Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 46 of 303 (389535)
03-14-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Fosdick
03-13-2007 9:04 PM


Re: Sexual selection vs. natural selection
Natural Selection is all elements of an environment that impact an organism’s reproductive success. From changes in climate to big space rocks smashing into the planet, from the beaver’s dam that dries up the stream for the frogs 3 miles downstream to the brilliance or lack thereof of the peacock’s tail. All factors, even luck, good or bad, that impact an organisms reproductive success are naturally occurring, without purpose, guidance or forethought and have what we call a “selective” effect. Sexual selection is but one of these natural selective elements.
Because of my genome, my complete phenotype is unbearably attractive to the female of my species. I am 6 foot 6, 200 lbs, with muscles that ripple like waves over a stormy sea. I have the chiseled features of the Greek gods I am descended from and my intellect is beyond all known limits. I am not just sexually selected for, I am wanted, I am needed. I can have my way with any woman and I will father an extensive clan assuring my genes are passed on to the next generation by the dozen. I am selected for by the powers of Natural Selection. Assuming, of course, that I am not crippled in a football game, run over by a drunk driver, hit by a falling comet or that I can somehow survive the pandemic of typhus rolling over the continent and find shelter from the mini-ice age that has gripped my world, otherwise I’m just a dead wannabe who leaves nothing behind having been selected against instead of for by all those other elements of Natural Selection. Now that is a most wonderful run-on sentence. But if the point is made then it works so I don’t care. Fantasy is such fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Fosdick, posted 03-13-2007 9:04 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 03-14-2007 9:53 AM AZPaul3 has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 303 (389538)
03-14-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
03-13-2007 8:33 PM


Re: No "vs" about it - Mate choice is selection
quote:
crashfrog wrote:
Preferential mate choice causes differential reproductive success; therefore, clearly, mate preference constitutes a selective force.
No, it's not. Natural selection operates on the changes of allele frequencies resulting from preferential mating. Preferential mating, in and of itself, is not what is “being selected for.” It is the result of it that opens the door to NS.
I think that your reply is poorly worded and could do with a rewrite - it isn't clear what you mean. Natural selection is the process that produces changes in allele frequencies. Preferential mating is an example of that as Crashfrog said, and as you seem to agree, despite the "No, it's not".
However you are also wrong to state that preferential mating cannot be subject to selection. Mate choice is clearly linked to reproductive success and obviously could have an impact on the quantity and quality of offspring. Where it has an overall positive impact it certainly could be selected for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 03-13-2007 8:33 PM Fosdick has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 303 (389557)
03-14-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
03-14-2007 1:57 AM


Natural Selection vs. Big Rocks
Natural Selection is all elements of an environment that impact an organism’s reproductive success. From changes in climate to big space rocks smashing into the planet, from the beaver’s dam that dries up the stream for the frogs 3 miles downstream to the brilliance or lack thereof of the peacock’s tail. All factors, even luck, good or bad, that impact an organisms reproductive success are naturally occurring, without purpose, guidance or forethought and have what we call a “selective” effect. Sexual selection is but one of these natural selective elements.
I bolded the part I have a quibble with. Although my points here may serve to confuse the issue more for those unfamiliar with it, I'm afraid I have to disagree with this characterization of natural selection. Setting aside for the moment the "genes'-eye-view" argument, selection is a filter that affects organisms based on their phenotype. I would argue that catastrophic natural disasters - either global or local - are not really subsumed under "natural selection". There has been a great deal of discussion over the years concerning the "whys and wherefors" of differential survival of specific taxa following large-scale extinctions. My personal opinion is that this survival owes more to luck than genetics. IOW, there is no true selective filter in operation. Meaning the frog whose stream dries up due to the beaver, or the continental fauna devastated by an asteroid are not being selected for or against. Their genotype/phenotype has absolutely no bearing on whether they survive or not (well, maybe in the case of the frog if there are individuals in the population more tolerant of a xeric environment, say).
I don't know if you get the chance to read much popsci, but one interesting book on this subject is David Raup's Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (WW Norton 1992). Although I strongly disagree with many of Raup's contentions (including especially the "Nemesis Hypothesis"), he makes a good case for genetics having diddly to do with survival of taxa following a mass extinction.
Asteroids, in short, are not a selective filter acting on a genotype. They represent a field of bullets where the survival of any given taxa is due more to chance than selection. Yon butterfly may have the most perfect genotype/phenotype on the planet with all kinds of wonderful adaptations, but if a bird eats it before it reproduces, its genotype had nothing to do with it, and it is an evolutionary dead end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 03-14-2007 1:57 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AZPaul3, posted 03-14-2007 11:45 AM Quetzal has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 49 of 303 (389571)
03-14-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JustinC
03-13-2007 1:08 AM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
JustinC wrote:
Does the distinction "selected for" and "selected of" help the situation? That is, there is selection of genotypes for for phenotypes. And the genes that can work well with the most assortments of genes get selected (the genes that are incorperated in the most number of successful genotypes), but their success is rooted in the sum of the effects of the entire genotype on the phenotype, that is the individual.
and in Message 32 Quetzal wrote:
In essence, then, anything that affects the fitness of an individual organism is "natural" selection.
and in Message 18 AZPaul3 wrote:
The individual is, of course, the one unit that is affected by Natural Selection pressures.
Does natural selection select for traits, or does it merely select for individuals possessing those traits? In the case of the handicap principle (Message 44), you could say that natural selection may not actually select for mate-desirable individuals, but instead against them.
I don’t see how natural selection could act on individuals. Wouldn’t that mean that the individual, somewhere in its ephemeral lifetime, might actually experience natural selection? No, I don’t think so. Individuals come and go. They are as expendable as Kleenex””pull one out and up pops another.’ They only serve to make the gametes and put them where they need to go. No individual ever experiences natural selection. I haver never heard of any human individual say: “Hey, hold on a second, I think I’m experiencing a natural selection!”
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JustinC, posted 03-13-2007 1:08 AM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2007 11:40 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2007 12:06 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-14-2007 12:11 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 303 (389573)
03-14-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 11:30 AM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
No individual ever experiences natural selection.
You introduce an antibiotic into a lawn of E. coli. Resistant individuals live but nonresistant individuals die.
How didn't those nonresistant individuals not just experience natural selection? That's the textbook example of natural selection operating on individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 11:30 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2007 1:38 PM crashfrog has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 303 (389574)
03-14-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Quetzal
03-14-2007 9:53 AM


Re: Natural Selection vs. Big Rocks
IOW, there is no true selective filter in operation. Meaning the frog whose stream dries up due to the beaver, or the continental fauna devastated by an asteroid are not being selected for or against. Their genotype/phenotype has absolutely no bearing on whether they survive or not (well, maybe in the case of the frog if there are individuals in the population more tolerant of a xeric environment, say).
Except a space rock caused such devastation as to exacerbate the extinction of Dinosaurs while, due to its phenotype, some small furry mouse survived. It passed right through this filter of Natural Selection without too much of a problem. I submit its phenotype was the reason why.
As you alluded, some frogs survive drought. Some bury themselves in the mud before it dries and, in effect, hibernate until moisture is again present. I submit their phenotype allowed this capability and those species of frog, or even individuals of this species of frog, without such capabilities in their genes, in this instance, did not pass through this filter of Natural Selection. They were "selected" out.
Now to the butterfly. This touches on where this discussion wants to go.
After, hopefully, establishing the mechanism of Natural Selection operates on the level of the transient individual, now we can look at what this crucible has left us. Why do more than half of the cousins of your poor eaten butterfly survive? Why did this differ from the meager 20% of survivals for this other butterfly population? Different coloration? Different feeding habits? Different types of predators? What is similar about them? What is different? What is different/similar in the phenotype? And, ultimately where this discussion wants to go, what is different/similar in the genotype and why?
But first we need to take a step back.
I submit that everything that impacts an individual’s reproductive success is an element of Natural Selection from beaver dams to space rocks and all in between including just dumb luck. The interesting stuff is what comes out the other end.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Re-phrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 03-14-2007 9:53 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2007 11:57 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 03-14-2007 2:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 303 (389576)
03-14-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by AZPaul3
03-14-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Natural Selection vs. Big Rocks
To start with the most obvious case, luck is surely not an example of natural selection. Yes, it contributes to evolution (in the form of genetic drift) but it isn't an aspect of the phenotype, it isn't heritable - it's just stuff that happens. So I don't see any selective element in luck at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AZPaul3, posted 03-14-2007 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 303 (389577)
03-14-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 11:30 AM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
You may find Message 38 clears up some of your questions.
In the case of The Handicap Principle there are competing selection pressures. There is negative selection from the handicap itself balanced against a positive sexual selection. Any species is likely to find a balance point between these two pressures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 11:30 AM Fosdick has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 54 of 303 (389578)
03-14-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 11:30 AM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
Hoot Mon writes:
I don’t see how natural selection could act on individuals. Wouldn’t that mean that the individual, somewhere in its ephemeral lifetime, might actually experience natural selection? No, I don’t think so. Individuals come and go. They are as expendable as Kleenex””pull one out and up pops another.’ They only serve to make the gametes and put them where they need to go. No individual ever experiences natural selection.
I hope we can address this misunderstanding quickly and not spend much time on it.
One oft-cited example of natural selection is the peppered moth of Great Britain during the industrial revolution. As tree trunks became darker due to industrial soot, the peppered moth population went from predominantly light to predominantly dark. The explanation for this change was natural selection. Light colored moths on dark tree trunks were easy targets for birds, so light coloration was selected against, and dark coloration was selected for.
As Great Britain's industries became gradually more environmentally responsible, peppered moth coloration again changed with the light color returning to dominance. Because it is individual moth coloration that governs how visible it is to birds that prey upon it, selection occurs at the individual moth level according to coloration.
I cite this example not to argue about the validity of Kettlewell's peppered moth experiments, but because this is a familiar topic in creation/evolution debates. In discussions of this topic creationists and evolutionists agree that selection occurs at the level of individuals. Where they disagree concerns whether Kettlewell's experiments uncovered actual natural selection occurring in the wild. They don't disagree on the definition of natural selection.
In other words, your understanding of natural selection differs from both creationists and evolutionists. You might want to rethink things.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 11:30 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 12:52 PM Percy has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 55 of 303 (389579)
03-14-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
03-12-2007 11:36 AM


The evolving individual?
Quetzal wrote:
Therefore, probably from my own biases and experience, I find the use of the individual organism as the "target" of the selective filter to be the most relevant.
Qeutzal, let ask you this: Did NS occur in a individual frog so that, during its lifetime, it evolved into a reptile? Or did 'Eve', during her lifetime, evolve by way of NS from an ape into a human?
I think you are others here are placing too much emphasis on what an individual can do in the course of biological evolution. Since no individual survives long enough to actually experience NS, then the operational site of NS must be somewhere or something else.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 03-12-2007 11:36 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 03-14-2007 12:37 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 67 by Quetzal, posted 03-14-2007 2:22 PM Fosdick has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 303 (389583)
03-14-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 12:15 PM


Re: The evolving individual?
Qeutzal, let ask you this: Did NS occur in a individual frog so that, during its lifetime, it evolved into a reptile? Or did 'Eve', during her lifetime, evolve by way of NS from an ape into a human?
You are confusing the mechanism of Natural Selection with the result of Natural Selection.
The mechanism is upon the individual, the result is upon the population. The former is life or death, the latter is Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 12:15 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 57 of 303 (389584)
03-14-2007 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Percy
03-14-2007 12:11 PM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
Percy wrote:
In other words, your understanding of natural selection differs from both creationists and evolutionists. You might want to rethink things.
Percy, I'm in real bad shape if neither the creationists nor the evolutionists agree wth me. Please tell me what I'm missing here. I see five different ways that biological evolution can take place:
1. random genetic drift”population size drops below crfitical level, altering allele frequencies (NON-SELECTIVE).
2. 'gene flow'”alleles sufficiently imported or exported from of population to alter their frequencies (NON-SELECTIVE).
3. random mutation”nucleotide rearrangement, sufficiently to cause a gene to express a different amino acid in a protein sequence (NON-SELECTIVE).
4. Differential mating”non-random mating, sufficiently to alter allele frequencies (NON-SELCTIVE).
5. Differential reproductive success”otherwsie known as natural selction (SELECTIVE, of course).
If any one or more of these conditions are met then biological evolution may occur. NS does not always play a part, but it may eventually have a role in selecting for changes in the allele frequencies resulting from the consequences of the other evolutionary 'forces'.
Don't you agree?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-14-2007 12:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 03-14-2007 1:23 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 03-14-2007 1:26 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 58 of 303 (389585)
03-14-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-14-2007 11:40 AM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
crashfrog wrote:
You introduce an antibiotic into a lawn of E. coli. Resistant individuals live but nonresistant individuals die.
I try to keep the E. coli off my lawn. Don't you have indoor plumbing?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2007 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AZPaul3, posted 03-14-2007 1:07 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2007 1:16 PM Fosdick has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 303 (389587)
03-14-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 12:57 PM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
I try to keep the E. coli off my lawn. Don't you have indoor plumbing?
I like that, Hoot. I could use all the checkles I can get. Thanks.
But, to the Frog's point: is his example not Natural Selection? Is its mechanism not operating on the individual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 12:57 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 303 (389588)
03-14-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Fosdick
03-14-2007 12:57 PM


Re: The Suite Smell of Success
Once again I've underestimated your enthusiasm for substituting glibness for actual debate. I apologize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Fosdick, posted 03-14-2007 12:57 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024