Who or how the goal is chosen does not make a difference in the mechanics of
selection. Surely all the thousands of people involved in the selection of
great milk cows, did not get together and consciously decide that they would
all chose the same traits.
Is the apparently future need for plants and animals to be able to survive
on a hotter planet earth an intentionally chosen goal or is it natural
selection? As mankind pours CO2 into the atmosphere, the animals and plants
will have to adjust to new environmental conditions. Originally, in the 17th
century when the industrial revolution began and coal began to be burned in
prodigious quantities, no one PURPOSED to alter the temperature of the
earth. But this activity did increase the temperature. In the 17th century,
the earth was at the end of the Little Ice Age. The earth was cold.
Glaciers in Switzerland were overrunning towns which had been occupied for
4,000 years.(see G.H.Denton and S.C. Porter, "Neoglaciation", Scientific
American, June 1970, circa p. 102-103) Some of these villages were still
covered in 1970. This article has a picture of a glacier on the verge of
overtaking a town in 1850 and a photo of the same site today. You can't see
The reason I raise this, it to ask: Is the heating of the earth an example
of natural or artificial selection? And why does purpose really make any
difference to the mechanics of selection? How do you measure the quantity
of Purpose in choosing a goal and how much purpose turns natural selection
into artificial selection?
Men had a goal (purpose) of a better life but it changed the temperature of
the planet. Animals must now adapt to a "goal" that was inadvertently chosen
for them. But it was purposeful.
Foundation, Fall and Flood