Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

So.

What's going on in this thread anymore?

[Mavorpen]

Preferably one that actually shows selective breeding for traits in an controlled environment.

That paper does. In fact, it's fascinating. I need to read it in full at the first possible opportunity. Anyone know if the authors conducted a follow-up?

No, it doesn't. Mutualistic relationships are not synonymous with artificial selection.

[Mavorpen]

Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Well you said to let you know when predators did that.

Guess what? I'm letting you know.

No I didn't. I asked to be let know when they did that while actively mating two of the healthy individuals in a controlled environment by doing something such as fencing them off.

[Alien Space Bats]

It was good, I must say. I especially liked it when the Mollusks became sentient and built a civilization.

If I'm not mistaken, you're old enough that you actually saw that happen, right?

[Xsyne]

And what part of that makes it a different thing from natural selection?

The fact that natural selection doesn't involve selectively breeding for traits in a controlled environment.

And predation doesn't involve giant fuck-off rocks from outer space. Why make one distinction and not the other?

[Farnhamia]

It was good, I must say. I especially liked it when the Mollusks became sentient and built a civilization.

If I'm not mistaken, you're old enough that you actually saw that happen, right?

No one is that old. Anyone who says they are is a liar. I did see people develop lactose tolerance, though. Bastards.

[Norstal]

If I'm not mistaken, you're old enough that you actually saw that happen, right?

No one is that old. Anyone who says they are is a liar. I did see people develop lactose tolerance, though. Bastards.

It's not our fault women can stop producing milk.

[Mavorpen]

The fact that natural selection doesn't involve selectively breeding for traits in a controlled environment.

And predation doesn't involve giant fuck-off rocks from outer space. Why make one distinction and not the other?

This includes both "space rocks" and predators:

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.

This does not:

Selective breeding (also called artificial selection and unnatural selection) is the process of breeding plants and animals for particular traits.

It's that simple. You were wrong when you claimed there wasn't a meaningful difference. Get the hell over it.

[Farnhamia]

No one is that old. Anyone who says they are is a liar. I did see people develop lactose tolerance, though. Bastards.

It's not our fault women can stop producing milk.

Actually, it is. Sexual selection.

[Xsyne]

And predation doesn't involve giant fuck-off rocks from outer space. Why make one distinction and not the other?

This includes both "space rocks" and predators:

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.

This does not:

Selective breeding (also called artificial selection and unnatural selection) is the process of breeding plants and animals for particular traits.

It's that simple. You were wrong when you claimed there wasn't a meaningful difference. Get the hell over it.

You know what the first one also includes? The second one.

[Mavorpen]

This includes both "space rocks" and predators:

This does not:


It's that simple. You were wrong when you claimed there wasn't a meaningful difference. Get the hell over it.

You know what the first one also includes? The second one.

So you're saying there's no difference between rectangles and squares.

[Xsyne]

You know what the first one also includes? The second one.

So you're saying there's no difference between rectangles and squares.

I'm saying that squares are rectangles.

[Mavorpen]

So you're saying there's no difference between rectangles and squares.

I'm saying that squares are rectangles.

No, you're saying there's no difference between the two. Nowhere did you say that "artificial selection can be natural selection." No, you said there is no meaningful difference between them. Are you backtracking now?

[Xsyne]

I'm saying that squares are rectangles.

No, you're saying there's no difference between the two. Nowhere did you say that "artificial selection can be natural selection." No, you said there is no meaningful difference between them. Are you backtracking now?

I have done no backtracking. I said that you cannot talk about natural selection and artificial selection as if they are different things. Natural selection can be a different thing than artificial selection. Artificial selection cannot be a different thing from natural selection. Much as a rectangle can be a different thing from a square, but a square cannot be a different thing from a rectangle.

In fact, let's put the question to the peanut gallery. Have I backtracked?

[Ost-Bremen]

And I'm a proud part of the 15%.

[Greater Ilanar]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

[Mavorpen]

I have done no backtracking. I said that you cannot talk about natural selection and artificial selection as if they are different things.

So you cannot talk about squares and rectangles in different ways? Good luck with geometry believing that shit.

Natural selection can be a different thing than artificial selection. Artificial selection cannot be a different thing from natural selection. Much as a rectangle can be a different thing from a square, but a square cannot be a different thing from a rectangle.

Which isn't what you said.

In fact, let's put the question to the peanut gallery. Have I backtracked?

Yes, you have.

There is no meaningful difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

Are you retracting this or not?

[Divair]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

Ann Coulter?

Don't make me laugh.

[North Stradia]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

Ann Coulter and science do not belong in the same sentence.

[Farnhamia]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

And where did Ann Coulter get her advanced degrees in science? Hell, any degree in science? Ann Coulter is a lawyer.

Can you summarize her exposé?

[Individuality-ness]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

Ann Coulter has no scientific credentials, so I'm just going to take her word with a grain of salt.

[Xsyne]

I have done no backtracking. I said that you cannot talk about natural selection and artificial selection as if they are different things.

So you cannot talk about squares and rectangles in different ways? Good luck with geometry believing that shit.

Natural selection can be a different thing than artificial selection. Artificial selection cannot be a different thing from natural selection. Much as a rectangle can be a different thing from a square, but a square cannot be a different thing from a rectangle.

Which isn't what you said.

In fact, let's put the question to the peanut gallery. Have I backtracked?

Yes, you have.

There is no meaningful difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

Are you retracting this or not?

Okay, serious question. Is English your native language?

[Individuality-ness]

If you all are of the opinion that non-belief in evolution is something that should only be practiced by fanatically religious hill billies from fly-over country, you should read Ann Coulter's writings on evolution. They quickly expose evolution as being the most unscientific part of modern science.

Ann Coulter and science do not belong in the same sentence.

Or in the same room.

[Mavorpen]

Okay, serious question. Is English your native language?

I'll take that as a yes.

[Divair]

Ann Coulter and science do not belong in the same sentence.

Or in the same room.

Or on the same planet. Can we throw her out?