Since we seem to be celebrating the New Year with a philosophical twist, I
have a question to pose -- why do we focus on Natural Selection rather than
simply Selection? I have difficulty drawing the line betwen what occurs
naturally and what is artificial, namely caused by humans.
For example, is there a fundamental difference between horses that run
faster because predators catch the slower ones and horses that run faster
because humans geld the slower ones? Was the famous change in the colour of
moths when trees were darkened by industrial activity Natural Selection?
If evolution is driven by natural changes in the environment, then clearly
Natural Selection is at work. But if environmental change is driven by human
activities, is it still Natural Selection at work?
For me it seems that Selection is Selection and I don't see where the
Natural part comes in, other than as the term that Darwin used.
There is a practical side to this question. There is so much evidence for
selective breeding that it is hard for any Creationist to deny it. By
considering the selective processes of the past to be somehow different, it
is possible to deny Natural Selection whle acccepting selective breeding.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: domingo, 27 de Dezembro de 2009 16:11
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology as Science Status and Future
Evolution by Natural Selection.
Its the basis of ecology.
It always shocks me though when people try to separate it from ecology.
