Vatican says Darwain was right...

[foodcritic]

you completely miss that the two attributes you are holding up as evidence are a result of human influence, and therefore cannot be factored into "natural selection". just like the traits developed through selective breeding (of animals by humans) or living in a zoo, would not be considered "natural" and shouldn't be included in any discussion of natural selection.

It sounds like what your saying is exactly what This_Person said...

Originally Posted by This_person View Post
This one:

3. In the process by which some living things reproduce, the specific traits that they possess are replicated in their offspring with a greater frequency than those traits which they don't possess.

This statement implies that somehow the traits of change are virtually all genetic. This is not necessarily true. Some trait changes may be entirely environmental (human lifespan due to medicinal advancements, height due to agricultural advancements, etc). I offer these two human attribute changes because they are obviously NOT due to natural selection - survival of the fittest.

How ironic in this argument is it that these examples can't be considered because they are the result of "human influence".

It's nice to know that evolutionary process can be so easily altered....I guess I was right all along Intelligent design (for me creation) trumps evolution.....

 

[thatguy]

It sounds like what your saying is exactly what This_Person said...




How ironic in this argument is it that these examples can't be considered because they are the result of "human influence".

It's nice to know that evolutionary process can be so easily altered....I guess I was right all along Intelligent design (for me creation) trumps evolution.....

in natural selection, the "nature" part is important. if the effect is unnatural (human influence, like killing off all the buffalo) then it can not be factored into what is "natural" or what would naturally happen.

and human influnce hardly indicates that intelligent design trumps anything.

 

[foodcritic]

in natural selection, the "nature" part is important. if the effect is unnatural (human influence, like killing off all the buffalo) then it can not be factored into what is "natural" or what would naturally happen.

and human influnce hardly indicates that intelligent design trumps anything.

Apparently it does based on the observable changes in people and animals that were described. Human influence, apparently, trumped the advances of "natural selection". Or the unguided natural selection process just used mankind to further it's own unguided ends....now i am confused.