The Chicken Or The Egg?

[dasmeaty 0]

So you do believe in a higher power, which is probably why you believe that everything has a reason. I don't believe in a higher power and believe that everything just is a coincidence. There is little point arguing this any further if you are the religious type as you are likely to hold to your beliefs as I hold to mine that there is not a God.

I meant to write 'You may make reason with it to see why it is important to you', I didn't actually mean to chat to the weather I meant that you may give it a reason but it does not make it have a purpose it just so happens that it's behaviour benefits something.

From here on you can choose to admit that the theory of evolution entails a paradox

I fail to see how it entails a paradox, there is no contradiction they are merely different possible happenings and do not contradict each other.

admit that there was no predecessor to the chicken

What makes you say there was no predecessor to the chicken? You are providing no reason for there not being a predecessor to the chicken yet asking me to admit there was none.

or take the easy way out and avoid ever asking the question again.

That was unnecessary.

i highly doubt it would be reasonable to label a penguin that flies as the same kind of creature as those that can't fly, for they are obviously not the same creatures

On the contrary, they function very much the same as penguins, look like penguins and live where penguins live, they are even the same species of penguin. Most penguins including most of the Adelie penguins can't fly, yet some can as recently shown. They are quite obviously the same creatures.

When dealing with possibilities, you may end up with no definite answer.

Yep, I'm not after a definite answer, a definite answer isn't possible there is no definite answer to anything, everything is a theory that we deem to be correct as it appears to be. I am merely after theories and discussion.

What would make the chicken any different?

I admitted earlier that I did not think about the fact that an chicken could of evolved from an egg laying creature and if it did then the egg would of came before it.

In order to state that anything is right or wrong, you'll require justification. Justification is objective, not subjective. If it were subjective, there would be no way to properly conclude something; reason and logic would be tossed out the window. What needs justification? Anything that wants to be taken seriously.

You are basing your thesis on the existence of a higher power, and that higher power doing what you said it did in my opinion this is nether logical nor justifiable beyond the fact it is your belief. How do you justify pure faith? Is it logical? Or do you do it just because you believe it and is that justification enough for you?

[truefusion 3]

So you do believe in a higher power, which is probably why you believe that everything has a reason. I don't believe in a higher power and believe that everything just is a coincidence. There is little point arguing this any further if you are the religious type as you are likely to hold to your beliefs as I hold to mine that there is not a God.

Coincidence is illogical: it has nothing to follow from; it has no beginning, only an end (conclusion). It is a word stated merely for convenience, to "fill" the gap in knowledge that the person does not seek to fill with any (the) proper alternative.

I fail to see how it entails a paradox, there is no contradiction they are merely different possible happenings and do not contradict each other.
What makes you say there was no predecessor to the chicken? You are providing no reason for there not being a predecessor to the chicken yet asking me to admit there was none.

That was unnecessary.

While theoretically both the egg and chicken may occur (and at the same timethough this may be less likely to happen), the reason why the question of what came first is asked is due to intuition. Intuition expects there to be only one outcome, but the theory, in due time, allows for both. The word paradox need not always deal with contradiction.

There are only a certain amount of options to choose from the position you place yourself in, that includes admitting that the chicken has no predecessor. It is not me trying to enforce anything upon you. You don't have to like the options you have, but since you replied against all but one, that leaves you with trying to figure out which came first. And as i previously mentioned, as far as i am concerned, that will merely entail the egg, regardless of what the theory theoretically allows.

On the contrary, they function very much the same as penguins, look like penguins and live where penguins live, they are even the same species of penguin. Most penguins including most of the Adelie penguins can't fly, yet some can as recently shown. They are quite obviously the same creatures.

If they are obviously the same creatures, then it would be obvious that they are all (i.e. all the Adelie penguins) capable of flight (though the distance may be short) but are at least choosing not to. What is the reason why we say "they can't fly"? Body and wing structure? Or because we still haven't seen them fly?

Yep, I'm not after a definite answer, a definite answer isn't possible there is no definite answer to anything, everything is a theory that we deem to be correct as it appears to be. I am merely after theories and discussion.

Then it wasn't that you were curious. Curiosity seeks a definite answer.

You are basing your thesis on the existence of a higher power, and that higher power doing what you said it did in my opinion this is nether logical nor justifiable beyond the fact it is your belief. How do you justify pure faith? Is it logical? Or do you do it just because you believe it and is that justification enough for you?

If i were basing my "thesis" on the existence of a higher power, i would have included it in my statement. And what did i say it did? I am uncertain what you are referring to, so i cannot properly answer your questions. Nevertheless, faith is merely what we have not yet seen, not what we don't have evidence for. Faith therefore can be logical. You said above that you are not looking for a definite answer (though that is counter-intuitive) and you say there is no such thing as a definite answer. That would mean everything you consider a fact is practically a belief, for there would be no way to justify anything. The questions here, therefore, can be returned to you. In which case, your arguments have all been brought down by yourself.

[dasmeaty 0]

Coincidence is illogical: it has nothing to follow from; it has no beginning, only an end (conclusion). It is a word stated merely for convenience, to "fill" the gap in knowledge that the person does not seek to fill with any (the) proper alternative.

Coincidence by nature of the word itself has a beginning, how can something coincide if it has no beginning only a conclusion, surely that with which it coincides with is where it began.

While theoretically both the egg and chicken may occur (and at the same timethough this may be less likely to happen), the reason why the question of what came first is asked is due to intuition. Intuition expects there to be only one outcome, but the theory, in due time, allows for both. The word paradox need not always deal with contradiction.

So any unkown is a paradox by your standards? Intuition expects that with any unkown there is more than one possibility and one outcome. As with the chicken or the egg question, there has been only one outcome just many possibilities.

There are only a certain amount of options to choose from the position you place yourself in, that includes admitting that the chicken has no predecessor. It is not me trying to enforce anything upon you. You don't have to like the options you have, but since you replied against all but one, that leaves you with trying to figure out which came first. And as i previously mentioned, as far as i am concerned, that will merely entail the egg, regardless of what the theory theoretically allows.

This is where I have a problem with your logic, you are saying there are so few options and that I must choose them. Why? Because you thought them up? There are infinite possibilities and to say that these are all the options and that they all entail the egg coming first is very myopic.

If they are obviously the same creatures, then it would be obvious that they are all (i.e. all the Adelie penguins) capable of flight (though the distance may be short) but are at least choosing not to. What is the reason why we say "they can't fly"? Body and wing structure? Or because we still haven't seen them fly?

Because we have seen them try to fly and be incapable, because we have tested their flight abilities and they have been incapable. Whether you like it or not these penguins have been categorised as the same species of penguin. Some humans are bald, some can walk some can't, but you consider them all to be humans no? Are we not the same species despite our differences? Under the same logic as the penguin how would we know we are the same species? According to you are we not all obviously a different type of creature?

Then it wasn't that you were curious. Curiosity seeks a definite answer.

No I was curiousn as to see people's opinions, who are you to say whether I am curious or not and what my curiousity is about?

If i were basing my "thesis" on the existence of a higher power, i would have included it in my statement. And what did i say it did? I am uncertain what you are referring to, so i cannot properly answer your questions. Nevertheless, faith is merely what we have not yet seen, not what we don't have evidence for. Faith therefore can be logical. You said above that you are not looking for a definite answer (though that is counter-intuitive) and you say there is no such thing as a definite answer. That would mean everything you consider a fact is practically a belief, for there would be no way to justify anything. The questions here, therefore, can be returned to you. In which case, your arguments have all been brought down by yourself.

I am sorry I made an assumption, as you talked about admitting that there was definetely no predecessor to the chicken, talking to God and the bible quotes in your signature I took for granted that you are a religious man and that you therefore believe in a God or the God to be more specific and as a result believed in creationism. I apologise you should never assume, I should of asked, so do you believe in creationism? If so my comments still apply, if not I apologise.
It is I who said you don't need justification, you are the one who said it was necessary not I. I believe that the answers we choose are the answers that best explain something, that are the most likely. This contradicts nothing I have said. Infact I merely asked whether you think belief is enough to justify something, it is you who is saying it isn't. I believe that curiousity is justification enough to ask a question the fact that you don't does not make me contradict myself.

I agree that faith is logical, but I see faith in a higher power illogical yet I think you are fully justified to believe in a higher power if you so wish. I feel that with so much evidence to so many theories to go against these and deny them all for something which is merely the word of mouth to be illogical, but if you wish to believe in this higher power instead then you may do so as nothing is certain, there is only the likely and the unlikely.

[Kaf 0]

It's an oxymoron.The chicken must have come first because it has to lay an egg. The egg must come first because otherwise, we would have no chickens!But if you talking about the FIRST one, than neither.

[Bikerman 2]

Not being able to figure out a reason for something does not imply that it has no reason. And, yeah, suggesting a reason also doesn't mean that the suggested reason is truly the reason for it. But the reason for something always entails a why; and the process of something always entails a how. You can't ask what is the reason for something without receiving an answer that can be given to why; and you can't ask for the process without receiving an answer that can be given to how.

Tautologous. Of course a reason includes a why and a process includes a how - by definition.

Unfortunately that does not mean that you can say

"Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal)."

as you do in your avatar, because that, itself, is a non sequitur.

 

By the theory of evolution it has to be the predecessor that laid the egg, to which the chicken came out of. (Following from gisellebebegirl, don't evolutionists state from dinosaur to bird?) However, there has never been a case where a species gave birth to a species other than its own kind. The only way that would happen is if two incompatible creatures mated with each other and by chance alone was the incompatibility disregarded in the process (to where the newborn actually made it out alive and lived a long life—though it may have no one to mate with).

Evolutionary theory doesn't say any such thing. The name 'chicken' is a human construct. There is no sharp boundary at which a particular creature becomes a chicken and before which it wasn't. You can only say when the chicken occurred with hindsight and by setting an artificial boundary. The one most commonly used is inter-fertility (ie a species is sometimes defined by an evolved subgroup that can no longer breed with the parent population). Therefore the question itself is flawed because it relies on an artificial division. If you are going to rely on such a division (between chicken and not chicken) then clearly the chicken came first because that was classified as a chicken, whereas the egg could not have been.

 

Coincidence is illogical: it has nothing to follow from; it has no beginning, only an end (conclusion). It is a word stated merely for convenience, to "fill" the gap in knowledge that the person does not seek to fill with any (the) proper alternative.

What utter piffle. Of course coincidences exist. You either don't know what 'logical' actually means, or you are deliberately misusing the word, because nothing about coincidence is at all illogical.

It is not 'stated for convenience' or 'to fill the gap in knowledge' because that implies that there must be a causal relationship between two events which appear to be related. Where no such relationship exists then it is a coincidence.

Coincidences happen all the time and if you knew something of statistics you would know that they MUST happen.

Since you clearly believe in some form of creationism, then I will use a simple analogy that should appeal to you:

 

If my watch is stopped then it will show the correct time twice in any 24 hour period (assuming it is a rotary dial watch). If I happen to look at the watch at the time it just happens to be correct, then we call it a coincidence. Nothing illogical about it.

[truefusion 3]

Somehow i have missed dasmeaty's reply to my post several months back, but, though i do have a response to his post, since it is several months old, i'll avoid responding to it for now.

 

Unfortunately that does not mean that you can say

"Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal)."

as you do in your avatar, because that, itself, is a non sequitur.

 

What utter piffle. Of course coincidences exist. You either don't know what 'logical' actually means, or you are deliberately misusing the word, because nothing about coincidence is at all illogical.

It is not 'stated for convenience' or 'to fill the gap in knowledge' because that implies that there must be a causal relationship between two events which appear to be related. Where no such relationship exists then it is a coincidence.

Coincidences happen all the time and if you knew something of statistics you would know that they MUST happen.

Since you clearly believe in some form of creationism, then I will use a simple analogy that should appeal to you:

 

If my watch is stopped then it will show the correct time twice in any 24 hour period (assuming it is a rotary dial watch). If I happen to look at the watch at the time it just happens to be correct, then we call it a coincidence. Nothing illogical about it.

 

I am having trouble seeing why i cannot state what i have currently as my custom member-title from what i have said several months back. If coincidence bears no relation with anything, it follows that it cannot follow from anything, and so it cannot (logically) prove anything. If it cannot prove anything, it follows that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence. If coincidence, something that does not form a relationship, cannot be used, then we are left with something that requires there be a relation. Stating a reason for something implies a relationship, therefore everything that exists requires a reason for their existence. I merely mention "except if they are eternal" to imply what i mean for "everything," for it is obvious that anything that does not have a beginning cannot have a reason for its existence. Concerning this topic, natural selection is dependent on (or its basis is) coincidence, and so my statement contradicts natural selection.

 

While it may be safe to assume that if something is illogical, that it does not exist, i did not say that coincidence did not exist, i merely said that it was illogical. Nevertheless, coincidence deals with unrelated events which people form a relation to when there is none. However, the analogy that you give to try and show coincidence, does indeed show relation bewteen two events. While it may be the case that you staring down at your dead watch is not related to your dead watch displaying the current time, it is, however, relational that your dead watch is displaying the current time. We know that something is not related when we drop one of them and are still left with the other. And we know that something is relational when we drop one and the other falls along with it, and so are left with nothing. Therefore it is not possible to drop the event of the current time and still be left with the event of your dead watch displaying the current time.

 

What makes coincidence illogical? Coincidence shows no relation to anything and (therefore) it cannot prove a relationship. Something logical is something that shows a relationship between two or more things. Therefore coincidence is illogical.

[Bikerman 2]

I am having trouble seeing why i cannot state what i have currently as my custom member-title from what i have said several months back. If coincidence bears no relation with anything, it follows that it cannot follow from anything, and so it cannot (logically) prove anything. If it cannot prove anything, it follows that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence.

You are confusing yourself.a) Coincidence does not follow from some mechanism - true.
b ) It cannot therefore be used to demonstrate any mechanism - partially true.
c) Therefore it cannot...etc....false.
That is your basic mistake.

A set of coincidences (a-z) can result in outcome X. Outcome X is therefore a result of coincidences a,b,c...z.

Natural selection does not actually depend on ANY coincidence. There are a number of mutations that occur naturally to all germ DNA. That is no coincidence, that is a simple fact which is universally applicable.
The rest is entirely deterministic in that the mutations that produce the adaptation best suited to survival/breeding will, of course, be passed on.

You also have a problem with your definition of logical....I will leave you to work that out, since I am sure you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw.
Edited September 21, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

You are confusing yourself.a) Coincidence does not follow from some mechanism - true.
b ) It cannot therefore be used to demonstrate any mechanism - partially true.
c) Therefore it cannot...etc....false.
That is your basic mistake.

A set of coincidences (a-z) can result in outcome X. Outcome X is therefore a result of coincidences a,b,c...z.

If Z is the result of Y, and Y the result of X, and X the result of V, and so on, then it cannot be said it is due to coincidence. As mentioned before, coincidence cannot prove a relationship. Therefore what you state to be "coincidences" are not so. Therefore my statement, that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence, would still stand.

Natural selection does not actually depend on ANY coincidence. There are a number of mutations that occur naturally to all germ DNA. That is no coincidence, that is a simple fact which is universally applicable.The rest is entirely deterministic in that the mutations that produce the adaptation best suited to survival/breeding will, of course, be passed on.

The definition for natural selection as given by Charles Darwin in chapter 4 of his book, the Origin of Species, entails a process that does not consider the environment, the creature's well being, et cetera. It is a process that does not bear any relation to anything external of the organism. Arguably, neither does it bear any relation to anything internal to the creature. For the process is defined as something that can generate something either desirable or undesirable to the creaturethis may imply something conscious doing the decision making, but "mother nature" can be taken as unconscious. Since it can be either desirable or undesirable, the deciding process therefore is not deterministic (showing no relation; coincidental). It is easy to try and argue for a process that shows desirable traits (though, by the definition of natural selection, that is futile), but for those that show undesirable traits, what would it matter if the creature will eventually die 'cause of it? Science needs there to be a relation in order to further understand and to link things together, so it is no wonder why anyone would try to argue for a relation.

You also have a problem with your definition of logical....I will leave you to work that out, since I am sure you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw.

The only problem i see is that you do not seem to understand my explanation.

[Bikerman 2]

If Z is the result of Y, and Y the result of X, and X the result of V, and so on, then it cannot be said it is due to coincidence. As mentioned before, coincidence cannot prove a relationship. Therefore what you state to be "coincidences" are not so. Therefore my statement, that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence, would still stand.

Let us take an example.A driver is proceeding down a road. An ambulance happens to speed past them and causes him to swerve. At that moment a person jumps into the road and forces him to violently steer right which means he swerves into a bus queue and happens to kill the brother of the person in the ambulance. Coincidence? Yes. There is no causal link between the elements, yet the person dies and there is a coincidence.

I do not understand what 'excuse' means in this context. It seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate word for 'reason'. As I said earlier, your problem is that evolution does not require coincidence so the thesis is flawed from the start.

The definition for natural selection as given by Charles Darwin in chapter 4 of his book, the Origin of Species, entails a process that does not consider the environment, the creature's well being, et cetera. It is a process that does not bear any relation to anything external of the organism. Arguably, neither does it bear any relation to anything internal to the creature. For the process is defined as something that can generate something either desirable or undesirable to the creature—this may imply something conscious doing the decision making, but "mother nature" can be taken as unconscious. Since it can be either desirable or undesirable, the deciding process therefore is not deterministic (showing no relation; coincidental). It is easy to try and argue for a process that shows desirable traits (though, by the definition of natural selection, that is futile), but for those that show undesirable traits, what would it matter if the creature will eventually die 'cause of it? Science needs there to be a relation in order to further understand and to link things together, so it is no wonder why anyone would try to argue for a relation.

You have completely misunderstood (and misrepresented) Darwin. Chapter 4 deals with the environment in detail.

We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some slight physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants will almost immediately undergo a change, and some species will probably become extinct. We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any changein the numerical proportions of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would seriously affect the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would likewise seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for, had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. In such cases, slight modifications, which in any way favoured the individuals of any species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement.

In looking at many small points of difference between species, which, as far as our ignorance permits us to judge, seem quite unimportant, we must not forget that climate, food, &c., have no doubt produced some direct effect. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, owing to the law of correlation, when one part varies, and the variations are accumulated through natural selection, other modifications, often of the most unexpected nature, will ensue.

Do you want me to continue? I can quote as much as needed.
I think you are possibly referring to the section on sexual selection. Even then you have misunderstood. There is no 'mother nature'. There is no decision making, conscious or otherwise. There is simply reproduction. Those genes best suited will reproduce. If those genes express themselves in a certain phenotype (physically obvious way) then that phenotype will proliferate.
Can this work to pass-on undesirable traits? Yes it can. Sickle-cell anaemia is common because it was selected for - it conveys resistance to malaria. You therefore get a greater proliferation of that particular gene.

Why do you think that evolutionary theory rests on Darwin in any case? Do you not understand the work on genetics and the evolutionary synthesis that has been formulated since then? Trying to pick holes in Darwin's original formulation is to ignore the work since, and is therefore disingenuous. If you want to talk about evolution then bring it on.
Edited September 23, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Zagubadu? 0]

So obvious. Its not possible for something to evolve into an egg. So the chicken would have to come first. Whatever they came from probably also layed eggs. Birds have scales you know.

[Harlot 2]

Who made the chicken pop up out of no where? Was this God or was the chicken a result of evolution? Did the chicken didn't developmental stages or did the sun come up on day and there the chicken was?

[Bikerman 2]

Who made the chicken pop up out of no where? Was this God or was the chicken a result of evolution? Did the chicken didn't developmental stages or did the sun come up on day and there the chicken was?

Well, first come the dinosaurs. Then comes a particular dinosaur called Archaeopteryx. Then this evolves and one generation is getting close to what we call a chicken. Where you draw the line is moot...

[truefusion 3]

Let us take an example.A driver is proceeding down a road. An ambulance happens to speed past them and causes him to swerve. At that moment a person jumps into the road and forces him to violently steer right which means he swerves into a bus queue and happens to kill the brother of the person in the ambulance. Coincidence? Yes. There is no causal link between the elements, yet the person dies and there is a coincidence.

I do not understand what 'excuse' means in this context. It seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate word for 'reason'. As I said earlier, your problem is that evolution does not require coincidence so the thesis is flawed from the start.

The only possible coincidence is caused by the emphasis placed on who is in the ambulence and who died at the bus queue; however, this emphasis is placed for no apparent reason, therefore meaningless, non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reason why the brother was at the bus queue was because he lacked transportation to the hospital and that he was not allowed to ride in the ambulence. In other words, the incident that the one in the ambulence was involved in happened near the bus queue.

You have completely misunderstood (and misrepresented) Darwin. Chapter 4 deals with the environment in detail.

Do you want me to continue? I can quote as much as needed.

Well, then, you'll have to quote more, 'cause what you have quoted does not show that the environment is considered for the species' evolution. Rather, the quote you provided talks about the land undergoing climate change, not the creatures undergoing any change, for there is no mention of this climate change causing the animals to evolve. In fact, it even mentions, "independently of the change of climate itself." Anything further mentioned does not provide any information on environmental changes causing biological changes in the inhabitants.

Why do you think that evolutionary theory rests on Darwin in any case? Do you not understand the work on genetics and the evolutionary synthesis that has been formulated since then? Trying to pick holes in Darwin's original formulation is to ignore the work since, and is therefore disingenuous. If you want to talk about evolution then bring it on.

If we are to use terms like "natural selection," then we must use authoritative sources that explicitly define what they mean. In this case, we have Darwin. If you have other sources that explicitly define "natural selection" in accordance to what we know today, where "natural selection" is not simply mentioned as if it assumes that we should already know what it means, then you should post these sources. Until then, there is no other reason to assume anything further than what Darwin himself wrote.

[Bikerman 2]

The only possible coincidence is caused by the emphasis placed on who is in the ambulence and who died at the bus queue; however, this emphasis is placed for no apparent reason, therefore meaningless, non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reason why the brother was at the bus queue was because he lacked transportation to the hospital and that he was not allowed to ride in the ambulence. In other words, the incident that the one in the ambulence was involved in happened near the bus queue.

Co-incidence is simply two or more unrelated happenings. There are several unrelated happenings in the scenario which result in a person being killed.

Well, then, you'll have to quote more, 'cause what you have quoted does not show that the environment is considered for the species' evolution. Rather, the quote you provided talks about the land undergoing climate change, not the creatures undergoing any change, for there is no mention of this climate change causing the animals to evolve. In fact, it even mentions, "independently of the change of climate itself." Anything further mentioned does not provide any information on environmental changes causing biological changes in the inhabitants.

But this is sheer nonsense, as well as being untrue. The last sentence in my quoted passage clearly refers to EXACTLY environmental change producing biological change.

"In such cases, slight modifications, which in any way favoured the individuals of any species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would have free scope for the work of improvement."

It couldn't be more explicit.

 

The whole thesis of 'On the origin' is concerned with environment affecting phenotype. Chapter 3 begins with an introduction to this idea:

BEFORE entering on the subject of this chapter, I must make a few preliminary remarks, to show how the struggle for existence bears on Natural Selection. It has been seen in the last chapter that amongst organic beings in a state of nature there is some individual variability:indeed I am not aware that this has ever been disputed. It is immaterial for us whether a multitude of doubtful forms be called species or sub-species or varieties; what rank, for instance, the two or three hundred doubtful forms of British plants are entitled to hold, if the existence of any well-marked varieties be admitted. But the mere existence of individual variability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as the foundation for the work, helps us but little in understanding how species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life,and of one organic being to another being, been perfected? We see these beautiful coadaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and the mistletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted bythe gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.

The word 'adaption' means exactly change in relation to the environment.

 

He hammers this home explicitly in the following paragraphs:

We have good reason to believe, as shown in the first chapter, that changes in the conditions of life give a tendency to increased variability; and in the foregoing cases the conditions have changed, and this would manifestly be favourable to natural selection, by affording a better chance of the occurrence of profitable variations.

Again, it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct genera, and which differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus, arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.

If we are to use terms like "natural selection," then we must use authoritative sources that explicitly define what they mean. In this case, we have Darwin. If you have other sources that explicitly define "natural selection" in accordance to what we know today, where "natural selection" is not simply mentioned as if it assumes that we should already know what it means, then you should post these sources. Until then, there is no other reason to assume anything further than what Darwin himself wrote.

 

You want sources? Nothing easier:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5883/1629.abstract

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/4/627.short

http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/

http://iai.asm.org/content/72/5/2457.full

http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/1/3/362

 

I can supply thousands if you have the time to read them....

 

Alternatively you could use the dictionary:

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a process resulting in the survival of those individuals from a population of animals or plants that are best adapted to the prevailing environmental conditions. The survivors tend to produce more offspring than those less well adapted, so that the characteristics of the population change over time, thus accounting for the process of evolution

The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)