use specific words in his book for that to be true.

Am I wrong?

[klw]

I would word it that Natural Selection acts on individuals (individuals live, die, and reproduce) but it is not the individual which evolves. Rather, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So one might say that natural selection acts on individuals but it is the population that evolves. Such evolution in a population may lead to speciation, but need not do so.