Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 303 (389183)
03-11-2007 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fosdick
03-11-2007 3:39 PM


Re: Site of operation?
quote:
Preferential mating is well know as a non-selective agency of evolution.
Huh? Peahens dig males with long tail feathers. Peacocks with long tail feathers therefore get to breed. Peacocks with short tail feathers don't get dates, and so don't reproduce.
How in the world is this not selection?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fosdick, posted 03-11-2007 3:39 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Fosdick, posted 03-11-2007 4:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 303 (389188)
03-11-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by MartinV
03-11-2007 4:08 PM


Re: Not so Stupid
quote:
What a story-tellers some darwinists are having no plausible natural selection or sexual selection explanation at hand.
I don't know why you are accusing others of story telling, John. So far all you have ever done is invoke some sort of vague "spirit force" guiding evolution. You have never proposed a mechanism for this "spirit force", not presented any evidence in favor of such a force beyond your own inability to understand natural selection.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 03-11-2007 4:08 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 03-11-2007 4:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 303 (389190)
03-11-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Fosdick
03-11-2007 4:12 PM


Re: Site of operation?
Well, now this is starting to sound like a semantics issue.
Darwin spent a good chunk of Descent of Man discussing sexual selection, and it is clear that he didn't think it was so different from "ordinary" natural selection. I don't think any biologist really thinks of it as any different than natural selection, either. Why do you insist that there is a profound difference between the two?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Fosdick, posted 03-11-2007 4:12 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 303 (389197)
03-11-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by MartinV
03-11-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Not so Stupid
quote:
Popular darwinists are popular story-tellers....
And you are an unpopular story teller.
Look, this is very simple. Give us your mechanism for evolutionary change, and then present evidence for your mechanism. Babbling about "spirit forces" and how "sharks and crocodiles would prevent mammalian evolution" just makes you look like a nut.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 03-11-2007 4:35 PM MartinV has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 303 (389664)
03-14-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 7:21 PM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
quote:
Percy, Dawkins has had an enormous impact on evolutionary biology.
By the way, what has Dawkins done in biology? I mean, I know that he is a trained biology, but what was (or is) is field of research?
And what impact has Dawkins had on evolutionary biology?
All I know about Dawkins is a couple of books he wrote for the mass public. In fact, he is currently the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, which sounds like it is more of an educational post than a scientific research one.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 7:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 7:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 303 (389671)
03-14-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 7:44 PM


Well, if you don't know the answers to the questions, Hoot, why don't you take a break and let someone else answer them?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 7:44 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 303 (390034)
03-17-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Fosdick
03-17-2007 8:14 PM


Re: Better Living Through Chemistry
Now biologists have an understanding of how Star Trek techo-babble sounds to physicists.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 03-17-2007 8:14 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 303 (390097)
03-18-2007 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Fosdick
03-18-2007 12:06 PM


Re: The naturally selected individual(?)
quote:
Should I then adopt this definition of NS?
You should probably use the definition of natural selection that everyone else uses (which is pretty much how Percy describes it). The purpose of language is allow communication between people; one aspect of language is the use of words with meanings that people pretty much agree upon. When you start making up your own definitions as you go along, you defeat the whole purpose of communication.
-
quote:
Can't they get selected at home in the comfort and privacy of their own bedrooms? Does this mean that every reproducing organism is naturally selected?
What the holy hell are you babbling about now?
This isn't so hard, Hoot. Populations consist of a number of different individuals. These individuals are different in physical features, some of which are heritable. When some individuals leave more surviving offspring behind than others due to these heritable differences, we call that "natural selection".
There are over six billion human beings on this planet. These humans beings are different, often in heritable features. Some human beings have more surviving offspring than others -- when this is due to those heritable differences, then we say that "natural selection" is occurring.
You have children. I do not. If that is due to physical, heritable differences between you and I, then we can say that "natural selection" has occurred. There are probably people who have more children than you do. If that is due to physical, heritable differences between you and those other people, then we say that "natural selection" has occurred.
This is the meaning of natural selection. This is how natural selection is used by any biologist who is using the term. Sure, you can use natural selection to mean any thing you want it to, but then you are not talking about the same thing everyone else is. Then communication is no longer occurring. By reading your own idiosyncratic meaning onto the phrase when everyone else is using it to mean the standard concept, you are putting yourself in a position where you will not understand what anyone else is saying. By using the phrase to mean your own idiosyncratic meaning, then you are putting yourself into a position where no one else is going to understand what you are saying.
If you don't want to communicate with anyone, then you can do that more efficiently by not typing anything at all.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Fosdick, posted 03-18-2007 12:06 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 303 (390249)
03-19-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Fosdick
03-19-2007 1:40 PM


Re: The naturally selected individual(?)
quote:
2. Natural selection selects or selects for individuals....
3. Natural selection selects or selects for for genes (or kin).
I suggest that right now. you don't worry about whether it is the individual organism or the gene that is being selected. It isn't important to the definition of natural selection. Try to understand the basic concept first; complications and extensions to the basic concept can come later.
I will repeat my earlier attempt at a definition:
Populations consist of a number of different individuals. These individuals are different in physical features, some of which are heritable. When some individuals leave more surviving offspring behind than others due to these heritable differences, we call that "natural selection".
Note that I made no mention of whether it is the individual or the gene that is being selected. All I have done is define natural selection in terms of observable phenomena, namely that some individuals leave behind more progeny than others, and that this difference be due to inheritable characteristics.
Whether the "individual" is the organism or the gene can be put off later, after it is demonstrated that you understand the basic concept.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 1:40 PM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 303 (390267)
03-19-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
03-19-2007 3:47 PM


Re: More nonsense?
And we can add another:
3. The allele frequencies of population C over time t remain unchanged despite the presence of selective pressure.
4. The allele frequencies of population D over time t change despite the absence of selective pressure and/or random genetic drift.
Both of these are possible as well.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 3:47 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 4:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 303 (390272)
03-19-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Fosdick
03-19-2007 4:15 PM


Re: More nonsense?
quote:
...allele frequencies must have nothing to do with selection pressure and/or random genetic drift
If you say so. But I think you are again demonstrating how little you know about the subject.
Edited to add:
I still think you should be concentrating on understanding the basic concepts before trying to add complications.
Oh, and happy birthday. I hope you have a good one.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 4:15 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 5:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 303 (390289)
03-19-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Fosdick
03-19-2007 5:01 PM


Re: More nonsense?
As I have been saying, I think it will be more fruitful if we were to focus on the basics first; complications like eusocial species can come later.
I will repeat my attempt at a definition:
Populations consist of a number of different individuals. These individuals are different in physical features, some of which are heritable. When some individuals leave more surviving offspring behind than others due to these heritable differences, we call that "natural selection".
First, this definition makes no mention of which is being selected, the organism or the gene. It simply makes a simple observation: some individuals do not reproduce as much as other individuals. Whether the invisible hand of natural selection is actually pointing to the individual that is not reproducing or to its genome isn't yet important. I am merely linking natural selection to the most observable phenomenon.
In fact, I suspect that Modulous will basically agree with this definition (although he might, and should, have some reservations about details). Neither he, nor anyone else, has objected to this since I have proposed it twice, so I am assuming that most of us are in broad agreement that it is a useable definition.
I would suggest one or two fixes myself, now that I think about it, but let's see what the objections to this definition are first. In particular, I am interesting in seeing what your objections are. As far as I know, this definition is or is close to the actual definition actually used by biologists.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 5:01 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2007 6:14 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 8:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 303 (390334)
03-19-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Fosdick
03-19-2007 8:54 PM


Re: More nonsense?
quote:
But you confuse me....
Sorry for the confusion. Let me try to explain the situations where these things might occur; these are theoretical situations -- whether such a situation can or does occur in reality is a different question.
[qs]4. The allele frequencies of population D over time t change despite the absence of selective pressure and/or random genetic drift.[/quote]
This is a situation where there is little or not selective pressures, but mutations continue to occur. Since mutations produce new alleles, the allele frequencies are changing. Some alleles are increasing from 0 to something, and other alleles are decreasing in frequency as new mutations make up more of the genome.
3. The allele frequencies of population C over time t remain unchanged despite the presence of selective pressure.
Now this is a situation where a mutation produces a deleterious allele. Natural selection, then, will try to eliminate it. However, if the mutation occurred once, it can occur again; in a large enough population, this same mutation will repeated occur. The production rate is steady as long as the population is steady; however, the elimination rate will depend on the number of individuals with this allele. A basic differential equation problem. At some point, production and elimination will balance each other, and an equilibrium will be reached. It will be eliminated exactly as fast as it is produced, meaning that the allele frequency will hold steady.
As I said, a classic differential equations problem. I wonder if some alleles like that producing cystic fibrosis can be explained in this manner?
-
quote:
Do you think that 'individuals selected to reproduce' is different from 'replicators selected to replicate'?
I actually don't like the language "individuals selected to reproduce" or "replicators selected to replicate". I don't think it makes sense to speak of "natural selection" occurring to an individual; you can only speak of natural selection when you compare the number of progeny produced by individual A with that of individual B. In fact, accidents do happen, and even very "fit" individuals may just happen to be standing beneath falling branches. What you really need to check is whether, over time, all of the individuals with allele A produce more progeny on average than the individuals with allele B.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 03-19-2007 8:54 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 03-19-2007 9:40 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 2:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 303 (390469)
03-20-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Fosdick
03-20-2007 2:21 PM


Re: More nonsense?
I've been told that I am being confusing, so I am going to bow out of this conversation.
Have fun, though.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 2:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Fosdick, posted 03-20-2007 10:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 303 (390598)
03-21-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
03-21-2007 9:36 AM


Re: More nonsense?
I don't think that Hoot Mon was trying to be rude. I think he was just making a friendly joke. At least that is how I read it.
I recognize that the side discussions probably aren't helping much. That is why I am bowing of the thread for a while. People gave their different suggestions as to how to explain the concept; now I think the fewer people are talking, the less potential there will be for confusion.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 03-21-2007 9:36 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Fosdick, posted 03-21-2007 11:11 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024