What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?

You're not being crucified, merely criticized for a large number of persistent misstatements, primarily concerning just two things. I don't know how you managed to skip over the two of them, since they were the sole topic of my Message 217 that you complained about, but here they are again.This one is just a simple contradiction in terms with you claiming there is such a thing as non-selective selection. Here's a sample, but you've said this many times: The other one concerns you're equating of natural selection with evolution. Here's an example: There ya go, have fun!--Percy

You've asked this before, and I don't think anyone understands why. Of course Crash thinks evolution has causes, everyone does. At the physical level where biology takes place everything has a cause, whether we're able to identify it or not. With regard to what Crash was saying about evolution being an ongoing process, selection pressures of the environs *are* causal factors.--Percy

Yes, I know, he's looking beyond the simple before having grasped the simple. But I already said I was going to stop pestering you for help with Hoot Mon. I said I was going to discuss only your views and views you say you agree with, because it appears we don't agree on something as basic as natural selection. We can't compose a coherent explanation for someone else if we ourselves disagree about its nature. A simple diagram of Darwin's concepts of natural selection and descent with modification is insufficiently explanatory for you? Ah, well, what can you do...Anyway, my purpose for introducing the diagram wasn't to explain natural selection, but to highlight why your view that natural selection is a consequence of differential reproductive success is backwards. As you follow the diagram downward and forward in time, natural selection is followed by reproduction (descent with modification). Reproduction, the stage where differential reproductive success occurs, is a consequence of which organisms were selected to reproduce on the basis of fitness. No, it is merely using an animal's life for illustration. The diagram is about evolution, which is a struggle for survival (natural selection) for the privilege to contribute progeny to the next generation (reproduction, or descent with modification). Selection precedes descent with modification (where differential reproductive success occurs), not the other way around. I'd like to agree with you, I really would, because I feel exactly the same way, but it would be more believable if you weren't taking issue with so many other views of selection. I'm merely advocating the simple view of natural selection first put forth by Darwin, and I began with the simple approach because of the difficulty Hoot Mon was having with the concept. But before resuming that discussion I think it important for the rest of us to reach some consensus about what natural selection really is. You must not have said what you originally set out to say, because you first say that some types of selection have "nothing to do with natural selection," then you critisize the "individualist view" for missing elements of natural selection. It sounded like you were starting out to say that the individualist view misses the types of selection that aren't natural selection. And I'd love to return to the question posed by the OP, but I'd like to get some consensus first. A unified theory of natural selection, huh! I actually agree with you. You've mistaken the simple way I prefer to introduce the concept of natural selection as indicating that I equate natural selection to survival selection. I don't. I already think of natural selection in terms of what you're calling superselection. The nuances of natural selection can be filled in after the basic concept has been successfully communicated, that's the way I'm approaching this.--Percy

We're not leaving definitions to individual preference, but merely the choice of avenue of explication. You seem to be abandoning a point of agreement I thought we reached long ago in this thread, that what natural selection actually is does not change simply because one chooses to describe it from a different perspective. No, that's not as I say, that's as you say. When you describe natural selection I barely recognize it, and the same for artificial selection. I think what may be actually be the case is that you're engaged in a search for definitions that are all inclusive and that can apply in any context, but the world is far too messy a place for that to be possible. The result will be terms far too complex and nuanced for people to ever agree upon a definition, or even understand them. Only because you insist, and may God have mercy on poor Hoot Mon's confused soul. What is wrong with the simple and elegant contrast drawn between artificial and natural selection in the Wikipedia definition of artificial selection? No doubt you feel that it is inadequate and fails to address important distinctions, but there's the whole rest of the English language to help you get that across. There's no need to overburden these simple and useful terms - a word or phrase can only bear so much meaning, then it breaks and becomes useless. If you say so. I'm not really sure what you're doing, but it doesn't look like either clarity or utility to me. For example, you go on to say: Why do you want to put your personal ideas forward in a thread where some poor schnook just wants to know what, exactly, natural selection is. He didn't say he wants people to put forward their ideas about what it is, he wants to know exactly what it is. "Exactly" is not a synonym for infinite detail or nuance, nor is it an excuse for infinite digressions. He wants precision, which is the opposite of the muddle of confusing detail we're in now. Quoting Wikipedia on artificial selection: This is precise, exact, easy to understand, and also disagrees with you about differential reproductive success preceding selection and about artificial selection being a subset of natural selection.As Quetzal said earlier today (at least I think it was Quetzal), the terms are here, they've already got definitions, and those who find them inconveniently defined may as well get used to them because they're not going away.--Percy

I apologize for having to use character graphics, but that's what's available. I didn't really think it was that bad, came out pretty clearly on my display. Anyway, you've missed key parts of the diagram. Here it is again: Natural selection extends from "sperm/egg conjoinment" only as far as "mating". Below natural selection and afterward in time is reproduction or descent with modification, encompassing "gamete combining" and "possible pregnancy period." Natural selection is not "the entire list except death."I composed this diagram to illustrate how you have it backwards with respect to the order of natural selection and differential reproductive success.You go on to point out exceptions, but of course there are exceptions. The idea of the diagram wasn't to explain all of evolution, but just to illustrate the order of natural selection and descent with modification. Once these concepts are clear then you can begin composing variations to broaden and nuance the basic concept to show how it can encompass all of nature from soldier ants to asteroid strikes. But overburdening the definition of natural selection to accommodate the entire universe of evolutionary possibilities is not a good idea. Reality is what it is, and it's pretty messy a lot of the time, and oftentimes you're going to have processes that don't have a single term that describes them, and that's when you use entire sentences and paragraphs that take advantage of the glossary of biological terms and the whole rest of the English language. To stay with the pool analogy, Hoot Mon has told everyone what a great swimmer he is, then has dived into the deep end where he struggles to keep his head above water while disdaining all suggestions that perhaps he might want to spend a little time in shallower water first.--Percy

Hi Hoot Mon,Well, looking at the "Upcoming Birthdays" list, it looks like I have to go off and track down a bug, but fortunately this type of response can be addressed briefly: This is just a restatement of your position, which itself is just a misunderstanding of the definition of natural selection. We already know what you believe. You need to identify the weaknesses in my argument and explain why you take issue with them. It's called rebuttal.Debate has to take the form of addressing each other's arguments, otherwise it devolves into "Is-not, is-too".--Percy

No, you just phrased it oddly, as if my definition agreed with the definition you had just given, and I don't agree with that definition. As I said in the following words that you didn't quote, "When you describe natural selection I barely recognize it, and the same for artificial selection." Every approach you take to defining something with as much variety as evolution is going to run into problems. It isn't that your view has fewer problems, it's that you personally feel more comfortable with those problems than the ones from a phenotypic perspective, and further, you think everyone else should feel the same way you do about it.Our mutual positions are not symmetric. I think both perspectives have merit and present certain advantages depending upon context, while you just think yours is superior and the other worth denigrating. Of course it's not controversial. I agree with you. But the statements from you I've objected to haven't phrased it that way. You're actually changing what you're saying to make it sound more reasonable. If you'll recall, earlier you said that natural selection isn't natural and artificial selection isn't artificial. It was like you were purposefully trying to obfuscate. If you had instead merely said that one way of looking at artificial selection is as a subset of natural selection there would have been no argument, because I would have agreed with you. Where we differ is that you think that not only can artificial selection be viewed this way, but that it *should* be viewed this way, and that you're going to tell poor people like Hoot Mon that it is viewed this way, despite the fact that it isn't. As Quetzal has said, and if I hadn't said it first I would have, these terms, for better or worse, are already defined. I think that if you look it up you'll find that "exactly" is not a synonym for "all available detail. In a thesaurus you'll actually find "precise" listed, while, amazingly enough, your "all the available detail" is conspicuously absent. Exactly is not a synonym for "brain dump."Like all words, exactly has more than one definition, and like all words it is nuanced by context. You're dumping detail on Hoot Mon that he can't handle. Even if he had instead titled this thread, "What is all the available detail on natural selection?", once it became evident that he was struggling with the material it would have been appropriate to back off on the detail. You're not doing that, but that's okay because I understand that you think he's handling the detail just fine. I wish I'd had teachers like you - even when I was dead wrong I'd have gotten an A-. On second thought, I take it back. I'd have gotten good grades but learned little. Well, no you don't agree with Wikipedia, actually, and while it doesn't "inherently disagree" with you, if by that you mean it doesn't have a sentence saying, "Artificial selection is not a subset of natural selection," it clearly doesn't define artificial selection in this way, does it? The Wikipedia portion that I quoted defines artificial selection by way of contrast with natural selection. It doesn't define it as a subset. Further down the Wikipedia article notes that many biologists view some forms of what might be called artificial selection as part of natural selection, such as domestication, but nowhere in the article does it say or even imply generally that, "Artificial selection is a subset of natural selection."It isn't that I disagree with you. I share your view that artificial selection can be thought of as a subset of natural selection. All I'm saying is that while this is true conceptually, that's not the actual definition of the term, and for better or worse that's the definition we've been left with historically, and to just claim that "Artificial selection is a subset of natural selection" without any qualifiers or setting of context or explaining why you're saying this when easily located definitions on the web do not say this, is just being misleading. Except you're not discussing it. You're just looking at the definitions and saying, "I agree with this." This leave me saying, "What you just said disagrees with this definition in these particular ways, how can you say that?" If you again just reply, "I agree with this," which is what you're doing, then there's really no discussion going on, not from your side anyway.Omigod, gotta go, no time to proofread, sorry, hope this makes sense...--Percy

No, I'm not confused. You go on: Yes, I know that's what you were saying. And it's wrong because it's backward. Differential reproductive success is evidence that natural selection has taken place. Differential reproductive success is not a cause but a result of natural selection.Hoot Mon's earlier confused questions about whether perhaps natural selection applies to lineages rather than to individuals come directly from this misconceived way of characterizing natural selection. He keeps asking where, exactly, natural selection happens, and your answers have left him floundering around looking for a place where natural selection happens, and finally concluding that it's just a high level overview of the process. It's why he keeps drifting back to saying that natural selection equals evolution. It is evolution which is the true high-level term for the concept, not natural selection.My diagram illustrates where, exactly, natural selection happens. Naturally some accompanying text renders it more comprehensible, but this is just you and me talking and so that may not be necessary, but I'd be happy to clarify to any extent you desire.This is from Wikipedia: So in artificial selection, differential reproductive success occurs only after and as a direct result of the farmer selecting crops or livestock for breeding. And Darwin used artificial selection as a way of introducing the broader concept of natural selection. Your gene-centric view has caused you to not only lose sight of this, but even to call it wrong and backwards.--Percy

Hi Modulous,Quetzal concluded his last post with this: I sort of feel the same way. We're not getting anywhere, I feel like I'm being treated like I don't deserve a straight answer, so I'm just going to bow out, too.AbE: I guess I should have made clear that I agree with everything else Quetzal said, too. You're knowledgeable and a master of clear expression. I can't figure out why we've been unable to generate any momentum toward a mutual understanding.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarification.

This thread represents a profound failure on the part of the participating evolutionists (I do not except myself), because after nearly 300 messages in a thread whose purpose was to clearly define natural selection for Hoot Mon, his conclusion is that we're not exactly sure what it is and that it requires deeper study.--Percy

I don't blame you for feeling this way, but persuading Crash that you actually are a publishing scientist is actually a very good thing. Crash and myself and others are trying to make sense out your posts that often appear to include both insight and confusion, and if you're actually a publishing scientist in the field of biology this makes it all the more perplexing. Something just doesn't add up, at least not for me.A moderator will probably close this thread soon, but there will be plenty of other opportunities to explore these definitional issues concerning natural selection, fitness, adaptation and so forth, and we'll come to know you better at the same time.--Percy