November, 2009, Posts of the Month

Message 77 of Has natural selection really been tested and verified? in Forum Biological Evolution.Actually not one of my favourite Wounded King posts (one of the many great posts with references to pertinent and interesting papers etc), but as soon as I read it I wanted to draw big arrows around it and simply exclaim "This!" since it succinctly and simply cuts through the haze of misunderstandings and explains the issue that has dominated the thread.

quote:

---

In terms of the sort of long term complex gross morphological changes you are talking about, i.e. evolution of the eye, obviously both of these things must come into play. In terms of a simple demonstration of natural selection all we need is a population with allelic variation producing differential survival/reproductive success in a particular environment. Obviously the original source of this variation is likely to be due to mutation of some form but having observed that original mutation doesn't change the natural selection we can observe operating in the population subsequently.

---

I also point out that I was composing a post that was longer and more confusing version of this and so that probably factored heavily in to my decision to POTM it. Since I was thinking the same thoughts, and I'm incredibly awesome, this clearly deserves high praise.