Talk:Natural selection/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

How were favorable traits and natural selection measured?

"..Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common...." Other than noting that certain traits became common how were their favoribility measured? The question was addressed a length here by Dr.Harshman and others: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/8a86863346c98d5d?#8a86863346c98d5dTongueSpeaker (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC) http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.179.140 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'gradual' in the first sentence.

This is the second time that I have attempted to insert the word 'gradual' into the opening sentence so that it reads ...

"Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population.."

As a science teacher in secondary school, I know that the theory of natural selection is prone to many misconceptions. Primary among them are the ideas that it is a random process and that it is a quick, individual jump from one species to another species. Also, most people will definitely not read the whole article. Therefore I believe it is essential that the opening sentence contains the information that Natural Selection is a slow process and non-random. Hence the word 'gradual' added alongside 'non-random'. I would appreciate if the person who previously removed it allow it to remain. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.194.75 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why use the word "gradual" if "slow" is what you mean? Anyway, I question whether either "gradual" or "slow" is the appropriate word. Perhaps what you want is something referring to it being a process across generations? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Also we need to distinguish between natural selection and the evolution of species. Natural selection occurs all the time (I do not like the words slow or gradual, there are two issues, one is that natural selection is always present as a force, and the second is what is the rate of change). There is still a debate about the rate at which the evolution of species occurs. "rate" is relative and what might seem fast to us may seem pretty slow to a fly. The evolution of species is the combination of natural selection acting on mutations, which also happen all the time. But the point at which we say species x has evolved into species y is kind of arbitrary. Certainly Mr and Mrs. Homo Habilus did not one day give birth to Homo erectus (or georgicus or whatever). But the rate at which one species evolved out of another can vary considerably depending on the phylum, and we cannot completely discount the theory of punctuated equilibrium - even if it is not always right, that does not mean it is always wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to bring up another point, but here it is: Is natural selection a "process", or is it better described as a "force"? TomS TDotO (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with process; the point is, it is constantly in action. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Albino or Leutistic peacock?

Please elaborate, skeptical raptor

For me, the lead definition may have been a bit technical for a laymen, especially a student to understand. I went on to try to clarify it in easy to understand words and briefly explain why it is a key mechanism of evolution. Please elaborate as to why you think it is inaccurate and/or changes the point of view of the article, whatever that may be. As it was a relatively brief one-sentence statement, I would appreciate if you pointed out specific areas you found inaccurate or POV. Cadiomals (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:RS, it's up to you to source and explain your changes. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
1) I did just explain the reason for my addition. Did you not read my above message? You need to explain what you found "inaccurate" or "POV" about it; this is not a one way conversation. 2) Also, a source is not necessary as I did not add any new information that was in need of sourcing. All I did was clarify the previous statement and succinctly summarize the basic concept of the article. There's no need to keep linking to Wikipedia guidelines, I've been editing here for over two years and understand them fairly well. I hate getting near the realm of personal attacks, but from your record it seems you think of yourself too highly around here. Cadiomals (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Cadiomals, my understanding of your explanation is that your think your wording is easier to understand. I do not see that myself directly. To me the feel is of an elaboration of something you are interested in, which is often something editors want to do in leads. I also tend to agree with SR that your elaboration might not be fully correct, or at least not uncontroversial. Hopefully others can also comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the exact text of my edit so you guys can pick it apart and say exactly what you think is wrong with it and so maybe it can be modified. SR himself has yet to respond.
Natural selection is one of the key mechanisms that drives evolutionary change in that it promotes, or favors, those traits that help an organism better survive to reproduction.
OK, let me say what I think is controversial. This implies a teleological understanding of causation, whether that is intended or not, whereas the core of modern evolutionary theory assumes no such thing. In other words, understanding evolution as having a direction is not part of the theory of evolution. Of course a lot of normal language (such as the word random, which means something does not have a real cause) is influenced by medieval and classical ideas and this problem is common, even amongst scientists. But in reality the distinction between random and non-random is a can of worms which should be mainly discussed in philosophy articles. The distinction makes no sense unless you believe nature has a direction, and intentions to follows directions which sometimes fail to play out. When scientists use such medieval wording they are often just doing so without realizing the implications.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I see exactly what you're saying now. Using the words "promote" and "favor" implies natural selection is a conscious force, and it isn't. I didn't notice that before, because I was trying to explain it in an easy to understand way and that often requires using the "medieval" language you speak of. What are some possible solutions, or more specifically how do we succinctly explain "differential reproduction" in words that a lay person could understand? Cadiomals (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The simplest current definition of natural selection that I'm able to find is taken from the glossary of Campbell Biology by Reece et al. (2010). The authors defined natural selection as "a process in which individuals that have certain inherited traits tend to survive and reproduce at higher rates than other individuals because of those traits". Hope this helps. danielkueh (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Natural selection: a "non-random" or "part random, part deterministic (non-random)" process?

It's said, in the begin of the article: "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process". But, in What Makes Biology Unique?, Ernst Mayr says that natural selection is composed of two processes. First, the generation of variation, which is a random process. Second, the selection itself, which is a deterministic (non-random) process. What point of view should this Wikipedia article adopt? 201.95.74.35 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict betwen the two. The second step in your Mayr citation is the one called selection right? It sounds like he was just being a bit odd in wording if he called random variation a process of selection. It is a starting point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree there is no conflict. Mutation has traditionally been treated like a random process (though things like frame shift mutations on duplicated genes might mean that some mutations are actually more likely than others) but natural selection is decidedly non-random. On the other hand I think that Mayr misspoke when he called it deterministic. Deterministic is not really the same as non-random. If you drop lead ball from a balcony the path the ball will follow is pretty much deterministic, which means that it is repeatable. Research such as the E. coli long-term evolution experiment has shown that natural selection is NOT deterministic in this way (Steven Jay Gould used to emphasize this point all the time). So I think we should characterize natural selection as a statistically non random process acting on variations that can be treated as if they are random, but with all do respect to Mayr we should avoid calling any aspect of evolution "deterministic". --Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember the exact expression Mayr used, I don't have his book here, but it was something in the sense you said, "non-random". I prefer to agree with Mayr, when he says that the production of variation is the first of the two steps of the process of natural selection, because without variation it's impossible to select anything (and therefore, in whole, natural selection is a part random, part non-random process). What do you think? In relation to the generation of variation, it includes not just mutations and recombination by crossover, but also the recombination generated in the (random) pairing of homologous chromosomes during meiosis, cited by Mayr (moreover, the definition of recombination used in Genetic recombination - the breaking and rejoining of DNA strands to form new molecules of DNA - must be wrong, because it excludes this last form of recombination. In Griffiths' Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 3, the definition is production of new combinations of aleles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.12.231 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this conversation does not make much sense if you do not have the exact wording, because this is basically just a wording question. But secondly, we do not have to use Mayr's wording. What he is apparently describing is not in disagreement with our article, just an odd way to say it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a better way to express those ideas. If we talk about natural selection per se, it is a non-random process. But if we talk about "evolution by natural selection", it encompasses the generation of variation, so in that sense the whole process is part random, part non-random. Could we clarify this, putting a section or paragraph about it in the article?

By the definitions of random and deterministic it is clear that natural selection is neither, beeing a two steps process, both random. Mutation is random, regardless If it is or not limited to a more or less restrict set of possibilities. Mutation will present to the next process of selection with a set of choices, hence the name "selection". This selection is natural and subjected solely to the interactions between the individuals and the ecosystem. And those cannot possibly be viewed as a non-random process. First, the ecosystems conditions are themselves random to a considerable degree, and most important, mutation may or may not present viable options, it may also present several incompatible alternatives and it is proved, that under the same conditions, organisms can "choose" diferent evolution paths. So, natural selection is a random process, and therefore matematicaly insuficient to explain on its own, evolution. It must be seen as a meere regulatory process, able to provide species with a means to adjust to the environment over a certain range of stored (trough heneritance) possibilities. Those henerited solutions can have much more complex origins, and pose scientists with huge questions that some atempt to hide behind impossible teorizations. Viral activity is known to be a process trough wich genetic information may be communicated from one population to another, it can indeed cross the species barrier. One can speculate about partialy symbiotic actions taken by the virus, on behalf of the host, as a selfminded process to ensure the availability of host stock. And yet, viral processes are unable to explain the origin of the information. Trial and error? That seems more likely to explain how scientists come up with such conclusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:27, 8 December 2012‎ (talk • contribs) 2.82.208.6

The origin of the information is the environment of the living organism, including other living organisms: these environmental factors affect differential survival of inherited traits, in other words natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

How about including a link to cambrian explosion, given Charles Darwin stated it was a major objection to his theory of evolution 129.180.1.224 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Darwin said it was a major objection? Or did he understand it supported the fact of evolution in a lovely way. You might want to not read creationist websites. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
But what is your answer to the question? To me it sounds like a good idea to include a link to cambrian explosion, but I do not know enough about natural selection to make an informed judgement. Lova Falk talk 16:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is really off topic for this board but Darwin did write in On the Origin of Species that the fact that there were fossils of numerous well developed multicellular organisms in the Cambrian era, many related to modern animals, but no fossil evidence of any living things before the Cambrian was a potential problem for his theory. This remained true until the 1960s when it was realized that the animal fossils of the Ediacara biota were actually pre-Cambrian, and that fossil Stromatolites in the Gunflint chert formation contained microfossils of cyanobacteria that were about 2 billion years old. As history of paleontology#Pre-Cambrian fossils, which covers this topic in detail, says: "By the end of the 20th century paleobiology had established that the history of life extended back at least 3.5 billion years." So there really is no issue and certainly not one that needs to be addressed in this article. --Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Survival of the fittest" and a questionable claim of tautology

We have a claim backed by a single source that sounds rather dubious: "Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations."

This is a very confusing claim and someone may want to check the source on this one to make sure the source is being interpreted correctly and to also ensure this isn't just the claim of a single lone philosopher of science.

After all, how is the phrase "survival of the fittest" or "survival of the (functionally superior)" tautological without already assuming natural selection, the very idea the phrase originally sought to explain and summarize? We can imagine one arguing against natural selection and claiming that only the functionally inferior and most poorly adapted specimens survive or that functionality has nothing whatsoever to do with survival of varieties and species. "Survival" and "functionality" (or "functional superiority" to be modern and verbose) do not necessarily share the same definition and are not contingent on one another. As any consumer knows, while functionality may give a product the edge, your "functionally superior" cell phone may not be the one that survives in the marketplace.

I also don't see much sense in claiming that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean that the fittest individuals in a population don't tend to survive. After all, new populations, whatever their "averaged quantities," don't arise at once. Rather, individuals that are functionally superior within their niche tend to survive and displace those in their own population that are not so well adapted. These functionally superior individuals may give rise to a new variety or species that displaces the old one.

24.113.109.228 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If functional superiority is in a particular case being defined to mean that something has a higher chance of survival (and of reproduction etc), and if you are talking about tendencies within hole populations the term tautology would hold. Does that clarify? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to the cited source, perhaps Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology from ToA might help. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Question before I suggest any changes to opening sentence

Is natural selection not substrate neutral? In such that if given parameters are met, natural selection will 'always' occur whether it is biological or not? It is obviously primarily used in the context of evolution of life on earth, but could it not apply equally validly to say, computer programs, or self-replicating robots. Not to sound like a nit-picker, but I believe when viewed in this light, it's an extremely powerful algorithm of thought. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe by extension this biological word will be increasingly used in non-biological contexts in the future, but it is not yet, except to the extent that it is clearly an extension of the core meaning. So for example changing the lead seems questionable to me at this stage, but mentioning how natural extension can be extended to mean similar processes in other contexts might be acceptable. Will be good to hear what others think. By the way, as the language changes, how will "biological" change in meaning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest mentioning the effect of the geography on natural selection. There is a field titled biogeography. I suggest adding it to here, although it might be too long:

(The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

I changed

This occurs partly because random mutations cause changes in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

to

This occurs partly because random mutation causes change in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

I felt that the original confused the process of mutation with the product of mutation. In my changed version, I felt that it is clearer that the first use of mutation refers to the process, while the second use with the change that has occurred.

Candy (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. It is confusing. Actually changes in the genome ARE mutations, but what is the point in saying that mutation causes mutations? How about the following:
This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.
This will be a little less teleological - at least we will not be implying that random mutation is purposely causing mutations.Khaydock (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

observed or observable?

This may be a trivial point, but wouldn't the better word be "observable" rather than "observed"? Also, is it really part of the definition of natural selection to call it observed/observable. To make it clear, I am not arguing about whether natural selection can be (and has been) observed. I am merely suggesting that that information is more properly placed later in the article, rather than in the lede. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminological problems with the term "selection"

Strictu sensu, the term "selection" needs a "selector", i.e., a person who "selects", e.g., a herd-breeder or theologian (like Charles Darwin himself), or a jewish-christian "god" (who breeds "the selected flock" or "selected race"). Hence, due to the jewish-christian roots of the term "selection", it is extremely interesting to see that the term "selection" is still used by so-called "neutral and objective" modern scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.205.186 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with the word 'selection', but the same problem is there for any other word we might try using instead: our language tends to be teleological, and we need a non-teleological term. Can you think of a better term? Maybe in some languages other than english there are better terms. Darwin (1860) complained that 'natural selection' is a bad term - because it sounds like an intentional process of selection is occurring. He suggested that maybe 'natural preservation' is a better term, but abandoned it because it "would not imply a preservation of particular varieties & would seem a truism"


Charles Darwin did not consider himself a theologian, especially not after he took his famous voyage. For example, in 1880 he wrote, "...freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightenment of human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science.”
Do you have any evidence to claim otherwise?


Modern scientists should and usually do realise that we are not and cannot be "neutral and objective". Like everyone, scientists function as interdependent members of society, affected by history, and affected by our ways of looking at the world. Khaydock (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Darwin Theory

I added a few very interesting quotes from Aristotle, showing his arguments for and against a sort of natural selection. Khaydock (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is rather a large insertion. Can it perhaps be compressed a bit? This article is one where we have to be a bit careful about adding too much. Keep in mind that there is an article about the history of evolutionary ideas where a lot of details have been split off to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial definition

I reverted the initial definition because the changes affected the meaning and connotations in slightly incorrect ways. The original wording was easier to understand and technically more correct. The word "function" is better than "result", because "function" allows for more complexity than cause and effect, which is what "result" implies. The term "differential reproductive success" is more technically correct, rather than "relative reproductive success" - (as used for example in [1]). The "interacting with" is important to include to emphasise the complex process of interaction that is occurring, rather than just the existence in the environment.Khaydock (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally do not see the problems with "result" and "relative", which just seem simpler and less ambiguous words to me than "function" and "differential". And I do not see why you simply reverted all the attempts to make the word order better. But in any case we have to find some way to make this sentence better, surely? It is too long and complex. Behold:

Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.

Can we split this up for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. My aim was to get the issue of environment in at the outset, the wording can be improved and splitting the sentence is worthwhile. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The initial definition should be made more succinct to allow people to get a quick idea of what natural selection is. If they want a more scientific idea they can scroll down the page to get a detailed definition. --Baldwinwt —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge with "Selection"

Can someone merge this with Selection? Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Less is more

I think this article would be better if it tried to say less.

There is too much history, and the history is botched and old-fashioned. If you can't be bothered to read current historical scholarship, then you shouldn't be writing about the history of this topic. It is simply mistaken to suggest that Dobzhansky established the idea that mutation supplies the material on which selection acts. This was established much earlier by de Vries, Bateson, and others. The most important scholarly work on this topic in recent decades is Gayon's _Darwinism's Struggle for Survival_, which argues that Darwin's conception of natural selection was mechanistically yoked to blending inheritance of masses of variations, that this is why the scientific world was correct to abandon Darwin's original view upon the discovery of genetics, and that early geneticists (de Vries, Morgan, etc) carried off "the most important event in the history of Darwinism", which was to reconceive a principle of selection for the Mendelian world that Darwin and his early followers had denied. When mechanistically oriented scientists invoke selection today, they are using the geneticist's principle. It is very important to understand that most of what evolutionary biologists read about their history is garbage-- a fetishistic view of Darwin and his influence peddled by what historian Peter Bowler calls the "Darwin industry", and a self-serving history of the 20th century "synthesis" peddled by Fisher, Mayr, et al. to make Fisher, Mayr, et al look good. Some earlier historians of evolution such as Provine and Allen clearly were drinking Mayr's kool-aid, and Provine has been very open about this, and about how the view that he held in 1971 (when he wrote his famous history of theoretical population genetics) fell apart within a decade (read his later works, or the Afterword to the 2001 re-print of his 1971 book). Generally historians have caught on to "Synthesis Historiography" and are trying to get away from it, but this article is just replaying old myths.

The tone of the article has a significant aspect of justifying and glorifying the concept of natural selection, whereas advocacy is not the job of wikipedia. Obviously this is not the place to debate with creationists, but the editor is mistaken if he thinks that substantive scientific and philosophical issues are out of scope. The nature of selection, and the operational legitimacy of the concept, are issues debated by professional philosophers (e.g., Fodor and Palmarini-Piatelli, to name a recent prominent example). The current article cites Daniel Dennett-- are you aware that this guy is like the Dawkins of the philosophers, an extremist who is very articulate and bombastic? It is obviously relevant to this article to address scientific views of the scope and power of selection as an explanatory principle. That is, what do scientists believe about the extent to which natural selection shapes the biological world? Finally, the concept of natural selection is obviously a matter of confusion among practicing scientists. The current article demonstrates this confusion. For instance, the example of penicillin appears to attribute the "development" of penicillin resistance to "natural selection", but then also suggests that selection only eliminated non-resistant individuals. Which is it? Does natural selection cause traits to arise? Wouldn't the world be a better place if this article pointed out the confusion rather than quietly exemplifying it?

I think the solution to this is just to scale back the article, try to say less, and try to be more careful about what is said. The point is not to undermine the concept of selection or to glorify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabs (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tidying up the last three main sections

The section on historical development is too long, and the last section on “The Genetic Basis of Natural Selection” lacks logical coherence and is very scrappy at present. I propose to start a new article on “Historical Development of Natural Selection”, which would allow this section to be substantially shortened. Note that, in my view, the historical development of natural selection is separate to that of evolution because, prior to On the Origin of Species, natural selection was primarily evoked as an anti-evolutionary mechanism, to keep species in their place, whereas evolution was primarily evoked as occurring through other (generally teleological) processes. I also propose to substantially cut down and revise the last section. I also propose to add a section on “Universal Darwinism” to the penultimate section (“Impact of the Idea”) Mikeweale (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Competition

Competition deserves its own separate article, and the content copied over here is far too detailed for this article. This one does require a mention of competition, but not at the level that the merger resulted in. Therefore, I have partially reverted the merger. I am happy to discuss this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Darwin's editions

I happened to notice that there are currently three editions of the Origin of Species referenced in the article. I don't know the various editions well, but I would imagine that information present in the earlier ones could be found in the latest; is there a good reason not to consolidate them that I am not seeing? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusing grammar is confusing!

Criticism

Types of selection

natrual selection

re: speciation

lead sentence

second sentence

Merger Discussion

Duplication in lead?

Role of timelines in article

Britain

Thanks, everyone

Other processes

Evo-devo

"focus - this is only for major sites which offer wide, objective coverage of the topic"

Lead statement suggests selection/evolution at the wrong level?

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI