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

Regardless of what you choose to call it, it's clearly selection, as I've proven in countless different ways. Are you capable of a reply on this subject beyond "it's not selection because I say it isn't?"It's clear that we've gone way beyond your understanding, here. Why don't we back up and you can explain exactly what you're having trouble with?

I'm assuming you read the next nine words I wrote, didn't you?

Sexual selection is certainly natural selection at play. Genes which are good at creating bodies want to advertise that fact to 'mates'. Any gene which managed to work together to communicate their effectiveness to another gene vehicle can find itself being selected for. Its frequency will increase.Female preference (and its usually female preference), is just another environmental hazzard providing a selective pressure. That pressure might be towards building ornaments that show off how well the vehicle is at resisting disease, or it maybe weaponry to defeat the male competition. That wouldn't be sexual selection. Sexual selection means that one entity can demonstrate its genetic superiority to its mate, and because of that the mating occurred. Thus, in the next generation there will be more individuals with the genes that are good at demonstrating their genetic superiority.This gives us a possibility of runaway selection - since if the males are being selected for being good at advertising good genes, then the females must be good at interpreting the advertising...knowing when an advert shows good genes and when it shows bad genes. Since genes are not male and female...any one individual that contained both the genes for advertising genetic superiority, and the genes that recognize that superiority when they are in opposite gender vehicles...will find its genes tremendously successfuly since both its male and female children will be genetically superior.

Hi Hoot Mon,It is possible we may have made some progress. You said this in reply to Crash: I don't see a problem with thinking of sexual selection as different from natural selection, as long as you understand they they are both forms of selection and that neither is where evolutionary change occurs. Darwin perhaps also saw natural selection and sexual selection as distinct, for while his brief discussion of sexual selection appears in his chapter on natural selection, he takes note of its different qualities, contrasting its focus on mate selection to the raw competition for mere survival. This is from the beginning of Darwin's section on sexual selection: Moving on: But yes I have. I think everyone has. You keep confusing natural selection with evolutionary change, and whether you agree with the perspective or not, you can't see how sexual selection can be viewed as a type of natural selection. I think the best approach for you is to back up to square one, understand natural selection as Darwin originally defined it, then move forward from there to a more complex and detailed understanding.Those of us who are non-physicists understand gravity at a simplistic level. We know that objects with mass attract one another and that apples fall down. Physicists who study gravity at a much more detailed level do not think of it in such simplistic terms, but the theories they generate have to be consistent with the simplistic view or have a good reason not to. The physicists will definitely not be generating theories that show that mass repels or that apples fall up.You need the same kind of simple cross-check for your own thinking of natural selection. Once you understand it at a superficial level, you can then check your more sophisticated thinking by comparing it with the simplistic. If they're in contradiction then either your more complicated thinking is wrong, or you have to find the reason for the difference.Clearly your more complicated thinking is wrong, because it is telling you incorrect things, such as that natural selection includes evolutionary change. The human breeder replaces the environment, Mother Nature if you like, in influencing the choices of who mates and of who mates with whom. Whereas in a natural environment the ability of a creature to survive the competition for food and mates is governed by the environment, in the breeding environment this is all replaced by the breeder. Hence the term artificial selection in place of natural selection.But the basic principles involved are the same. In the wild creatures have qualities that either help or hinder their ability relative to the environment to produce progeny. In captivity creatures are not subject to normal environmental pressures, often living in a barn or residence and being provided food and veterinary care by the breeder, but the breeder replaces the environment in selecting who breeds and who does not on the basis of qualities usually having little or nothing to do with the ability to face the rigours of the wild.There is nothing inherently wrong with preferring the gene-based perspective, but I think you prefer it for the wrong reasons. I think you prefer it because you still think selection encompasses evolutionary change. It does not. Evolutionary change is a result of selection, not a part of selection.--Percy

Like Crash, I have the same reaction. This is the guy who can't see how sexual selection can be viewed as a type of natural selection, who thinks sexual selection is non-selective, and who thinks natural selection includes rather than is one of the causes of evolutionary change.I see the fine distinctions you and Quetzal are trying to draw between what is and isn't natural selection as inherently confusing to Hoot Mon. I understand your point of view on natural selection, I understand Quetzal's point of view on natural selection, and I don't feel strongly enough about it either way to be interested in that discussion. What I do see is that Hoot Mon is hopelessly confused, and I'm glad you've begun replying to him again.--PercyPS - One thing I don't understand is the way you're contrasting natural and artificial selection, but I don't think addressing this would help in answering Hoot Mon's questions about what natural selection is.

Like with Crash's response I'm amazed at this. I did not say, Hoot Mon has perfect understanding. I said he was being more cogent than he was being given credit for. Even when he raises valid and interesting points, it is like his opponents think he is making points on the level of the sexual selection issue. For the last point, for example, I think you have misunderstood Hoot Mon. Hoot Mon specifically said in Message 181 that natural selection is one of causes of evolutionary change. He also said that it wasn't the only cause of evolutionary change.From that I don't see how you can think that he thinks natural selection is evolutionary change rather than a cause of it. From what I have read, he seems to be charging you with equating evolutionary change with natural selection.He might be misdunderstanding your position but one cannot dispute the bolded section: I don't think it is confusing to Hoot Mon - though I agree he has much to learn at this point and there are misunderstandings. He is asking the right questions (see topic title) and bringing up some good points, and I think he should be given credit for this much.So far, I've not seen Hoot Mon apply something I have said in a fashion which demonstrates confusion. His confusion about sexual selection didn't come from me, since I haven't spoken on the subject until my last post. I'm not contrasting them particularly. It is my view that artificial selection is a specific subset of natural selection in the same way that sexual selection is. I don't think anyone could doubt that domestic chickens are one of the most 'succesful' birds on the planet by virtue of them being hardy, tasty and producing tasty eggs. Indeed, their hardiness, tastiness, greediness and egg production are being selected for by a natural agent (humans). We have a special term for when a natural agent with forethought selects other agents with certain traits to reprodce...we call it artificial selection.The genes that go towards making an animal, such as a junglefowl, attractive to a certain species of ape so that that ape feels the desire to protect that animal, and encourage replication of that animal's genes...were selected for and are being selected for.Natural selection opened up the new strategy, a new niche. That niche is being appealing to apes with foresight...

Hi Modulous,It's like we're reading two different threads. Where you see Hoot Mon's occasionally correct comments as indicating some level of comprehension, I see someone who has little understanding and is approaching this discussion through trial and error attempts to see what combinations of words and phrases draw the fewest objections. In this he is much like Buzsaw, confidently echoing what he agrees with while waxing vague about the portions he disagrees with and using terminology in always not-quite-right ways combined with frequent howlers. Even the portion you quoted is laden with vagueness and probably miscomprehension, as I will bold a different portion: Hoot Mon is attempting to mimic comprehension, and while he's much better at it than a ChatterBot, the constant flip flops and mistakes make it clear he's just floundering about. I think you're badly misperceiving Hoot Mon's MO, and as I look at your respective thread lists it doesn't appear you've had much interaction with him. Maybe I didn't do a comprehensive enough cross-check, I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of how you can see cogency amidst all the fairly substantial errors.No one is criticizing Hoot Mon for having imperfect understanding. None of us have perfect understanding, so it's not a reasonable expectation. My focus is on explaining natural selection to him in terms he can understand. Someone who says that "natural selection = evolution" and that sexual selection is non-selective is not only not being cogent, he's displaying miscomprehension in substantially fundamental ways.--Percy

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand. In the message I replied to, there's no quote that appears after your remarks on HM's supposed cogency. Are you referring to another post? You'll have to point it out, if so.

Modulous, focusing on one point here: I may have to back down a little from my position that “sexual selection” (or "nonrandom mating”) is NOT a form of natural selection. But I'm not going down without a fight. When I study the matter in the literature I find ambiguities; there seems to be several opinions. For example, E. O. Wislon (in Sociobiology, 2000, p. 595) defines “sexual selection” as:

quote:

---

The differential ability of individuals of different genetic types to acquire mates. Sexual selection consists of epigamic selection, based on choices made between males and females, and intrasexual selection, based on competition between members of the same sex.

---

Wilson does not mention that sexual selection is a form of natural selection; that is, he does not say that sexual selection will necessarily cause differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population. I think he would agree with me that sexual selection MAY OR MAY NOT affect natural selection. If sexual selection does not necessarily affect natural selection then it could be regarded as an independent mechanism of evolution. I see no reason why sexual selection necessarily means natural selection, sexual selection could do the evolutionary job without it, IMO.But wait, here's old Ernst Mayr, Wilson’s colleague at Harvard, who says in What Evolution Is (2001, p.137-38):

quote:

---

When we speak of natural selection . We think of factors that favor survival...This “survival selection” is what most people have in mind when they speak of natural selection. Darwin, however, saw clearly that there was a second set of factors enhancing the probability of leaving offspring: all factors contributing to an increase of reproduction success. He called these factors sexual selection.

---

OK, maybe he did. But please allow me to question this one, key assumption: Sexual selection necessarily “enhanc[es] the probability of leaving offspring.” I don’t see why sexual selection couldn’t yield two other possible outcomes:1. Sexual selection can be a factor that causes no change in reproductive success amongst individuals of a population. This could happen independently as a cause of evolution without the need for natural selection.2. Sexual selection can be a factor that reduces, rather than enhances, the probability of leaving offspring. To wit; in humans, sometimes, sexual selection will result in the preferred individuals”maybe those of the upper classes or castes”leaving less offspring (per capita) than individuals of the lower classes or castes, who have lesser desirability when it comes to mating. You know, sometimes the ugly poor breed faster and more abundantly than the beautiful rich. Shall I call this "reverese sexual selction"?For these reasons I prefer to see sexual selection as something other than just a factor of natural selection. Sometimes it is a subordinated agency in the evolutionary business, and sometimes it serves as a prime agency to get the job done.”HM

Hoot Mon was discussing a consequence of what he thought your position was. (I think) He thought your position was that any change in the a gene pool is natural selection at work - a position he adequately refuted as absurd. Assuming that is not your position, your best strategy given this, would be to explain that that isn't your position, and to clarify what your position is.I think the reason why your position is confusing Hoot Mon and your's dialogue is because discussing things in terms of individual selection causes these confusions. I think that causes Hoot Mon's confusion on where you stand as much as anything...the unusual consequences and paradoxes that begin to acrue under the view of individual selection. Perhaps I missed where Hoot Mon said natural selction = evolution. I only saw him refute that position because he thought you held that position. His refutation was cogent.

Probably in the same post I made some absolute statement of the totality of Hoot Mon's argument's cogency. The only post I see is one where I accept that Hoot Mon's understanding is not total, but that he is not getting credit for where he is making cogent arguments.

I don't see what reason there is to believe this, and you certainly don't provide any. If selection is going on, then some individuals (usually males, because traditionally females are viewed as the rarer reproductive resource) are getting some and some males are not.Clearly, that's differential reproductive success under any formula. The only instance I can think of where individuals experience statistically equal reproductive success are asexual species, and that's clearly not "sexual selection", since there's no sex involved. So? Natural selection is the same. In fact this statement would seem to reinforce the idea that sexual selection is a kind of natural selection. There's really no difference between some individuals succeeding because they were selected for, and some individuals succeeding because others were selected against. That's just two different ways to describe the same phenomenon. No, it's just regular sexual selection. There's nothing reverse about it.

I think it's more important to correct his incredible gaffes than to reward what little morsels of sense he's able to serve. When we're talking about a guy who will defend, for several pages, saying things like "digital codes swim through our homologies" as though that statement makes sense, I think there's little merit in handing out partial credit for the fact that, occasionally, he's able to generate small amounts of sense.

What are you contributing here, other than just personal slams? I see nothing wrong with my conduct in this debate. If you think I’m waxy and vague then that’s your opinion. All I take from it is that you don’t like me. That's OK. You’re keying off a couple of points here that don’t seem too ridiculous to me:1. I was equating natural selection to evolution in the microevolutionary sense, meaning that if a microevolutionary event occurred it could be attributed to natural selection. You can agree or disagree, there’s nothing “howler” about it. You're cherry picking for tabloid effects.2. If sexual selection can affect natural selection then why should it not be considered a separate agency of evolution? All I ever said was that sexual selection is not, in and of itself, natural selection, and, in that sense, it is "non-selective." (Maybe "sexual selection" is a poor choice of words for "nonrandom mating," or maybe not; I can give a little here.) My point here, essentially, is that sexual selection could disturb the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium without the need for natural selection, and that a microevolution event could occur as a result.Sorry, I just can’t go on with any more howlers, but I hope this helps.”HM

Do you think it would be possible for you to respond to any one of the innumerable posts where I respond to your misconceptions about this?