Sentences with phrase «from natural selection»

In celebration of the original mod's seventh anniversary, developer Unknown Worlds has whipped out the first two screenshots from Natural Selection 2, the stand - alone follow - up to the highly praised FPS / RTS Half - Life mod.

According to BigDownload, the build only contains a few maps where a few animated targets can be fired at and holds no actual gameplay from Natural Selection 2.

Our dogs are far enough removed from natural selection that birth is even more risky.

The body is built for survival, every trait we have today came from natural selection; the folks who could survive the ice age, climb the tree before the saber tooth tiger caught them, and go the longest on the hunt without food, supplied us the genetics we have today.

They found higher rates in India, which they speculated may have come from natural selection of generations of a population which historically has been about 40 % vegetarian.

But, a large proportion of natural variation doesn't result from natural selection.

The huge diversity of dogs resulted not from natural selection but from generations of humans crossbreeding and selecting animals with traits they wanted — the ability to chase foxes into holes, or herd sheep, or sit attractively on a sofa.

This pattern could result from natural selection for specific allometries or from developmental constraints on patterns of differential growth.

Dogs are thus excluded from natural selection,» Range explains.

Still, there's much food for thought on topics from natural selection to information theory.

In a blind fish that dwells in deep, dark Mexican caves, scientists have found evidence for a long - debated mechanism of evolutionary change that is distinct from natural selection of spontaneously arising mutations, as reported this week in the journal Science.

He also was very explicit that sexual selection was distinct from natural selection.

While Darwin observed that animals» colors and markings had often evolved from natural selection, either to conceal them from predators or to attract mates, the American painter Abbott Handerson Thayer insisted that coloration evolved only for concealment.

And while mankind has somewhat removed ourselves from natural selection by tailoring our environments, morality continues to «evolve».

Not exact matches

To protect its place in the grocery market, Kroger has ramped up its lower price organic food, a move that has come in the wake of Walmart aggressively increasing its natural foods selection and re-setting the fresh food areas at hundreds of stores, moves that have boosted comparable sales at a retailer that gets 56 % of sales from its grocery business.

I would claim my brain is the product of millions of years of evolution and natural selection rather than «came from nothing.»

From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.

The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selnatural Theory of Natural SelNatural Selection.

The theory ABOUT evolution most widely accepted is an updating of Charles Darwin's hypothesis that all of today's species descended from common ancestors due to natural selection based on best current fitness for constantly changing environmental circmmstances.

Mutation and natural selection is such a powerful and creative «designer» that ID / creationists still have no viable means to distinguish between «actual design» from «apparent design.»

This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

Here's the rest of it:»... Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment.

It would seem that the principal factor making for progress is still the operation of forces of natural selection, choosing from outside the most successful and adaptable products of a process of expansion that is disorderly in itself.

Natural theology is a branch of theology because the theologian in appropriating it must recognize that his selection expresses his particular perspective formed in a community from which he speaks.

Advances in the field of genetics provide powerful support for Darwin's theory of descent from a common ancestor with natural selection operating on randomly occurring variations.

Holding to this conception of God, one can view natural selection not as a process separate from God but as a process that takes place in God.

From Rob: I have trouble with randomness in natural selection.

Scientists may think they have good reasons for believing that living organisms evolved naturally from nonliving chemicals, or that complex organs evolved by the accumulation of micromutations through natural selection, but having reasons is not the same as having proof.

For Darwin the «moral faculties of man» were not original and inherent, but evolved from «social qualities» acquired «through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.»

Not that they depended in any immediate sense upon biological science for their concepts or method, or that they had any conscious concern with Darwin, but the modernism,» «environmentalism,» and «functionalism» that were explicit in their methodology and emphasis had been implicitly derived from the Darwinian theory of natural selection.

Precise traits differ from species to species, but in some the mating process is actually the prerogative of the female — the strongest females choose the dominant males, and so the law of natural selection operates and the fittest survive.

I'm skeptical of evolution (the belief that all creatures evolved from a single organism) though I am quite convinced of natural selection and adaptation.

To him, the telos of natural beauty was inseparable from its usefulness for an end, especially sexual selection.

Finally, Stove believes that it is «overwhelmingly probable» that our species evolved from some other and that «natural selection is probably the cause which is principally responsible for the coming into existence of new species from old ones.»

Now consider the following quotation from the Idea Center website (an ID site), contrasting intelligent design with the randomness of Darwinian natural selection.

Rather, I was referring, at least primarily, to Prof. Johnson's concession of handing over microevolution to Darwinian natural selection while reserving for the Second Person of the Trinity the role of jump «starting evolution and of intervening now and again to create a new Bauplan when God thought it necessary to move from elephant to tiger, or whatever.

Rather than a fall from a pristine state, modern science sees the human race arising from a long struggle characterized by natural selection and survival of the fittest.

«it was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science has made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principal of natural selection.

It is a shock to us in the 20th century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanism of life can not be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed.

The experimental evidence that natural selection could build a vertebrate from an invertebrate, a mammal from a reptile, or a human from an ape is a bit less than the experimental evidence for superstring theory» that is, none at all.

Since Darwin, this process of evolutionary growth, whereby levels of Increasing complexity are seen to emerge from simpler ones, has been explained in terms of the double mechanism of natural selection and chance variation.

Are favorable mutations abundant enough to provide, in the time available, the variations which natural selection would require (mutations from ionizing radiations appearing to be both too rare and too predominantly unfavorable)?

Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins» most recent popular work, 9 is mainly a refutation of arguments put forward over many years by a number of distinguished physical scientists who have claimed that biological evolutionary change by natural selection is intrinsically unreasonable, using arguments from probability theory.

There are two components to atheistic evolution (distinguished from theistic evolution), genetic mutation and natural selection.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.»

Read the Book of Genesis from start to finish, trying to take no breaks, trying to keep as - open - a-mind as possible, and trying (this is very difficult, but do please try) to forget that there is some apparent controversy between Creationism and the theory of evolution by natural selection.

You see evolution is defined as «change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.»

Darwin argued that the cu - mulative effect of these small hereditary changes coupled with natural selection should eventually lead to new species and suggested that all species have come into existence from common ancestry in this way.

If, on the other hand, we define evolution in the Darwinian sense — as a process of random mutation and natural selection by which all living beings have arisen by chance from single - celled organisms over 100's of millions of years — we may not be on equally firm ground from a scientific perspective.