^Ripper's Anime Page

Burning Angel wrote:And natural selection, a (non-random) process that determines which genetic traits should be more or less common (or disappear completely) within a population due to it's effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

I have eyes because developing eyes has been and still is more beneficial than not having eyes in our environment.

If the traits of having eyes or teeth has prospered and has extended throughout the animal kingdom, it isn't because of chance. It is due to natural selection: organisms that had eyes or teeth had an advantage over organisms that didn't have eyes or teeth. The organisms with eyes or teeth would prosper over the organisms with out eyes or teeth, and eventually the organisms without eyes or teeth would disappear.

In short, genetic mutations are due to chance. Natural selection isn't due to chance. The fact that the genetic traits for teeth or eyes appeared in the first place is due to chance. The fact that the genetic traits for eyes or teeth prospered in the animal kingdom is not due to change. So yeah.

Your explanation was good, but you still are taking the natural selection as a deterministic process, a "cause and effect" process (if A then B or A leads to B). Not only genetic mutations are randomly, the "natural selection" is randomly too. The expression "natural selection" isn't the best one to describe the process because it give us the idea that some determination is taking place. The "God's hand is in action to select the best ones, the more fitted beings, in detriment of the unfitted ones". The so called "natural selection" is nothing more than randomly changes to the environment. A volcano that explodes, a meteorite that falls on the Earth, a river that dries, and so on, are examples of randomly changes to the environment that can be beneficial (or less harmful) to some species (or individuals of the same species) than others among a population. Since even inside a species there are small variations between individuals due to casual changes (accidents) in genetic replication, most of them, if not all, caused by natural radioactivity.

It isn't clear if Alita's recently developed tail is attached to her body or is an ornamentation added to her coat only. I prefer the last explanation, since it's obviously another of Yukito's jokes (catgirls are very popular you know).

Your explanation was good, but you still are taking the natural selection as a deterministic process, a "cause and effect" process (if A than B or A leads to B). Not only genetic mutations are randomly, the "natural selection" is randomly too. The expression "natural selection" isn't the best one to describe the process because it give us the idea that some determination is taking place. The "God's hand is in action to select the best ones, the more fitted beings, in detriment of the unfitted ones". The so called "natural selection" is nothing more than randomly changes to the environment. A volcano that explodes, a meteorite that falls on the Earth, a river that dries, and so on, are examples of randomly changes to the environment that can be beneficial (or less harmful) to some species (or individuals of the same species) than others among a population. Since even inside a species there are small variations between individuals due to casual changes (accidents) in genetic replication, most of them, if not all, caused by natural radioactivity.

Thank you for complementing my explanation.

Natural selection is the process where the most well suited organisms to an environment tend to survive and are able to reproduce, while the less suited organisms disappear. That's all natural selection is; a process. That never changes. There aren't moments where the process of natural selection "randomly" stops working or where the process "randomly" changes (having the less suited organisms survive and reproduce, and the most well suited don't). Natural selection is like the laws of physics; both are always active and constant.

What may change is the environment where natural selection takes place; a vocano erupting, the fall of a meteorite, the drying of a river, the appearence of new predators or pray.... But that doesn't change the fact that even with these "random" changes in the environment, the process of natural selection itself continues. The organisms most well suited to this new environment survive, and the less suited disappear.

The environment may change. The changes may be random. But the process of natural selection is always constant.

That makes me remember that mammals have tails. Humans, as well, have the genes for their tails. Could I say that because of that it is acceptable to the Tunguskan Alita have a tail and deal with it without problems?

Very interesting hypothesis. Hell, we even have the tailbone (coccyx), the remnant of a vestigial tail.

Burning Angel wrote: Natural selection is the process where the most well suited organisms to an environment tend to survive and are able to reproduce, while the less suited organisms disappear. That's all natural selection is; a process. That never changes. There aren't moments where the process of natural selection "randomly" stops working or where the process "randomly" changes (having the less suited organisms survive and reproduce, and the most well suited don't). Natural selection is like the laws of physics; both are always active and constant.

What may change is the environment where natural selection takes place; a vocano erupting, the fall of a meteorite, the drying of a river, the appearence of new predators or pray.... But that doesn't change the fact that even with these "random" changes in the environment, the process of natural selection itself continues. The organisms most well suited to this new environment survive, and the less suited disappear.

The environment may change. The changes may be random. But the process of natural selection is always constant.

You're giving the natural selection the status of an immutable law, but this is inaccurate. Like you said, the natural selection is a process, not a law. A process isn't the same of a law. While we can't change a physics law, we can change the course of the natural selection or even stop its action completely! There are numberless occasions while the human being action changed the direction of the natural selection. Artificial selection of vegetables and animals praticed by the human being since prehistory changed the natural evolution of many species (wheat, tomato, dogs, bovines...). There are even species that would be extinct by now if they weren't preserved by our action like the ginkgo biloba, cycas and pandas. By the other hand, there was much more species, successful species without the human being interference, that become extinct by our action. And, regarding the human being itself, we stopped the natural selection over our own species! You can't deny that. Just one example, the variola virus, it was a factor of natural selection acting over the human species, but we get rid of it completely.

You're giving the natural selection the status of an immutable law, but this is inaccurate. Like you said, the natural selection is a process, not a law. A process isn't the same of a law. While we can't change a physics law, we can change the course of the natural selection or even stop its action completely! There are numberless occasions while the human being action changed the direction of the natural selection. Artificial selection of vegetables and animals praticed by the human being since prehistory changed the natural evolution of many species (wheat, tomato, dogs, bovines...) . There are even species that would be extinct by now if they weren't preserved by our action like the ginkgo biloba, cycas and pandas. By the other hand, there are much more species, successful species without the human being interference, that become extinct by our action. And, regarding the human being itself, we stopped the natural selection over our own species! You can't deny that. Just one example, the variola virus, was a factor of natural selection acting over the human species, but we get rid of it completely.

Whatever... you still haven't proven that process of natural selection (and, by extention, evolution) is "random". Don't change the subject.

BTW, once humans directly intervene in evolution or "natural" selection, it stops being natural selection. It becomes selective breeding (or artificial selection), where instead of the environment favoring certain traits over others, it's humans that favor certain traits. It's a different process all together.

In the case of humans beings, natural selection hasn't stopped either. It's just that we have transformed the enviroment to acomodate us extremely well, causing most human beings to be adequately suited for survival in our "soft" environment and survivability has become a given. The competition for survival has become alot easier for us than for most animals. But for example, in war zones or in certain under-developed regions, survivability is more dificult and not everyone survives and reproduces.

Burning Angel wrote: Whatever... you still haven't proved that process of natural selection is "random". Don't change the subject.

Ow man! If we could restart the evolution of the Earth itself, since the beginning of its formation, than follow it over another 4.5 billion years, can you suppose we would see exactly the same species we have today? Or even any species at all? It would be like throwing a dice a trillion of times and then restart again expecting to achieve the same sequence of results for a second time! If you can't see this as a random process, I give up.

Ow man! If we could restart the evolution of the Earth itself, since the beginning of its formation, than follow it over another 4.5 billion years, can you suppose we would see the exactly same species we have today? Or even any species at all? It would be like throwing a dice a trillion of times and then restart again expecting to achieve the same sequence of results for a second time. If you can't see this as a random process, I give up.

Ow man! I am going to have to repeat myself, aren't I?

For example, history of the Earth is restarted and the meteorite that crashed 65 millon of years ago doesn't this time. Probably the dinosaurs survive this time since they would be correctly suited to their environment. Or maybe if we restarted the Earth, some genetic mutations that occured originally, wouldn't this time around, and some mutations that didn't occur before, would occur now. In the restarted Earth scenario, it's most likely the organisms would be different (but similar) to the organisms that we have or have had in the real world. That is correct.

The environment may change randomly or not. Genetic mutations may be random. But the process of natural selection does not change. The process itself isn't random.

I've reached 225 posts, the square of 15, at the same time you reached 144 posts, the square of 12. Interesting but meaningless coincidence isn't it?

The whole question is: to my understanding, if the start of a process is ramdom, the whole process is randomly. But, to your understanding, the start may be random, but the whole process isn't. The chaos theory will say which one is correct.

Jajaja... Nice one. Yeah, that's an interesting coincidence.

In your restarted Earth scenario, since the variables (environment, mutations,...) might be diferent and random, the results might also be diferent. But the process itself would remain the same. Now I am going to repeat myself.

Natural selection is the process where the most well suited organisms to an environment tend to survive and are able to reproduce, while the less suited organisms disappear.

Tell me what would (or could) change in this definition of the process in your restarted Earth scenario?

Burning Angel wrote:Natural selection is the process where the most well suited organisms to an environment tend to survive and are able to reproduce, while the less suited organisms disappear.

Tell me what would change in this process in your restarted Earth scenario?

I agree, but you are just describing the direction that the process, said as Evolution, follows. You can say nothing about the final result. If Evolution was a law, given the same initial conditions, we would achieve the same results in the end. If A then B, as I said earlier.

I agree, but you are just describing the direction that the process, said as Evolution, follows. You can say nothing about the final result. If Evolution was a law, given the same initial conditions, we would achieve the same results in the end. If A than B, as I said earlier.

Evolution is a scientific theory, like the cell theory, the atomic theory or the theory of gravity. And scientific theories are used to understand, explain and make predictions on natural phenominas. But, of course, even if the process (natural selection) is a constant, it depends on many variables (changes in the environment, genetic mutations, genetic flows, genetic recombinations,....).

Thats why we can try to predict results but posibly the results might differ greatly from our predictions.

Burning Angel wrote:Evolution is a scientific theory, like the cell theory, the atomic theory or the theory of gravity. And scientific theories are used to understand, explain and make predictions on natural phenominas. But, of course, even if the process (natural selection) is a constant, it depends on many variables (changes in the environment, genetic mutations, genetic flows, genetic recombinations,....).

Thats why we can try to predict results but posibly the results might differ greatly from our predictions.

Evolution is a theory, a very strong and well founded theory I must say. But unlike the theory of relativity, it isn't a theory of precise mathematic predictions, the probabilities rule over the Evolution.

Now I need a time because I got a headache.

Fair enough...

Burning Angel wrote:Fair enough...

I must thank you because this was the most enjoyable discussion I had in a forum in a long, long time. Even if I got a headache and we failed to reach an agreement.

I must thank you because this was the most enjoyable discussion I had in a forum in a long, long time. Even if I got a headache and we failed to reach an agreement.

God damn, I had fun too... It's a nice (and educational/productive) way to pass the time while TargaryenX prepares the Glo 101 translation. Sorry about your headache, though.

I applaud kamugin and Burning Angel for the recent debate, but I keep waiting other to opine about Alita's tail (and how will she deal with the wings?).

Sergio Nova wrote:I applaud kamugin and Burning Angel for the recent debate, but I keep waiting other to opine about Alita's tail (and how will she deal with the wings?).

Finally I've managed to please you, Sergio! I'm delighted
About the wings and the tail, I've said what think about them. I'll quote myself:

In chapter 101, Alita grew wings, although the result was beautiful, it would be impossible for her to use them with a human brain, there isn't a specific structure inside the human brain to control wings. But her brain isn't an average human brain anymore, so we may theorize that her link with Melchisedek is providing the aid she needs to control her new, and wonderful, wings.

It isn't clear if Alita's recently developed tail is attached to her body or is an ornamentation added to her coat only. I prefer the last explanation, since it's obviously another of Yukito's jokes (catgirls are very popular you know).

And I'll say even more: Yukito didn't put nekomimi (cat ears) on her because this would be too much