Evolvability

[Gordon]

I  don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.

'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all! 

Cheers.

In other words you understand nothing whatsoever about the TofE, which makes your above opinion a fallacious argument from ignorance.

[torridon]

I  don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.

'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all! 

Cheers.

I don't see what is metaphorical about it.  If you are the weakest runt of the litter you are likelier to get picked of by a predator.  Nothing metaphorical about ending up as someone else's lunch, this is nature red in tooth and claw, it is reality, actuality and it happens remorselessly, incessantly.

[Sriram]

H everyone,

I have argued this many times over the years...

I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability.  These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability  (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet.  These are the driving factors of evolution.

Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea.  Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of  Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.

But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability.  It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS.  An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly  is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS.  Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS. 

There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will  survive.  Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.

I know that organisms adapt to their environment. But that is due to internal processes within the organism that reacts to the environment...through such processes as epigenetics, evolvability etc....and other unknowns. These were unknown in earlier decades but today these are  active areas of research.

We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis?  What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?

Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'.  Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.

To me it is fairly obvious. Most of you guys however have gotten programmed to accept this 'theory' from childhood and it has probably become a meme.....and you are just unable to think 'out of the box' on this. 
 
Anyway...cheers!

Sriram

[Gordon]

H everyone,

I have argued this many times over the years...

I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability.  These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability  (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet.  These are the driving factors of evolution.

Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea.  Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of  Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.

But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability.  It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS.  An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly  is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS.  Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS. 

There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will  survive.  Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.

I know that organisms adapt to their environment. But that is due to internal processes within the organism that reacts to the environment...through such processes as epigenetics, evolvability etc....and other unknowns. These were unknown in earlier decades but today these are  active areas of research.

We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis?  What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?

Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'.  Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.

To me it is fairly obvious. Most of you guys however have gotten programmed to accept this 'theory' from childhood and it has probably become a meme.....and you are just unable to think 'out of the box' on this. 
 
Anyway...cheers!

Sriram

Nice rant: which clearly demonstrates yet again that you don't understand evolution. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the link SKoS posted for your attention yesterday.

[torridon]

There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will  survive.

Guarantee is perhaps not the best word, you need to think in terms of the effects of likelihoods across populations over time.  Individuals lacking a beneficial mutation might survive, but the trend over time will be for beneficial mutations to flourish and deleterious ones to be eliminated over the population.  'Beneficial' and 'deleterious' being defined within the context of the life style and environment of the species.

Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.

Why not ? Take the evolution of white skin in Europeans; this is a case of diversity (in skin colour) arising out of the spread of mutations that proved beneficial in the environmental context of lower sunlight levels found in northern Europe.  We don't have to imagine that an African migrant would be killed by the different climate, but rather that individuals not carrying the relevant mutations for depigmentation would tend to die earlier due to higher incidence of rickets and other conditions associated with vitamin D deficiency.

[torridon]

We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis?  What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?

Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'.  Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.

Nature selects.

I think you are just hung up on the anthropomorphism that could be read into the word 'selection'.  We should be wary of anthropomorphism.  Nature selects, but does so indiscriminately, without any overarching guiding agenda. We humans might be sad that polar bears and pandas are threatened with extinction, but nature doesn't care.

[Stranger]

I have argued this many times over the years...

Yes, and either because you can't be bothered to learn or are genuinely unable to grasp it, you have always argued from a position of total ignorance.

I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability.  These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability  (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet.  These are the driving factors of evolution.

Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea...

Natural selection is a real process - you can observe it in a laboratory or simulate it on a computer. It is not in the least bit nebulous. Evolution by natural selection is actually one of the simples theories in modern science (you don't need complex mathematics for a start) and yet you seem totally unable to grasp it (silly references to non-existent scientists who talk of typing monkeys!).

You also don't understand the article but as you can't grasp the basic theory, that is to be expected.

Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of  Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.

Have you read On the Origin of Species?

But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability.  It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS.  An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly  is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS.  Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS. 

Until you can grasp that yes, all those organisms are the result of natural selection and that there is absolutely no vagueness or contradiction in that, then you haven't understood. You seem to think that natural selection should be selecting for some specific organism or something? It's very hard to see what you think natural selection means.

There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will  survive.  Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.

Then the enormous ego rears its ugly head - do you actually think that none of the scientists that study this would have noticed if it didn't explain diversity?

We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis?  What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?

Seriously, you don't know what the criterion is? You don't see why your last question is utterly silly?

Please try to learn something about it. Myself and others have tried to explain but your misunderstanding seems to run deep. You need to find some solid information (like Evolution 101) put aside what you think you know and start again...

[Sriram]

Nature selects.

I think you are just hung up on the anthropomorphism that could be read into the word 'selection'.  We should be wary of anthropomorphism.  Nature selects, but does so indiscriminately, without any overarching guiding agenda. We humans might be sad that polar bears and pandas are threatened with extinction, but nature doesn't care.

Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects?  The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the  process itself.

This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected.  It is however not the process by which evolutionary changes happen.

As you yourself say...it is not necessarily a direct act of one organism killing another. It could be illness, food scarcity or anything that kills off one organism/species. It is chance. In every case however, you continue to contend that Nature has selected or rejected something.   This is simply not true. It is only a metaphoric way of looking at the outcome. It is not a predictable process or an inevitable Law of nature.

Before the days of epigenetics and findings in gene expression, this might have been the only way to explain evolutionary process.  Today, it is not necessary to take recourse to some chancy, metaphorical explanation.

This is why the article in the OP is relevant. If evolutionary changes are driven by learning and earlier experiences.....then the dice is loaded. It is not just a chance anymore.     


 

[Stranger]

Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects?  The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the  process itself.

This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected.

Totally wrong - that isn't how evolution by natural selection works at all. Evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms, it happens to populations of organisms over the course of generations. Organisms in a population vary (due to various mechanisms), and if a variation  proves to be even a small statistical advantage (in terms of survival and reproduction), then it will tend to increase in the population. That's what natural selection is.

You really need understand the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. You can then disagree if you want, but at least you'd understand what you were disagreeing with.

Try: Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

Honestly, what is the point of you talking about natural selection if you don't know what it means?

Before the days of epigenetics and findings in gene expression, this might have been the only way to explain evolutionary process.  Today, it is not necessary to take recourse to some chancy, metaphorical explanation.

You seem obsessed with epigenetics but epigenetics does not change the basic DNA sequence so it cannot possibly replace the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is plenty of evidence for the theory in genetics alone. Genetics can be used to show evolutionary relationships between species and certain evolutionary changes can be exactly pinpointed in the genome.

This is why the article in the OP is relevant. If evolutionary changes are driven by learning and earlier experiences.....then the dice is loaded. It is not just a chance anymore.   

Again, any "learning" that is going on (according to this speculative hypothesis, for which there is no evidence) is also being driven by random variation and selection. That's how the "things" that are "learning" evolved.

[Sriram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution

***********

The role of epigenetics in evolution is clearly linked to the selective pressures that regulate that process. As organisms leave offspring that are best suited to their environment, environmental stresses change DNA gene expression that are further passed down to their offspring, allowing for them also to better thrive in their environment. The classic case study of the rats who experience licking and grooming from their mothers pass this trait to their offspring shows that a mutation in the DNA sequence is not required for a heritable change.[10] Basically, a high degree of maternal nurturing makes the offspring of that mother more likely to nurture their own children with a high degree of care as well. Rats with a lower degree of maternal nurturing are less likely to nurture their own offspring with so much care. Also, rates of epigenetic mutations, such as DNA methylation, are much higher than rates of mutations transmitted genetically[11] and are easily reversed.[12] This provides a way for variation within a species to rapidly increase, in times of stress, providing opportunity for adaptation to newly arising selection pressures.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]

************

[Stranger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution

None of which suggests that epigenetics can replace genetic change via evolution by natural selection - the clue is in the title: "Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution". You can't evolve (for example) eyes - or even a modification like tricolour vision - without genetic changes.

I mean FFS, this is the age of genetic engineering - we've made glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants using firefly genes. We are entering the age of synthetic biology. The idea that genetic change isn't central to the differences between species and hence central to evolution is as silly as suggesting that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun.

And you still need to understand what natural selection means, if you are going to talk about it...

[Sriram]

I have not suggested that genetic changes do not take place. Obviously, genetic changes are fundamental to evolution. The point is that it is not just through random variation. There are epigenetic influences and perhaps other influences as well that the article in the OP suggests. Gene expression could be as important as genetic variation in determining phenotype and survival.

Inheritance is not as simple as we think. It is not just genes. It is genetics + epigenetics + evolvability + other factors we don't know yet.   

Since inheritance is so complex, adaptation to environmental changes is also very complex. There are very  many factors working within the organism that determine adaptation...and thereby evolution.  It cannot be as simple as random genetic variation and some metaphorical explanation like Natural Selection which is not even a well defined process. 

[Stranger]

I have not suggested that genetic changes do not take place. Obviously, genetic changes are fundamental to evolution. The point is that it is not just through random variation. There are epigenetic influences and perhaps other influences as well that the article in the OP suggests. Gene expression could be as important as genetic variation in determining phenotype and survival.

You say genetic change is "not just through random variation" and then go on list things that don't actually change the genome (and the article in the OP that you don't understand).

Firstly, many phenotype characteristics are known to be based on genes (that's why we can do genetic engineering). Those have to come about somehow and you have yet to suggest anything that could replace random variation.

Secondly, it is beyond sane doubt that random variation and natural selection does happen.

Inheritance is not as simple as we think. It is not just genes. It is genetics + epigenetics + evolvability + other factors we don't know yet.   

Since inheritance is so complex, adaptation to environmental changes is also very complex. There are very  many factors working within the organism that determine adaptation...and thereby evolution.

Anything that happens within an organism cannot be significant to evolution unless it is heritable. Epigenetics fits the bill but it cannot change the genome so cannot replace genetic changes.

It cannot be as simple as random genetic variation and some metaphorical explanation like Natural Selection which is not even a well defined process.

You are simply wrong. It isn't metaphorical and it is defined. It's actually closer to being a truism than a metaphor.

I really don't understand why you persist with this wilful ignorance - all you have to do is read a reputable account of the process (or even take some notice of what has been posted here) and you'd be able to discuss it sensibly (even if you didn't think it was correct). Calling it "undefined" and "metaphorical" just emphasises the fact that you don't understand and, apparently, aren't interested in understanding...

[jeremyp]

As organisms leave offspring that are best suited to their environment,

This is not true. This is not how natural selection works.

The classic case study of the rats who experience licking and grooming from their mothers pass this trait to their offspring

There are other mechanisms of inheritance than genetics. Who'd have thought. perhaps you should consider why your first language is almost certainly the same as your parents'.

[torridon]

Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects?  The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the  process itself.

This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected.  It is however not the process by which evolutionary changes happen.

As you yourself say...it is not necessarily a direct act of one organism killing another. It could be illness, food scarcity or anything that kills off one organism/species. It is chance. In every case however, you continue to contend that Nature has selected or rejected something.   This is simply not true. It is only a metaphoric way of looking at the outcome. It is not a predictable process or an inevitable Law of nature.

I don't know why, you seem to be making heavy weather of the phrase 'natural selection'.  The phrase was coined to differentiate what happens in nature from the same thing that happens when breeders select individuals from a litter to breed from, ie artificial or intelligent selection.  There is still a selection going on, but in nature, clearly there is no conscious choice or purpose involved in the process of selection.  You could argue that the phrase is making figurative use of the word 'select' since that is normally associated with conscious choice, but that does not imply that there isn't a real process going on.  There is an inevitability to the process also - if a population of herbivores migrated into a colder climate for instance, it is pretty inevitable that they would develop cold weather adaptations like thicker fur over time. The outcomes of natural selection are not unpredictable : they might be hard to predict in detail. but that is merely a computation problem and not a problem of principle. Epigenetic changes are subject to natural selection also; a pack of wolves chasing down a bison that seems slower than the rest is not going to stop and ponder whether its slowness is due to epigenetic factors or due to classical Mendelian inheritance. The arcane routes through which novelty and diversity might manifest are of no consequence to the process of natural selection.

[Sriram]

I don't know why, you seem to be making heavy weather of the phrase 'natural selection'.  The phrase was coined to differentiate what happens in nature from the same thing that happens when breeders select individuals from a litter to breed from, ie artificial or intelligent selection.  There is still a selection going on, but in nature, clearly there is no conscious choice or purpose involved in the process of selection.  You could argue that the phrase is making figurative use of the word 'select' since that is normally associated with conscious choice, but that does not imply that there isn't a real process going on.  There is an inevitability to the process also - if a population of herbivores migrated into a colder climate for instance, it is pretty inevitable that they would develop cold weather adaptations like thicker fur over time. The outcomes of natural selection are not unpredictable : they might be hard to predict in detail. but that is merely a computation problem and not a problem of principle. Epigenetic changes are subject to natural selection also; a pack of wolves chasing down a bison that seems slower than the rest is not going to stop and ponder whether its slowness is due to epigenetic factors or due to classical Mendelian inheritance. The arcane routes through which novelty and diversity might manifest are of no consequence to the process of natural selection.

As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.

Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time.  There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it  is NS!!!

Natural Selection is like 'God did it'.   You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.

Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.

[Gordon]

As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.

Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time.  There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it  is NS!!!

Natural Selection is like 'God did it'.   You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.

Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.

I take it that you've yet to take up the suggestion of actually learning something about the TofE since the above is no more than a fallacious argument from ignorance.

[Stranger]

So Sriram, I see you are still heroically wrestling with a straw man version of natural selection. As far as I can see (given all the information that has been made available to you) there can only be three reasons for this.

• You are being deliberately dishonest.
• You are too bone idle find out about the real theory.
• You are too stupid to understand it.

Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd.

It may be absurd in your straw man version but in the real theory, species that interact are part of the selective pressure on each other. As I pointed out before, the predator-prey relationship can drive "evolutionary arms races".

If you go away and learn something, you might be able to make a credible argument. As it is you are just displaying your ignorance.

Evolution 101.

[torridon]

As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.

Well you are just arguing that you don't like the phrase.  Big deal.  You could call it something else if it suits, but then you will create communication problems with other people as the phrase 'natural selection' has become well established.

[torridon]

Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time.  There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it  is NS!!!

Natural Selection is like 'God did it'.   You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.

I think you just haven't grasped the power and range of the concept.  it is not without justification that many have called evolution by natural selection the most powerful single concept to ever enter a human mind.  It is because this insight has such side ranging explanatory power. I don't see why you seem to struggle to understand it, it isn't actually a difficult concept, unlike most concepts in modern physics for example.

[torridon]

Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.

yes, and exactly how and why do some adaptive changes proliferate and others not ? It is because some changes will confer a benefit to the individual in survival and reproduction terms, other changes may confer a disadvantage.  That is the process we call natural selection and it results in species developing over time to fit changing ecological niches and varying environmental factors.

[Sriram]

yes, and exactly how and why do some adaptive changes proliferate and others not ? It is because some changes will confer a benefit to the individual in survival and reproduction terms, other changes may confer a disadvantage.  That is the process we call natural selection and it results in species developing over time to fit changing ecological niches and varying environmental factors.

In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out.  I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.

However, if certain adaptations and 'learning' through evolvability (as in the OP), give an organism an advantage in terms of its specific adaptations, then it is these changes within the organism that are responsible for its survival.  Not some chance external factors that you generally label as Natural Selection.

[torridon]

In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out.  I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.

However, if certain adaptations and 'learning' through evolvability (as in the OP), give an organism an advantage in terms of its specific adaptations, then it is these changes within the organism that are responsible for its survival.  Not some chance external factors that you generally label as Natural Selection.

It's a combination of both factors; mutations and the genetic shuffling that come with sex provide a source of novelty for selection to act upon; the broader ecological and environmental conditions determine which mutations are favourable and which aren't.

[Stranger]

In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out.  I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.

Do you not have any grasp at all of an advantage in a given environment? Or is it statistics that you haven't understood?

If you're an antelope and the main cause of antelope deaths this season is being eaten by a lion, then the ability to run faster than your fellow antelopes is likely to prolong your life. It doesn't mean that every faster antelope survives and every slower one gets eaten. There is, however, a statistical advantage which means that more faster antelopes survive and reproduce than slower ones. Hence (assuming running speed is heritable) speeds in the population increase.

That is an example of natural selection. What is so hard?

[Sriram]

It's a combination of both factors; mutations and the genetic shuffling that come with sex provide a source of novelty for selection to act upon; the broader ecological and environmental conditions determine which mutations are favourable and which aren't.

The real process that enables survival is the adaptation. The environmental factors are only chance which could work either way...and cannot be seen as a defined process. In spite of all many factors being against them, several species have survived. In spite of factors being favorable, many species have died out.

Even we humans are an example. In spite of all adverse environmental factors, we have developed some characteristics that have enabled us to survive. It is these internal factors and adaptations that have enabled us to survive.....not the external ones. We have actually fought against external factors to survive through greater adaptations.

My point is simple.   It is adaptations that enable a species to survive in spite of adverse environmental pressures. This is not a random process. There is actually an internal 'learning' and adjustment.  A direct connection can be established between every case of  survival and its adaptation. It is not some chance external factor that you label as Natural Selection. 

You people don't want to emphasize the internal processes that enable adaptation even in hostile environments....because this could entail some sort of purpose or Intelligence at work within the organism. You prefer emphasizing the chance external factors. That is the problem.

Anyway, I think I am done on this thread.

Thanks & Cheers.