Is there more than one definition of natural selection?

Because every time we have the conversation, he forgets it after a few days.

I've discussed it with you in two seperate threads, and each time you had no recourse but glib one-liners. Why do you think I'd be eager to do it a third time?I think your five-way continum has three ways too many. On one side there's purely random changes to a population's allele frequencies, and on the other, there are purely deterministc changes to allele frequencies (like genetic engineering or animal husbandry). In practice I imagine most populations find themselves somewhere in the middle, and their position on the continum is certainly related to a number of factors, including rate of mutation, populations size, environmental pressures, and other factors.I see no merit in your five-fold description, not the least of which because you continue to draw a false distinction between non-random mating and selection. But we've talked about that in two different threads without making any discernable impression on you. I suspect you'll just ignore it again.

It'd be nice if you could tell me how, but I realize providing actual rebuttals is something you consider beneath your calling as a scientist.Obviously, these techniques are most effective the less random they are. "Purely deterministic" was probably an inaccurate choice of words, but I would definately say that these techniques represent the most deterministic influence on genetics a population could experience. Nothing that I can see. If you can't see anything wrong with them either, pehaps you should be giving them more consideration than you apparently are.

I'm aware that yoiu must indeed have profound difficuilties with readng plain statements in English if you really believe Dawkins has said anything of the kind.Nonetheless I don't see how that constitutes anything but an irrelevancy to what I've been saying.

You've never heard of androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or XX male syndrome?They don't have birds where you live? Or cockroaches? Neither of those use a Y chromosome to determine maleness. This is largely just an exercise in equivocation on your part. You know this isn't what we were talking about at all. That's fine. Surely you must realize how ridiculous that position is, though. Genes don't express themselves; they're expressed within the environment of the cell, which is itself in an environment as well.The ultimate product of a given gene is depends on not only the gene but it's interaction with environment and other genes. With all that interactivity, it seems ridiculous to assert that genes are deterministic. It's the oversimplification that bothers me. Gene products depend on interactions with the environment and other genes. Genes don't express themselves. They can't possibly be deterministic in that regard.

Project much?

Well, look, if genes express themselves then what's the biological role of the ribosome? Or tRNA? Why all the mucking about with mRNA and transcription?Hey, that's fine. We'll just toss out 50 years of biochemistry because Hoot Man assures us that genes express proteins all on their lonesome. Which is kind of my point. Genes aren't deterministic; their eventual function depends very much on environment - including the environment of the cell. I feel like you're not even reading my posts before you reply. Did you completely miss the part where I told you it wasn't the word, it was the oversimplification?It's well and widely understood that phenotype depends on a number of factors, including environment (including prenatal environment) as well as genetics. Will all the different factors that go into phenotype, it's ridiculous to assert that genes are deterministic on phenotype. In fact many genes exhibit a random effect on phenotype, a phenomenon known in genetics as penetrance.If genes have potentially random effects, it seems ridiculous to assert that genes are deterministic.

I didn't explain it very well; thanks for the correction.

I know what expression is. How about you give the arrogant condescension a rest? Don't misrepresent the discussion. You know that's not the issue under dispute, here. Answer the questions I posed to you in my post.

Do I understand the "pinciple"? I do, yes. I wonder if you do? Ignore that fact? No. In fact you'll notice that I had to remind you of that fact, to counter your hilarious misunderstanding that genes expressed their products completely on their own, absent any of the structures you've listed above.It seems like in the intervening time between these two messages, you completely forgot what we were talking about. Time's ravages, I guess. I agree. You're unable to understand the terms that have already been set before you. It was my hope that another term that you didn't understand would be enough to shock you into educating yourself, and correcting your many misunderstandings of biological processes. I see that I was wrong. Everybody's clear on those terms but you. I realize that being a limnologist implies being a bit of a polymath, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I wonder if it's even possible for you to understand, at this point, that people could have a clearer idea of these things than you do. With you? We've already done that. Don't you remember?

Glib as usual. Do you have answers to my questions yet? You said you'd go think about it. Did you remember to think about the questions, or did you just spend all your time working on your comedy act?

Why is "both" not an appropriate answer? NS selects among individuals. NS has an effect on the population as a result.

I don't understand why. Tell me where I'm wrong in this example.You have 50 individuals in a population of asexual haploid weebles. 25 are camouflaged via heritable mutations. 25 are bright orange.Color-sighted, visually-oriented predators enter the area. Soon, 20 of the orange weebles have been eaten. Only 5 of the camo weebles have been eaten. The remaining weebles double their number: 40 camo weebles and 10 orange weebles.That's natural selection. It operated on individuals, selecting camo weebles over orange weebles. It had an effect on the gene frequency of the population; the camo gene increased in frequency (from 25 to 40) and the orange gene decreased in frequency (from 25 to 10.)Natural selection operates on individuals; as a result, it shapes populations.

Both. Individuals are selected - and populations are comprised of individuals. Thus, selecting among individuals has an effect on the population. The doors they go through are called "lived long enough to reproduce" and "didn't live long enough to reproduce." Natural selection is the force that sorts them through these doors. Everybody who's not currently going through door number 2 is a member of a group called "the population." Try to keep in mind that there's really no such thing as "populations." There's just individuals. We group some of them into populations intellectually, but that's not exactly indicative of physical reality. Theoretically you're a member of the human "population", as is Ana Ng who lives on the other side of the world; in reality, though, you lack any sort of physical connection to Ana Ng. You've never met her. You're only members of the same population in an intellectual sense.

Go back to the weebles example and you'll see how individuals are selected.