But most living organisms display a very strong instinct to reproduce. If they live long enough to do so, their genetic traits are not lost. If they do not reproduce, for whatever reason (sickness, poor hunting skills, bad eyesight, alternative lifestyles - please no flames, etc.), then the traits of that individual are "selected" for removal from the gene pool. "Success" in this regard is the ability to pass on genetic traits, and thus continue the species. It's a harsh litmus test, but generally an effective one.
Further, since even the traits that caused destruction might have been useful if circumstances had been different (and circumstances always change) this is also a loss to the species.
You're quite right. Mother Nature has no use for a polar bear that cannot tolerate sub-zero temperatures, thus the organism dies and fails to pass on this genetic trait. Natural Selection is not a predictor of future events...all it does is ensure that the organisms living within a particular eco-niche are well suited to that environment.
Yes, that is pretty much what it means. However, let's consider this - is malarial infection prevalent everywhere on earth? Clearly not. So outside of malarial areas, this mutation is bad since it may result in death to progeny if two people carrying it have children. We see that problem now with blacks in the US where it is of no benefit at all. So if this trait were spread throughout the whole human species, it would be seriously detrimental to humanity. That's what I meant.
Quite true, and I believe this is an example of natural selection in action - genetic traits that aid in the survival of an organism in a particular eco-niche are passed on because the individual lives long enough to reproduce.
Thank you very much for this pleasant exchange of ideas. I have enjoyed our discussion more than most in the recent past. I will be away for a few days on extremely urgent family business, but look forward to our future discussions. I hope you have a wonderful few days.
But most living organisms display a very strong instinct to reproduce.
Which in no way adresses my point above. An answer is not a refutation.
You're quite right. Mother Nature has no use for a polar bear that cannot tolerate sub-zero temperatures
But one that can tolerate warmer weather would be tolerated when the ice recedes as it does quite often. Which is one of the problems with natural selection. Indeed it is the specialization required by the small genomes of species near extinction which makes scientists afraid for their continued viability.
Yes, that is pretty much what it means. However, let's consider this - is malarial infection prevalent everywhere on earth? Clearly not. So outside of malarial areas, this mutation is bad since it may result in death to progeny if two people carrying it have children. We see that problem now with blacks in the US where it is of no benefit at all. So if this trait were spread throughout the whole human species, it would be seriously detrimental to humanity. That's what I meant.-me-
Quite true, and I believe this is an example of natural selection in action -
My point is that natural selection is not an agent of creation but of destruction. Evolution requires a replacement for the Creator, and natural selection cannot be it.
It has been a pleasant discussion and hope you can get back to it whenever.