Bravo! I'm frankly surprised. You watched the video and actually picked up on some good information, but you're still not quite seeing the picture, likely you're cherry picking ambiguous and unclarified data, and collecting apparently unsupported 'facts'.
OK, first, selective breeding isn't about selecting species, but characteristics within a species -- like color, hair length, size, &c; variationss you can easily observe in a litter of puppies, for example.
Yes, nature does the same thing, but without intention or guidance.
The farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species.
He selects species - with desirable characteristics. Sheesh.
Nature has no choice but to work with what's given it.
Variation, is inherited from the available "sources". Natural selection has occurred.
Ouch! Bad choice of words. It clearly implies intenionality, but, as you picked up on from the rest of the video, there is no need for any.
Positive and negative have implications as well. Useful or detrimental might have been better.
Doesn't seem different to me. Useful implies that it's what something or someone wants, or considers desirable.
Correct.
Now I'm confused. The video answers your question. It's non-random in the same way selective breeding is non-random. There's variation: not all babies are identical. Qualities that chance to lead to greater reproductive success tend to pass themselves on through said reproductive success. They increase in frequency in the population.
Qualities that chance to lead to greater reproductive success.
Sounds good to me. Notice, you just identified natural selection - variety, heredity, differential reproduction.
How about what may be a dominant, or "learned" trait that enhances survival and fitness, being passed on.
What drives the increase in frequency?
See above -- by reproductive advantage. The 'positive changes' the parents were born with help them to thrive; to get more food, or run faster from predators; to hide better or be favored by females. More survive, more mate, they live longer and they have more babies -- with the advantageous trait
You are saying what I understand and agree with.
-- which increases its frequency in the population.
I just want to understand where you get the "increases in frequency". What's the driver?
Remember the peppered moths?
I thought you were catching on, but now the information in your video, your quotation, and your own link seems to have been forgotten.
Is it hysterical suppression? How are you not getting this? The process as presented is intuitive and childishly simple.
No. Perhaps you are not catching on, because you think I am slow and obtuse. Remember?
The peppered moths is a perfect example of how natural selection drives adaptation.
1) variation, 2) heredity, 3) differential reproduction. Nature works with what it's given. The (dominant, or "learned" trait that enhances survival and fitness) genes were passed on, and that's why I think scientists are making up stuff about mutations, as their best attempts at guessing.
What?! "Somehow becomes?" Remember reproductive variation? That introduces the "something new." Puppies in a litter aren't all identical, are they? There's variation to select from.
It's the same process as selective breeding, except the traits are selected by the environment rather than the farmer.
How about the new 'chance advantageous traits'? That's exactly how natural selection works, except the rooting out is done automatically by the environment. Those with less advantageous characteristics for their particular environment aren't as successful. They pass on the trait to fewer young. Those with the advantageous traits are more reproductively successful and the percentage of those with 'positive' features increases over time.
Okay. I never disagreed. I just though it was kind of careless not to mention how they add us, as it can be misinterpreted.
Doesn't need to be "all powerful," just adaptive. Nor is urging needed, it's all automatic. Nor is there any "progress," just endless adaptation.
What do you mean, "just needs to be adaptive"? Natural selection is adaptive now? I thought it was natural selection driving the adaptation.
Palpable poppycock! Sure science makes guesses, but it's the process of vetting that makes it a powerful tool. Its guesses and speculations are investigated, tested, peer reviewed and criticized. Science may take off in ten different directions, but abandons hypotheses that aren't supported by evidence.
So? In science everything is provisional, pending new evidence. What science believes is what the current, best evidence indicates. If new evidence points in a new direction, that's where science goes.
So? That's why science continues to investigate and come up with new hypotheses as evidence accumulates.
As I said, everything's provisional; science invites criticism and new avenues of investigation. That's its strength, not a weakness. Unlike religious doctrine, nothing's writ in stone.
"current, best evidence indicates".
Thank you. So the current best evidence can be mere assumptions, guesses, conjecture, and
wrong.
My point exactly. So why do you guys deny it when Creationists sincerely point that out?
