Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Darwin ended the usefulness of the term "natural" (in its contrast with "artificial", which is how he introduced the phrase!).
As a result of Darwin's discoveries, everything became known to be natural!
And while selection has an effect on which organisms survive and breed (eg. prey selection, and mate selection) it is only one factor among many that brings about differential survival of different genelines.
It is recklessly wrong to use "natural selection".
Who gives a fuck that Darwin used the term!
Freethinkers move on!
To call the whole deal of differential survival "selection" wrongly implies that there is always a selector, and this is insane in the current climate, because it feeds ID.
It's bad, it's stupid, and it's wrong, so it just has to go! :D
|
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.
Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?
Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?