|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there more than one definition of natural selection? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cf goes on:
That's sexual selection. Tommy was the preferred mate for all the girls; thus, he had his choice of the best adapted. The rest of us were denied mate access because we were inferior. Of course, Tommy wound up getting the prom queen pregnant, and now he lives with her in a trailer down by the railroad tracks, with their seven children.
And I supose all the drones in a bee hive are being selected against because they can't mate with the queen? See? His greater mate access directly results in greater reproductive success. Me, who didn't get laid until the age of 20, has no children at all. My restricted mate access leads to reduced reproductive success. (As well as more free time.) Sexual selection is a form of natural selection. It's right there in the name - "selection." crash, I think you're a closet IDist or something. You are saying NS happens whenever there is sexual selection, even if that sexual selection does produce differential reproductive success amongst individuals in a population. So, by your reasoning, NS happens even when it doesn't happen. And yes, you've pointed to examples where NS happens, but you have not ruled out my examples of where NS does not happen. Sexual selection and NS are two different things, just as random genetic drift and gene flow are two diffenet things.
Yet, peacock males do have bright plumage, and male rams did evolve natural weapons for non-lethal competition; thus, we know that sexual selection is a form of natural selection.
Oh, do we really know that? Boy, do we have a lot of work to do! ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Sexual selection isn't just sex - it's about being choosy. You keep presenting examples where people aren't being choosy at all, so how can that be sexual selection if no one is selecting the best mate?
You mean Tommy wasn't choosy when he took Judy to the prom? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK wrote:
Of course many of these are such complex social behaviours that they may reflect nothing genetic. In this case once again you might have 'selection', in terms of mate choice strategies, but not sexual selection in evolutionary terms as there is no hereditary trait which will continue to be selected.
And I would prefer the last phrase to read "...but not natural selection in evolutionary terms as there is no hereditary trait which will continue to be selected." Sexual selection can serve to enhance NS, of course, but that is not the same thing as sexual selection itself being NS. Call it an agency of NS if you like, that's OK, just as drift may serve as an agency to enhace NS. But just as drift is not NS, neither is disproportionate mating success amongst individuals of a population (i.e., sexual selection). ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
And I supose all the drones in a bee hive are being selected against because they can't mate with the queen? Yet another stupid example which even some basic knowledge shows to be total rubbish. This is exactly what happens!! Only some drones can successfully mate with a queen on a mating flight. How can you conceivably think that the other drones who don't mate with the queen aren't being selected against? Who is likely to have more reproductive success, a drone that mates or one that doesn't? Mating flight is a good example of the sort of direct male-male competition I mentioned as another component of sexual selection. Or are you making some irrelevant point about the fact that as a rule the drones which mate with a virgin queen come from different hives?
You are saying NS happens whenever there is sexual selection, even if that sexual selection does produce differential reproductive success amongst individuals in a population. I can't imagine this is what you mean, since you have just said the same thing in 2 different ways.
And yes, you've pointed to examples where NS happens, but you have not ruled out my examples of where NS does not happen. As has been pointed out repeatedly, your examples have nothing to do with sexual selection they are pointless .
Oh, do we really know that? Boy, do we have a lot of work to do! You certainly do Hoot, like maybe having the faintest clue what you are talking about before you start rambling nonsensically on yet another subject.
You mean Tommy wasn't choosy when he took Judy to the prom? Can't you read? Crash made exactly that point, and went on to explain how crap your example was since you then assumed everyone else then had just as much success as Tommy just with a different partner.
And I would prefer the last phrase to read Yeah and you would no doubt prefer people agreed with the rubbish you churn out thread after thread, but I fear you are going to have to be disappointed yet again. No matter how much you pointless parse the origin of species to try and semantically wrangle things to fit your own bizarre interpretation sexual selection is still a component of NS. It isn't like drift because it isn't a random factor, it is selective. Any selective factor is going to produce natural selection, sexual selection just covers a certain class of selective factors concerned with competition for reproductive opportunity and mate choice. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Yeah and you would no doubt prefer people agreed with the rubbish you churn out thread after thread
Gosh, I didn't think I was that good!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And I supose all the drones in a bee hive are being selected against because they can't mate with the queen? Yes, obviously. The queen chooses sperm from the best of several drones. The ones who don't achieve mate access were selected against; they have correspondingly lower reproductive success (like, none) as a result. That's sexual selection. It results in natural selection. What's the issue, here?
crash, I think you're a closet IDist or something. And I think you're a senile old coot, but let's keep our feelings out of it, ok? Sexual selection is obviously a form of natural selection, and you keep proving that with examples where no sexual selection is actually happening, so obviously you don't see any natural selection. But it's abundantly obvious that sexual selection is a form of natural selection. Otherwise, why the bright plumage on male peacocks? It's not to blend in, is it?
You are saying NS happens whenever there is sexual selection, even if that sexual selection does produce differential reproductive success amongst individuals in a population. I'm not saying that at all. I'm telling you that sexual selection always results in differential reproductive success - otherwise, there's no sexual selection going on. Sexual selection doesn't just require sex. It requires selection, too. By definition, therefore, it's a form of natural selection.
And yes, you've pointed to examples where NS happens, but you have not ruled out my examples of where NS does not happen. I've ruled them out as sexual selection, obviously; thus, your examples fail to convince. By all means, keep trying to come up with new ones but keep in mind that individuals actually have to be selective in order for it to be "sexual selection."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You mean Tommy wasn't choosy when he took Judy to the prom? Was she chosen at random, or was she chosen because she was the "best"? And how can she be the "best" if she's not the one all the other males would have chosen, too? How can Tommy be the "best" if he's not the mate all (or most, or whatever) the girls prefer? If people are simply pairing off with the first available mate, in what sense is anybody being selective? And if no one is being selective, how can it be sexual selection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
I suppose we eventually must differentiate between "epigamic selection" and "intrasexual selection." Here's what E. O. Wison says about it in his Sociobiology (2000, p. 595):
quote: btw: S. J. Gould doesn't even mention "sexual selection" in the Index of his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I return to my point: NS is a measure reproductive success in a population, not a measure of its mating success. I never said that sexual selection could not lead to NS, I'm only saying that sexual selection, in and of itself, is not NS. Call it a cause of NS if you like, but that's different from being NS. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Repeating it, unfortunately, doesn't make you any more correct. I suppose next you'll try raising your voice?
I return to my point: NS is a measure reproductive success in a population, not a measure of its mating success. Therefore, natural selection includes all selective forces that result in differential reproductive success; this necessarily includes sexual selection. Which returns to how you've been proving my point all along; sexual selection is merely one "flavor" of natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
And I supose all the drones in a bee hive are being selected against because they can't mate with the queen?
Yet another stupid example which even some basic knowledge shows to be total rubbish. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
cf writes:
Therefore, natural selection includes all selective forces that result in differential reproductive success; this necessarily includes sexual selection.
What other "selective forces" are there then besides sexual selection? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As we are getting near the magic 300 post limit, I thought I would summarize my position.
Re the OP:
I have been saying that NS is the differential reproductive success amongst invividuals of a population. This agrees with E. O. Wilson's defintion (from Sociobiology, 2000, p. 589):
quote: He does not mention sexual selection, mutation, gene flow, or drift in his definition; he only refers to the differential reproductive success amongst individuals in a population. I don't have any real problem with that. I think EO Wilson needs to consider the phenotype as the expression of the genotype within the environment as the real object of selection, but this problem is not part of your phraseology. Mutation is not a selection mechanism, it provides the depth of opportunity within the population for selection to operate on. Genetic drift is not a selection mechanism per se but a result of stochastic factors (random chance). Gene flow would change the distribution of hereditary traits within subpopulations (that's where gene flow goes) and it would be subject to natural selection in the process of making that "flow" from one subpopulation to the next. It would not be a selection mechanism of itself. Sexual Selection. As discussed, sexual selection is a part of natural selection that deals with differential mating success, as opposed to plain reproductive success, due to factors that relate specifically to mate selection. Because "differential reproductive success amongst invividuals (sic) of a population" occurs with sexual selection it is de facto a mechanism of natural selection. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5528 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Thought I'd post a picture of the senile old coot with a couple of hotties at his 50th high school class reunion this summer:
No mating was detected. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : for obvious reasons. Edited by Hoot Mon, : Photoshoped the problem away
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What other "selective forces" are there then besides sexual selection? I listed a few in a previous post. Things like selection by predators, selection by diseases, selection by human plant or animal breeders, etc. Anything that causes differential breeding based on heritable characteristics. Being struck by lightning, for instance, is a cause of mortality that isn't especially selective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
...grandma?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024