Reflectorites
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:27:56 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>SJ>But that wasn't my question. Susan said she could "see natural selection
>>every time you ... don't take all your antibiotics" and I asked "how does
>>Susan *see* "natural selection *every* time you" .... "don't take all your
>>antibiotics"?
>CC>Two points:
>1. You still haven't shown why there is a significant difference between
>natural selection (natural exclusion of some organisms/genotypes from
>reproducing)
As I have pointed out before, this is *not* "natural selection." Natural
selection is the term used of the organisms which *did* reproduce, not those
which *didn't*:
"Natural selection. The nonrandom survival and reproductive
success of a small percentage of the individuals of a population
owing to their possession of, at that moment, characters which
enhance their ability to survive and reproduce." (Mayr E., "One
Long Argument," 1991, p183)
Unless Chris can quote from the mainstream literature where he got his
definition of "natural selection" from, I will take it that it is just Chris' own
personal made up version, which I see no point in debating.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TAKE SOME matter, heat while stirring and wait...That is the modern
version of Genesis. The fundamental forces" of gravity, electromagnetism
and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest.
They made the elements form and then react to produce the chemical
building blocks of life: nucleic acids made of sugars and bases, proteins
made of amino acids lipids and carbohydrates. Specific nucleic acids then
began to direct the production of specific proteins. Nucleic acids and
proteins that acted together to enhance their own multiplication thrived and
continued to adapt. They became surrounded by membranes and evolved
into complex cells and eventually into us. But how much of this neat tale is
firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the
mechanism of almost every major step. from chemical precursors up to the
first recognisable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete
bewilderment." (Scott A., "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, Vol. 106,
No. 1454, 2 May 1985, pp.30-33, p.30)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:12 EST