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

Impossible! Only the genes for those phenotypes get passed on homologically. Ears and noses, for example, are not contained in the gametes, only the genes and alleles for them get to go on that ride. And it is only on that ride where NS does its work.”HM

Modulous is doing a good job of explaining what I already agree with”NS works on genes and the frequencies of their alleles.Percy, Dawkins has had an enormous impact on evolutionary biology. A literary war was waged over the selfish gene theory between Oxford and Harvard. And Harvard had its own intenal wars over it”E. O. Wilson sided with Dawkins. Even S. J. Gould eventually agreed, mostly, with Dawkins. Earlier, in the 1970s, Wilson and Hamilton nearly started a riot on the campus of U of Mich over their emphasis on genes in the teaching of "sociobiology."”HM

Quetzal, how so? Are you saying that Arnold Swartzenager, as one example of an individual organism, could have experienced natural selection?”HM

Yeah, and what has Stephen Hawking done for science, slouching there in Newton's chair?”HM

I don't understand what you mean by 'gene frequency.' Perhaps you really meant to say 'allele frequency'.”HM

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I have the very same opinion of you and those who prefer to see individuals evolving via NS. But YOU have never explained how an individual "evolves" by way of NS. Instead you just make hollow accusations about other peoples' perspectives and understandings. Please tell me how an individual organism can possibly undergo NS. Wouldn't it have to have a redistribution of its allele frequencies within its own lifetime? Just how does THAT occur?”HM

No, there are several here who are insisting that individuals experience NS, including youself.crashfrog, how do you differentiate "evolve" from "select"? You can have evolution without selection, but can you have selection without evolution? Well, maybe, if microevolution is correctly interpreted, which is not so easy to do because of considerable disparity in its definitions. Personally, I don't thing individuals either evolve biologically or are selected Darwinistically. My best guess is that allele frequencies are selected for and evolve, dragging along their perfunctory organisms to give them a place to express themselves.In broad terms, there are three conceptual versions of selection: 1) group selection, 2) individual selection, and 3) gene selection. I've read good arguments that 'individual selection' is really a branch of 'group selection', because they are, after all, the breeding units of a population. And I've read good arguments that 'individual selection' is really a branch of 'gene selection', because, after all, there is that appearance of the "suite smell of success' appearance."So, given all that, will you please critique this statement: Individuals themselves don't evolve into anything, they don't experience NS of any other agent of evolution, they merely live out their genetically predisposed lives as incremental and ephemeral tools of homology.”HM

Well, we probably agree generally that NS is some kind of agency of evolution. Whether or not is is an event is arguable from either side. But, speaking of selection, it would seem to need an event of some kind to make a difference. If individuals are selected for, then is the event occurring in them? Or is it occurring in the homogolical success of their gametes? The second option seems more likely to me”more genetically arguable than the first.”HM

If evolution happens at all it must occur through some agency, like NS, for example. My OP question was about what NS is and where it occurs. And my position all along has been that individuals do not get naturally selected for or against in any microevolutionary or macroevolutionary event.Other posters seem to disagree: So, Percy, does that help to answer your initial question? I still don’t understand how "natural selection operates on individuals." Educate me, please.”HM

Frog, I think you may be right. Arguments are strong on either side. Dawkins vs. Gould brought out the best of many good evolutionary biologists, IMO. This matter remains unsettled, which is a good thing for evolutionary biology.”HM

I hope you are not too troubled by my "nonsense validated by well-meaning people who use his clumsy, inaccurate references to scientific controversies he really doesn't understand as a springboard for interesting discussions." Gosh, thanks, I didn't think I was that good.”HM

AZPaul3, I like your post. I'm thinking it over. Selection usually means that some critical change in environmental circumstances ends up favoring one suite of genes, or allele frequencies, over another. But your phrasing of the "where" question is good. Still, NS must happen somewhere, don't you think?”HM

Strange that you should say this, frog, after posting this chippie tirade in Message 54: If I let my imagination run wild, frog, I’d say you have shoulder load of chips against me. Ah, but I'm flalltered”didn't know I was worth all that.BTW: Do you actually have an argument, or even a brain, under all those chips?”HM

I agree with what you say about the individual. You probably know that good arguments have been made for kin selection (Hamilton, Wilson), which may be a kind of group selection but with a fous on the genes."Selection" has several faces and complexions, according to one's use of the term. Maybe we should sort them out and discuss their different meanings. We have this inventory of terms relating to selection:-natural selection
-sexual sedlection
-group selection
-interdemic selection (demes)
-gene selection
-kin selection
-migrant selection
-reinforcing selection
-stabilizing selection
-K selection
-r selection
-selection pressureEach term has a separate meaning”a different view of this crystal we call "selection." We should examine them, I think, to add clarity to the meaning of NS”but maybe on another thread (Adimin?).”HM

I'm hot for understanding, so please teach me. I want to know how an individual organism undergoes natural selection, or evolution, for that matter.And while I'm stumbling around in my confusion, let me ask another stupid question: Why couldn't NS simply act on lineages? Maybe they present another context for consideration. I think it was Ringo who once refuted my definition of a gene as a digital code of nucleotides. I think he argued instead that genes are just "lineages of traits." While I still think a gene can be defined as a code, I also think Ringo's view has merit. Lineages are perhaps another useful way to describe genes for evolutionary purposes. The genetic codes are important in one context and lineages may be important in another.One thing useful about Ringo's concept is that lineages are awfully good candidates for locating where natural selection takes place. This idea is well rooted in homology. So maybe it's the lineages where NS does its work. This still seems a bit abstract to me, because I was hoping for more of a mechanism with a site. But if the genes themselves are not selected then at least their traits get some credit for the honor.Of course, this all takes individual organisms for those traits (genes) to be expressed. But, so far as NS is concerned, I don't think the individual organism is the biological thingy that is either selected of not selected. I agree that everything that goes on in life requires, first and foremost, the organism. But biological evolution is about something more than organisms; it's about homologies of organisms. Organisms don't evolve (I know that you agree); and whatever it is that evolves must be, precisely or abstractly, where natural selection takes place.”HM