Evolution; A challenge.

[TJ99]

I think the issue was what is the mechanism that causes creatures that are best suited to their environment to stand the biggest chance of surviving longer and successfully reproducing. It can't be natural selection since it is not a cause or mechanism. I remember people saying that it is just a description of different processes or things, I can't remember now though. But I also remember that someone said people have a problem with the "fitness" concept. This is related to my mind. To say nobody answered the question is really not the truth.

It is a description for the combination of environmental factors or pressures, and not some magic, guiding "force". That is pretty much commonly accepted, and it is stated in the article. Did you even read it? It's explained pretty well, notice how "selects" and "forces" are used:

3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die. The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey is so swift and elusive. (Because any slow and weak lions would not be able to survive long enough to reproduce).

Still, even if it wasn't, it's not relevant to the question. The question isn't for people to list why they object a certain term being used, it's to explain why they think the principle cannot/doesn't aply. Call it whatever you want, process, mechanism, collection of environmental pressures, three headed monkey, fish paste sandwich, it's still the same thing. The fact is the creatures best suited to their environments survive and reproduce the most. If you want to use another term then go for it. The OP says:

If you are unable to provide a detailed explanation for why you do not accept any of these processes, then logic demands you realize you simply do not have the necessary knowledge to object to evolution.

Don't try and make it about something else. That's what those posters tried to do. Actually read the part about artificial selection as well, once you get that it's very easy to understand what natural selection means. (That's coincidentally how Darwin explained it the first time as well in his book)

 

[Techne]

TJ99, i am going to try and explain how different views of natural selection are relevant as objections to the OP.

You say "creatures that are best suited to their environment, stand the biggest chance of surviving longer and successfully reproducing".

This may be true, but let's unpack what you have said. Your statement can be broken into two questions.

The first question is how do you measure whether a population of creatures or even a particular creature is suited to its environment?

There area few ways in which one can answer this question.
A) The ones that survive longer and/or reproduce the most are the ones that are more suited to the environment.
B) Each particular individual has a certain fitness that is a real causal factor of the individual. Fitness is a probabilistic propensity, meaning that an organism with a higher fitness potential will tend to leave more offspring and/or live longer.
C) Each particular individual has a certain subjective fitness but it plays no causal role in the propagation of its genes or survivability.
D)

The second question is why do some creatures successfully survive longer and reproduce more. Again, there are a few ways to answer this question.
A) They where more suited to their environment and therefore survive longer and produce more.
B) They probably had a higher fitness potential than other organisms.
C) Fitness difference (or "suitedness" if you want) is merely a subjective term (i.e. it play no causal role in the propgation of features) and it is only by chance that some survive and reproduce more than others.
D) Because of natural selection. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives.

Notice how answering the questions with A) results in a tautology. It is simply bad logic.

You also can't answer question 2 with D as it too results in a tautology and I think we can all agree that natural selection is not an actual force or cause but merely a descriptive term.

You are left with giving a proper definition for fitness. Is fitness a real propensity or disposition or is it merely a subjective term used by humans. There are defenders of both views (as pointed out here).

Now the first option (fitness potential/propensity/disposition) is perfectly compatible with a thoroughly teleological view of evolution. In fact the whole Aristotelian view rests on the distinction between potential and actual as real categories of being. And if we are to accept fitness potential is real then the ToE is straightforwardly compatible with an Aristotelian teleological view of evolution and the traditional teleological argument for God.

But if you choose the second option (fitness as a subjective term) then your assertion that "creatures that are best suited to their environment, stand the biggest chance of surviving longer and successfully reproducing" is pretty much subjective as well. that is fine, there are people who defend such a position (see post in link above).

There are a few ways how people understand and describe natural selection and it is, as pointed out, important to understand where each person comes from and how they understand natural selection and the terms around it so that we do not talk past each other.

I hope this helps.

 

[TJ99]

TJ99, i am going to try and explain how different views of natural selection are relevant as objections to the OP.

You say "creatures that are best suited to their environment, stand the biggest chance of surviving longer and successfully reproducing".

This may be true, but let's unpack what you have said. Your statement can be broken into two questions.

The first question is how do you measure whether a population of creatures or even a particular creature is suited to its environment?

There area few ways in which one can answer this question.
A) The ones that survive longer and/or reproduce the most are the ones that are more suited to the environment.
B) Each particular individual has a certain fitness that is a real causal factor of the individual. Fitness is a probabilistic propensity, meaning that an organism with a higher fitness potential will tend to leave more offspring and/or live longer.
C) Each particular individual has a certain subjective fitness but it plays no causal role in the propagation of its genes or survivability.
D)

The second question is why do some creatures successfully survive longer and reproduce more. Again, there are a few ways to answer this question.
A) They where more suited to their environment and therefore survive longer and produce more.
B) They probably had a higher fitness potential than other organisms.
C) Fitness difference (or "suitedness" if you want) is merely a subjective term (i.e. it play no causal role in the propgation of features) and it is only by chance that some survive and reproduce more than others.
D) Because of natural selection. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives.

Notice how answering the questions with A) results in a tautology. It is simply bad logic.

You also can't answer question 2 with D as it too results in a tautology and I think we can all agree that natural selection is not an actual force or cause but merely a descriptive term.

You are left with giving a proper definition for fitness. Is fitness a real propensity or disposition or is it merely a subjective term used by humans. There are defenders of both views (as pointed out here).

Now the first option (fitness potential/propensity/disposition) is perfectly compatible with a thoroughly teleological view of evolution. In fact the whole Aristotelian view rests on the distinction between potential and actual as real categories of being. And if we are to accept fitness potential is real then the ToE is straightforwardly compatible with an Aristotelian teleological view of evolution and the traditional teleological argument for God.

But if you choose the second option (fitness as a subjective term) then your assertion that "creatures that are best suited to their environment, stand the biggest chance of surviving longer and successfully reproducing" is pretty much subjective as well. that is fine, there are people who defend such a position (see post in link above).

There are a few ways how people understand and describe natural selection and it is, as pointed out, important to understand where each person comes from and how they understand natural selection and the terms around it so that we do not talk past each other.

I hope this helps.

Nice try. Still irrelevant though, as porchrat as said before:

OK great it is a descriptive term instead of a prescriptive term. Oh look animals still don't reproduce if they're unfit regardless. OK ... this was pointless.

Moving on.

Look, I like yammering on about irrelevant distinctions and saying as little as possible in the most over-the-top, verbose way possible as much as the next guy, but people can make whatever pointless distinctions they want, it doesn't answer the question. As for whether or not "fitness" is a subjective term, again, as said already:

It makes no difference the effect happens regardless of what words you use to describe it. Duh.

Ultimately it is environmental pressure determining whether organisms live or die. What words you stick around that means absolutely fsck all. If you have no problem with the concept then cool if you do have a problem with the concept please explain it. That is after all the purpose of the thread.

Thanks.

 

[Techne]

Nice try. Still irrelevant though, as porchrat as said before:

Well, it is actually quite relevant (especially the fitness part) if you read it.

Look, I like yammering on about irrelevant distinctions and saying as little as possible in the most over-the-top, verbose way possible as much as the next guy, but people can make whatever pointless distinctions they want, it doesn't answer the question. As for whether or not "fitness" is a subjective term, again, as said already:

The quoted part is relevant to what was said above as it basically describes what is known as "ecological fitness". So the same points are still relevant.

 

[TJ99]

Well, it is actually quite relevant (especially the fitness part) if you read it.


The quoted part is relevant to what was said above as it basically describes what is known as "ecological fitness". So the same points are still relevant.

No-one (at least not the linked article) used the term "ecological fitness" in the first place. Not that it would matter if they did.

I realise who I'm asking this of, but can you just please give a straight answer to this? No phronisms, no bull****.

Do environmental pressures determine which animals are more likely to live or die? Yes or No? That is all that's relevant.

 

[Forrest]

Common descent underpins evolutionary theory. Successfully undermining it would have falsified evolutionary theory as we know it today.

And there we have it. Evolution would be made to fit it again. It cannot be falsified.

DNA has been convincingly proven to [be] the "information carrier and characteristic determinant"

And if similar functions and characteristics didn't have similar DNA it would have disproved that. You seem to be confusing "would have" with "did". The point still remains that if it wasn't attributes would still be claimed to be passed through some other as yet unknown means.

The issue is not when divergences occurred, it's whether they occurred or not.

DNA analysis could have revealed no commonality between any species, it could have revealed a planet where every species (or every kind) was singularly unique.

It would still only call DNA as the deciding factor into question. Divergence can still be claimed to occur through some other as yet unknown mechanism and a higher rate of DNA mutation can be claimed to account for an undetectable similarity between DNA.

What difference would you take to reveal no commonality between a similar species like us and chimps eg. anyway? 1? 2? 99%?

Yes, if the potential remains for something to be disproven

"Something" being the operative word. The theory as a whole remains unfalsifiable.

Facts exist whether you believe them or not.

You may not believe in evolution, but you are different from your parents, as they were different from theirs, and as your children are (or will) be different from you.
Likewise you may not believe in gravity (it is after all only a theory), but I wouldn't jump out of an airplane without a parachute.

And your point is moot... Existence of some facts does not mean anything can be claimed as a fact without proving it. Also nice classical strawmen you have there.

That's not a fact, that's merely your desire, facts are independent of your desires.

Facts still have to be proven to be facts. YOUR desire to call something a fact will not instantly make it one. It is actually not a fact but more a hypothesis that still has the burden of proof. You're drifing.

If you have an alternative theory which explains all the facts of evolution then it could very well win you a Nobel prize. How do you find that notion derogatory?

It's condescending as I have never made that claim. You are shifting the burdon of proving something onto me disproving it instead and not in a nice way, but never mind, I don't expect you to get it as it just seems to come naturally

 

[Forrest]

So you have stated. Please back this up with some evidence now.

You want "evidence" (examples?) of how scientists use the term. Well here you go:

Richard Dawkins appears to be one of the main culprits: "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun." But Dawkins knows this is not true and he is either being intellectually dishonest or he is more accurately talking about evolution instead. In his own book he contradicts this and talks about the "40-percenters" referring to people that deny "evolution" - "Creationists love the fossil record. They think that because it has gaps, evolution doesn’t exist." Surely he must have had discussions with "creationists" before and if he did it's unlikely he found anybody that held the fossil record as evidence that evolution doesn't occur. No it's unsupportive of the theory of evolution and the "40-percenters" he talks of indeed deny the theory of evolution.

Defining terms deals with Dr John Endler's book on how confusing the language has become. The facepalm moment might have been when a professor cited his book as claiming no hard evidence of natural selection but actually ended up making the same mistake of confusing natural selection and evolution that Endler warns against. But then Endler may be making the same mistakes himself. :wtf:

Now will you provide evidence of the claims you made?

This is a logical conclusion unless you demonstrate what prohibits it. DNA, Fossils etc etc ammounts to massive loads of evidence which supports this logical conclusion.

It is still just an assumption. There are many things we know of or not that could potentially stop it. You're still holding up fossils as evidence for this? No serious biologist I know of would put forth fossils as major support for evolution. The fossil record in fact indicates resistance to major change more than it supports it. Gould tried to get past this by assuming evolution happens very fast in small numbers where it wouldn't show up in fossils. How is THAT for conjecture without anything to support it at all?

It has. I don't have to disprove God at all. I simply have to state that I don't accept your ****ed up claims about a celestial peeping tom.

lol. You're still assuming not just that it's possible but likely to happen and that it did happen. Well it's also possible for aliens to land but that doesn't mean it's likely or that it ever did happen. And you entirely missed the gist of my comment as every single evolutionsts has. Btw I must say a good maturity and manner of bedate you too are showing here.

Dishonest when you shift the burden of proof? Yes it is.

Well what a revelation. I don't suppose you will now stop shifting the burdon of proving it onto me disproving it?

The person whom I quoted would have been an indication to any sane, intelligent and rational human being. And I have whatever admissions I need that techne was fearisgood. Amongst a crap load of other nicks.

Actually not when your comment was also partly directed at me. It's then preferable to ask. There's no need to be so condescending about it.

"Whatever admissions I need" does not sound like real admissions. Please stop making accusations against people if you can't support them.

I see people saying natural selection is actually not a mechanism or not prescriptive (techne and rwenzori and others). This answers one of the questions. In fact, it is an objection.

i don't know what you guys are smoking but it must be inhibiting your comprehension skills quite badly. Sorry.

+1

***** ****** people stop derailing the thread.

Says the pot to the kettle. Everything here just happens to be on topic as long as the OP refuses to state what it is he means by the questions.

Agreed. No need to apologise to me though it isn't my thread

I just don't want to see this tripe in Natural Sciences. This mess is the reason why I don't like seeing these evolution threads aimed at creationists in here. This is a place for science, not creationist garbage.

Exactly. Glad you realise evolution doesn't belong with science. I have yet to see a *single evolution claim being backed up here.

*I might have missed one or two among all these predominant diatribes and vitriol aimed at creationists.

That looked like an argument around the semantics in one question. It didn't seek to answer the actual question. I could be wrong. Frankly after all this time I've forgotten what the questions even were. I'll go check back.

Oh wow so now the actual meaning of something is just semantics. Meanings are quite important in debate. Of course this is not a debate as the OP refuses to say what he understands the terms to mean. This looks more and more like a disingenuous attempt at ridiculing creationists instead: "zOMG nobody answered my question or I didn't understand that they did somebody please call..."

There is no need to be insulting now.

That coming from the people that have been the most insulting throughout this thread

Liar.

Takes one to know one.

Still, even if it wasn't, it's not relevant to the question. The question isn't for people to list why they object a certain term being used, it's to explain why they think the principle cannot/doesn't aply.

Which they did. You can certainly disagree if it applies or not but claiming the questions weren't answered is an outright lie. Anyone that has a problem with people in their mind "derailing" the thread is being disingenuous here as the questions were answered (all of them possibly). If the shoe was on the other foot you would claim the same. A question that really hasn't been answered is who put the labels on this thread. I can't add any so it must have been the OP or someone with higher authority.

 

[TJ99]

Which they did. You can certainly disagree if it applies or not but claiming the questions weren't answered is an outright lie. Anyone that has a problem with people in their mind "derailing" the thread is being disingenuous here as the questions were answered (all of them possibly). If the shoe was on the other foot you would claim the same. A question that really hasn't been answered is who put the labels on this thread. I can't add any so it must have been the OP or someone with higher authority.

Links or STFU. No-one has answered anything. They were just bitching about how the concept should be interpreted.

 

[alloytoo]

And there we have it. Evolution would be made to fit it again. It cannot be falsified.

"I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian." J. B. S. Haldane

And if similar functions and characteristics didn't have similar DNA it would have disproved that. You seem to be confusing "would have" with "did".

So you acknowledge that TOE was once falsifiable before it was proven.

The point still remains that if it wasn't attributes would still be claimed to be passed through some other as yet unknown means.

Which would mean the current theory was effectively falsified.

It would still only call DNA as the deciding factor into question. Divergence can still be claimed to occur through some other as yet unknown mechanism and a higher rate of DNA mutation can be claimed to account for an undetectable similarity between DNA.

Which would be an unproven hypothesis not a replacement explanation for observed evolution.

What difference would you take to reveal no commonality between a similar species like us and chimps eg. anyway? 1? 2? 99%?

It's not so much a percentage, but a qualitative analysis. The absence of ERV's, broken genes, non encoding DNA would be far more compelling than any given percentage.

"Something" being the operative word. The theory as a whole remains unfalsifiable.

No, the fact of observed evolution would remain, we would however need a new explanation.

And your point is moot... Existence of some facts does not mean anything can be claimed as a fact without proving it. Also nice classical strawmen you have there.

Facts don't need to be proven, they are observed. Theories then explain them. The theory could be wrong, but the observed facts remain.

Facts still have to be proven to be facts. YOUR desire to call something a fact will not instantly make it one. It is actually not a fact but more a hypothesis that still has the burden of proof. You're drifing.

Nonsense.

A scientific fact:

noun
an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

It's condescending as I have never made that claim.

And I never said you did.

You are shifting the burdon of proving something onto me disproving it instead and not in a nice way, but never mind, I don't expect you to get it as it just seems to come naturally

Shame, my heart beats lumpy custard.

Evolution is observed scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific explanation. Anyone who successfully overturns TOE is bound to earn himself fame and fortune.

A good way to start would be to accept the challenge in the OP. A bad way would be to deny scientific fact.

 

[porchrat]

"And there we have it. Evolution would be made to fit it again. It cannot be falsified."
Oh come on. This is how all of science works. It changes. If it didn't it would be a religion. Don't be daft now. You know perfectly well that there are things that if discovered would be very difficult for the Theory of Evolution to explain.

Also please could we get back to the topic and stop this totally unrelated debate now.

EDIT: wait no Evolution wouldn't change at all. Gravity for example doesn't change to suit something new that was discovered. So no you're wrong, evolution will never change. The Theory of Evolution can though and that change is perfectly good science.

 

[copacetic]

:wtf:

 

[Techne]

No-one (at least not the linked article) used the term "ecological fitness" in the first place. Not that it would matter if they did.

It is a relevant term that is used in the linked articles I provided.

I realise who I'm asking this of, but can you just please give a straight answer to this? No phronisms, no bull****.

Do environmental pressures determine which animals are more likely to live or die? Yes or No? That is all that's relevant.

phronisms? I am sorry, but if you want to be insulting and condescending by telling me I am writing BS (that is what I get from the above, you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong) or that you don't like what I am writing, why do you even ask? Let's face, it does not matter what I write to you or how nice and clear I try to put it, you will still reject it.

You want a simple answer for a complex answer? The simple answer is it depends on your interpretation of the terms.

The complex answer is:
1) We have differential reproductive and survival success.
2) There are two aspects. One is fitness of the individuals. We have talked about this and there are various interpretations of it. Is it a real potential or disposition or is it merely a subjective term? The second aspect is environmental pressure. If you argue that fitness is a real disposition and think environmental pressures do play a role then you are basically agreeing to what can be called "ecological fitness". If you think that environmental pressures do play a role but think fitness is merely a subjective term then you need to explain why the one is objectively real and the other is not. If you think both are mere subjective terms used to explain evolution then and that, well, so be it, you can argue that changes in population wide changes are as a result of non-selective processes such as drift. There are defenders of each view. To claim this is irrelevant to the discussion here is simply an admission that you really don't want to actually read up on the issues. If you are intellectually honest and want to read up more about the various interpretations, please at least read the links provided.

 

[TJ99]

It is a relevant term that is used in the linked articles I provided.


phronisms? I am sorry, but if you want to be insulting and condescending by telling me I am writing BS (that is what I get from the above, you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong) or that you don't like what I am writing, why do you even ask? Let's face, it does not matter what I write to you or how nice and clear I try to put it, you will still reject it.

You want a simple answer for a complex answer? The simple answer is it depends on your interpretation of the terms.

The complex answer is:
1) We have differential reproductive and survival success.
2) There are two aspects. One is fitness of the individuals. We have talked about this and there are various interpretations of it. Is it a real potential or disposition or is it merely a subjective term? The second aspect is environmental pressure. If you argue that fitness is a real disposition and think environmental pressures do play a role then you are basically agreeing to what can be called "ecological fitness". If you think that environmental pressures do play a role but think fitness is merely a subjective term then you need to explain why the one is objectively real and the other is not. If you think both are mere subjective terms used to explain evolution then and that, well, so be it, you can argue that changes in population wide changes are as a result of non-selective processes such as drift. There are defenders of each view. To claim this is irrelevant to the discussion here is simply an admission that you really don't want to actually read up on the issues. If you are intellectually honest and want to read up more about the various interpretations, please at least read the links provided.

It's not in the one the thread is about. By the way, I did read what you said, and I even agree with most of it. I'm not saying you're wrong, the problem is it's got nothing to do with the question and you know it. It makes zero difference. You're trying to make up other issues to argue about, arguing about something not even in question is a prime example.

And thanks for responding with what other people might or might not think, I would have been really surprised if you actually gave a simple answer of your own opinion.

FFS why are you even in this thread, you admitted earlier that you're not one of these anti-evolution weirdos. What do you actually want to accomplish?

 

[Techne]

It's not in the one the thread is about. By the way, I did read what you said, and I even agree with most of it. I'm not saying you're wrong, the problem is it's got nothing to do with the question and you know it.

I disagree, I think people's interpretations of natural selection, fitness, environmental pressure etc. could not be more relevant. For example, if a person does not think natural selection plays a role and rather emphasises on the effects of drift, then that negates one of the assertions in the OP.

And thanks for responding with what other people might or might not think, I would have been really surprised if you actually gave a simple answer of your own opinion.

That was my opinion on the various interpretations. I provided my inopinion on my interpretations in many previous posts.

FFS why are you even in this thread, you admitted earlier that you're not one of these anti-evolution weirdos. What do you actually want to accomplish?

I disagree with evolution if natural selection is argued to be a cause or a force or a prescriptive term. I have explained this before and why it is relevant. You may disagree and so be it. I am unlikely to convince you, but that is fine, we all have our different opinions I guess.

 

[TJ99]

So in other words, you agree completely with the description given in the article, apart from them calling it a mechanism in its own right and there is actually nothing to argue about. Wow, glad we finally cleared that up.

 

[Techne]

So in other words, you agree completely with the description given in the article, apart from them calling it a mechanism in its own right and there is actually nothing to argue about. Wow, glad we finally cleared that up.

Errr. No. But if you think so, so be it.

 

[copacetic]

I'm a little confused by all this discussion about natural selection, to be perfectly honest.

This is how the article puts it:

Here is how Natural Selection works:

1. More organisms are born than can survive.

2. Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents. Every batch of offspring contains a natural range of genetic variation. Genetic variation is produced in several ways, as discussed below. Changes in the genetic code, most of the time, are either harmful to an organism or neutral to it. However, there are rare instances where such changes can be helpful to the survival of an organism. Changes in the genetics of a species can bring about physical changes which give a survival advantage to the species, allowing it to continue when other species cannot.

3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die. The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey is so swift and elusive. (Because any slow and weak lions would not be able to survive long enough to reproduce). The reason antelopes are so swift and elusive is because lions are so fast and powerful. (Because any slow antelopes, and any that lack the instinct to run in a zig-zag pattern, would not survive long enough to reproduce.) There are other types of selective forces: climate changes and food supply changes will eliminate any organisms which aren't well suited for survival; sexual selection is the reason male peacocks have enormous tail feathers, and why deer and moose have huge antlers-- peacocks with small feathers and moose with little antlers don't get to mate with the females. Selective pressure is any factor that makes it hard for some organisms to continue surviving, and rewards any advantage that some organisms may have been born with.

4. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations, which give survival enhancements, bring about new species. Thousands of generations of small changes result in a species that can look very different from the one that it came from.

What am I missing? This seems incredibly simple... What are these pages and pages of discussion actually about?

 

[Ekstasis]

I disagree, I think people's interpretations of natural selection, fitness, environmental pressure etc. could not be more relevant. For example, if a person does not think natural selection plays a role and rather emphasises on the effects of drift, then that negates one of the assertions in the OP.

That was my opinion on the various interpretations. I provided my inopinion on my interpretations in many previous posts.

I disagree with evolution if natural selection is argued to be a cause or a force or a prescriptive term. I have explained this before and why it is relevant. You may disagree and so be it. I am unlikely to convince you, but that is fine, we all have our different opinions I guess.

@Techne, I haven't read any of your posts where you are clear about your own stance on ToE. I do agree with the notion that "natural selection" is a descriptive term for the end result of processes/mechanisms such as mutation,drift etc. and not a force/mechanism on it's own.
I might be ignorant as to my understanding of the ToE in totality as it's laid out as I'm sure many others who fiercely stand by it, don't fully understand either. I'm not ignorant to the fact that species have changes within each generation. What I don't grasp is the split from the first anchestor organism/s into the different orders. Today we have bacteria,insects,mammals, oak trees etc. - all of this from a single sell organism over time....Speciation to this extent is not an easily understood concept.

 

[TJ99]

I'm a little confused by all this discussion about natural selection, to be perfectly honest.

This is how the article puts it:



What am I missing? This seems incredibly simple... What are these pages and pages of discussion actually about?

Exactly. Which is why I'm going to stop discussing it now. The lunatic fringe are quick to jump on this insane "how do you interpret natural selection" teleological debate as if it somehow has any bearing on one of your OP questions, in a desperare attempt to hide the fact that they haven't even bothered answering a single one, so I just tried to point out that it doesn't matter in any case. I see now that I'm wasting my time.

 

[Ekstasis]

Further more, on what basis can the biological matter of an organism interpret the forces/pressure from the organisms surroundings in order to bring about physiological change in that organism to adapt to the said pressure.I'm not referring to bacteria.
Question: Does natural selection (using this term broadly), as the driving force of evolution, always improve the organism from generation to generation?