Talk:Natural selection/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

How were favorable traits and natural selection measured?

"..Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common...." Other than noting that certain traits became common how were their favoribility measured? The question was addressed a length here by Dr.Harshman and others: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/8a86863346c98d5d?#8a86863346c98d5dTongueSpeaker (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC) http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.179.140 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'gradual' in the first sentence.

This is the second time that I have attempted to insert the word 'gradual' into the opening sentence so that it reads ...

"Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population.."

As a science teacher in secondary school, I know that the theory of natural selection is prone to many misconceptions. Primary among them are the ideas that it is a random process and that it is a quick, individual jump from one species to another species. Also, most people will definitely not read the whole article. Therefore I believe it is essential that the opening sentence contains the information that Natural Selection is a slow process and non-random. Hence the word 'gradual' added alongside 'non-random'. I would appreciate if the person who previously removed it allow it to remain. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.194.75 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why use the word "gradual" if "slow" is what you mean? Anyway, I question whether either "gradual" or "slow" is the appropriate word. Perhaps what you want is something referring to it being a process across generations? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also we need to distinguish between natural selection and the evolution of species. Natural selection occurs all the time (I do not like the words slow or gradual, there are two issues, one is that natural selection is always present as a force, and the second is what is the rate of change). There is still a debate about the rate at which the evolution of species occurs. "rate" is relative and what might seem fast to us may seem pretty slow to a fly. The evolution of species is the combination of natural selection acting on mutations, which also happen all the time. But the point at which we say species x has evolved into species y is kind of arbitrary. Certainly Mr and Mrs. Homo Habilus did not one day give birth to Homo erectus (or georgicus or whatever). But the rate at which one species evolved out of another can vary considerably depending on the phylum, and we cannot completely discount the theory of punctuated equilibrium - even if it is not always right, that does not mean it is always wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring up another point, but here it is: Is natural selection a "process", or is it better described as a "force"? TomS TDotO (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with process; the point is, it is constantly in action. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Albino or Leutistic peacock?

Long offtopic rant, no evident proposals for article improvement – see WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 14:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the peacock in the picture really albino? Most white peacocks are leucistic. I am being bold. I'll edit the image description to reflect this, with a link to leucism also. Genetic change in natural selection As we all know, “natural selection” is the process of evolution for all sorts of living creatures including humans. It is a process that shaped physical features of various kinds of living creatures and people from different ethnic groups up to the present time through continuous selection and evolution in nature. "Natural Selection" is the main theory of the great biologist Charles Darwin in regards of biological evolution. The concept of this theory states that nature operates under this principle-“Let the strong ones stay. Let the weak ones go”. This means that nature constantly eliminates living creatures that are unable to adopt and allow those who can adopt to survive. After elimination, nature allows some animals and humans that can adapt to the climate change, food and various kinds of harsh environment at that time to survive. For example, animals and humans that can avoid exceptionally dry weather, great flood, the ice age, as well as war, famine and man-made disasters etc. They also cannot be impacted by complex environmental factors such as large earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in order to stand out from others and continue to live for thousands of years until present. This is the history of "natural selection" for all living creatures. Each of them is allowed to be eliminated and develop naturally. A,From the cultured peas and fruit flies, we discover the transfer mechanism for this plant and animal’s genes. From the wild plants and animals such as chrysanthemum, goldfish, rabbits, dog, sniffer dog etc, we find that if you domesticated the wild animals for a number of years, they can become domestic animals. They can bring convenience and contribute to people's lives. This makes humans understand and aware that they can successfully cultured animals slowly and change their genes. These are the knowledge of artificial cultivation and domestication; the animals must go through three or five, even ten generations in order for their genes to be change successfully. This is an advancement that moved from "natural selection" to "artificial selection" based on their understanding on those animals’ evolution mechanisms. This method requires constant observation, analysis and induces the targeted animal or plant in order to prompt it to change their genes slowly. This method takes a long time. However, this method has significantly shortened the time required to change its genes compared to "natural selection". I will give an example and explain it briefly: At home, I have three fish in the aquarium. They are two inch-long. One of the fish is a black and slightly larger koi. It chased and bit the smaller red goldfish until they were black and blue all over. In order to teach it a lesson, I put it into the turtle tank. The turtles are also two to three inches long.Two days later, the koi was being bitten by turtles and it was black and blue all over. Then I put it back into the aquarium, the koi becomes well-behaved. It no longer bites the goldfish and it lives with them in peace. It remembers how it was being treated when it hurt other fish in the aquarium. However, it is unknown whether its genes will remember this event and pass to its offspring since a normal koi do not allow to have any offspring. B,Another artificial method to modify yourself is cosmetic surgery, which is currently widely used in the world. The most common way for some people who wants to look beautiful is to have cosmetic surgery according to their own definition of beauty or what their consultants recommended. The surgeon can make flattened nose taller and make the Roman nose flat; make a single eyelid to double eyelid, do a cosmetic dental surgery, make flat lips or exposed canine tooth look normal. However, their genes have not been changed; their offspring will still have those slight shortcomings. This is commonly known as a "quick fix” method to alter how you look. If you learn the method of the giraffe-you want it to be beautiful every day, you want it to be in line with your own ideas and the gene of your unborn child may improve dramatically. This is the reason for the increase of beautiful women, tall and handsome men in the modern times compared to fifty years ago. C,The neck length of a giraffe evolves from the neck length of a deer. In the dry season, they often think about eating the upper part of the leaves so they can survive. When male and female are in love or before they have children, men often pay attention to the tall and beautiful girls around them, female also often look at handsome and tall men in secret. During the age when both male and female have sexual needs, after three to five years that their brains often pay attention, envy and admire people who looks good, their children will grow up looking better than their parent. This is also part of the "natural selection". It will affect the mutation of brain gene in order for it to be in a more fitting manner to the issue that is being often thought about. When the male and female that is going to be pregnant always read books and enhance their mind, this will bring mutated gene that has a preference of reading to the brain cell of the fetus, so that the unborn child will develop into a smart person. By analyzing the effect of genetic mutation: the two factors mentioned above: First section:It is a completely natural behavior. Second section: Artificial breeding that is being done consciously by human beings. This will also caused the next generation to have the same genetic makeup of the last generation and remain unchanged. Third section:Genetic mutation causes the changes of body shape, appearance and characteristic of the future generations. All of these are a type of "natural selection"- a kind of genes qualitative that maintains unchanged temporarily. This is obviously different from the third factor mentioned above, because this method is a “quick-fix” only, it does not change the gene permanently for the next generation. Fourth section: It discusses how to make certain genes to change for the better by adjusting your own brain and mental behavior. By analyzing the time required for genetic change: First section:The complete “natural selection” that changes certain genes requires thousands of years in order for the process to be completed. Second section: By analyzing and cultivate the plants and animals in order to improve the genes from each species takes about three or five generations or up to ten generation. 'Third section: If people transform their offspring’s genes by using their brain, this will take about a year or so, you can create good mutated genes for your child. This method does no harm to the parents. It also does not damage the fetus. If you think it is nothing but bullshit, you can find an article named “how to make sure that your child is born with superior genes” in the "eugenics” category at Wikipedia, which describes this method in detail. This article mainly elaborated: human being evolutes faster than any other mammals, it is due to the expansion and quick reaction of the brain. So, before pregnancy, if the parents can read books to enhance their mind, they can enhance and increase one or two kinds of hormone glands. So that when the sperm-egg binding occurs, their "recognition factor" can have more choices when they are picking for the best, which increases the reading genes in the fetus and make them easier to be educated. This method- "guidance based on circumstance” is easy and convenient. It also complies with the law of human evolution, why should you choose not to do it? The purpose of writing this article: The writer of this article has read a book about evolution and genes, which is published at November 2011. The book mentions “... after the sperm-egg binding, when the egg divides itself to eight, you can extract one ... to read genetic information of the cells ... According to the results of genetic testing to identify outstanding children, in order to nurture the human development of the future. Good heavens!" How naive? By using a lot of energy and resource, two or three cases may be successful; it is an acceptable outcome for experiment. However, can this be used to alter millions of embryonic cells? This book talks about a number of genetic diseases though there are already many analyses about those diseases. However, the analyses do not consider about what happen when the sperm-egg binding just occurred. When the sperm-egg binding occurs, there are a few minutes for the "recognition factor" to select the kind of sperm for the embryo, but this process can be interrupted by a number of external factors. For example: after sex, the couple argue because they feel differently above the sex they have; or the need for one of the party has not been met thus he/she is getting angry; or the man has been unfaithful and eject protein not long ago, the testes and seminal vesicle have not completed the glands that are necessary for supplying various nutrients to the sperms that enter the uterus, the sperms have defects because they have been stored for too long etc. This will incur the embryo to have some genetic diseases. Therefore, it is generally believed that during sexual intercourse: In order for them to give birth to healthy babies, both sides need to be calm, cheerful and in top condition when they are having sex. Otherwise, they will give birth to children with a variety of diseases; For example, underdeveloped heart, kidney disease, allergic rhinitis, or children with poor lung function, as well as children who born with leukemia. A sperm is so small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. The addition of just a fraction of sex hormone determines whether a child will be male or female. And the lifespan of males and female are almost always different. When one more or less gene bond with the glands that supple the sperm various kinds of nutrition, it is likely to cause various kinds of genetic diseases to the children. The term "Natural selection" could be good or bad, so-called "natural" means let nature takes its course. Therefore, parents in the modern era should let nature takes its course and also put some thought and seek more choices when they are having the child, so that the unborn child will develop in the right direction. When the mother is not pregnant or newly pregnant, it is impossible for the child to know how to choose when he is in the mother’s stomach. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the parents when their children become a bad person or act in a corrupt manner. If the children do not do well academically, think about whether the parents use their mind before the pregnancy. When boys and girls pursuit sex in an age that is too early and unable to control their desire to peep at women, their parents have not provided enough sex education. When young people become addicted to gambling and drugs etc , have his parents play mahjong and stock trading before the pregnancy? Children who act in a corrupt or courageous manner, their parents tend to be poor at that time. If you have to make them accountability, it is usually related to the bad habits of the parents, so the parents should not score their children too much. Of course, when the young people make wrong friends, it is a different matter. In regards of how to teach them a lesson, advice and improve the situation, parents can apply the method they wish to use. Children who act in a corrupt manner are also part of the "natural selection". It is a result of bad gene development. Compare to the term natural selection and the phrase "Let the strong ones stay. Let the weak ones go”, this phase is more clear and profound. This phrase can make people to have a better understanding why it is important to improve the human race. A large number of living creatures are being eliminated and extinct. 65 million years ago, dinosaur of various sizes become extinct, a lot of people feel sorry about that. But if they are not extinct, it will get in the way of human development and evolution that occur thousands of years later. Human evolution has just occurred for thousands of years. However, the resource of this earth is almost being used up with seven billion people, what about eight to nine billion people? "Let the strong ones stay, let the weak ones go” points out and provides a direction that human society needs to take. It is time for us to seriously think about how to reduce the number of births and increases each baby's intelligent in order to move towards the goal to develop a new human race. (Q. Y. Zhang; 香港 張其澐--173.76.134.128 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)) For Jews national Analysis result in Natural selection: Jews around the world are universally recognized as a more intelligent race by many countries. Although spreading in many regions and countries in the world, they are outstanding to occupy the leading positions in politics, economy and culture as well as arts. For a century (1901-2000), the number of the Nobel Prize winner and the proportion of its population became an absolute advantage. In the century, there is a total of 680 people won the Nobel Prize, Jews accounted for 152 seats which was 22.35%. However, the population of this race only occupied less than 0.3% of the global populations. Analysis of the reasons of their intelligence: 1,3000 years ago in Egypt, the race often experienced oppression and discrimination, their genes not only vitalized them with endurance and perseverance, but also the will of struggle and self-motivation as well as the innate rebellious character of young people. With the character of this gene, their offsprings are able to propose 1--2% of questions from routinized books. More research topics are encouraged to bring to surface; the research objective can be completed by combining their endurant and rebellious gene. 2, 2000 years ago and after the "Exodus", Jews had intermarriages in effete area. Even if the parents did not agree with their children to breed in this way, he / she was still determined to intermarry, cultivating this ethnic groups with the rebellious character and excellent tradition. They were scattered in different regions in recent hundreds of years and married the local race, keeping nurturing and implementing the "Distant hybridization breeds good strains ", how can the race be unintelligent? 3, Focus on the cultural education and developing independent thinking and analytical skills of children when they are young. 90% of men and 60% of women are degree holders. According to my discussion of innate eugenics, if newly married couples both think much before pregnancy, isn’t it easy to create more outstanding children with genetic mutations? Even the first born would be very smart, reflecting the particularity in universality of the reproductive rule. (In 2006 statistics, the ratio of people receiving college or above education: HK ----- 35.9%; regions in mainland China ------ 5.8%, then the Jewish people were certainly higher than the proportion of the former.), 4, Following the religious teachings of monogamous marriage system, it is easy to give birth of children with main rule. And children born under this rule has obtained the enhanced surviving competiveness. Many people inherited intelligence from parents' good genes of learning. 5, Jews advocated that birthing breeding more are fortune. That makes the number of intelligent and flexible children occupy big proportion in the entire society, easing the generation of talent, it is also easy for this race to have a quantitative and qualitative leap in intelligence. 6, Children in big family with many siblings are easy to understand the survival competitions among siblings and families when they were young, many children experienced harsh lives which cultivate their cherishing attitude to properties and the will of tenacious struggle. Statistics and analysis of Nobel Prize obtained by four major countries and Jews regarding three main science and technology in the twentieth century Country Name; Physics; Chemistry; Biomedical; Total number of people; Total population (in millions); Share ratio Britain; 17; 21; 20; 58; 4,402 / 5,900; 1.32 ％-00; France; 7; 6; 6; 19; 4,195 / 5,663; 0.45 ％-00; Germany 20; 24; 11; 55; 6,940 / 8,206; 0.79 ％-00; U S A 38; 35; 49; 122; 15,069/28,030; 0.81 ％-00; Jews 39; 22; 49; 110; 1,200; 9.2 ％-00; Source: 1, "Nobel", edited by A.W. Levinovitz, published in 2002, World Scientific Publishing Company 2, "Why are Jews so intelligent", edited by Abola, Central Compilation and Translation Press in 2007 3, United Nations Demographic Yearbook-1999 4,' "What's behind Jewish Excellence?", edited by Japanese Tejima Yuro in Central Compilation and Translation Press in 2004 Illustration of Analysis : (1901年-----2000年) 1, The number of Nobel Prize winners in the above table have excluded the Jewish, Chinese, Japanese and Indian, etc. as much as possible, only included the winners of local residents. The total population containing the former four countries is the statistics in 1950 and the end of the century while only the statistics of the end of century is considered for the Jews. Winning share ratio is calculated by the one millionth of the average population in 1950 for comparison. 2, Based on the statistics of three science awards, it is easy to illustrate the IQ promotion. 3, The population of the USA is larger and hence people winning the prize are more, but still cannot surpass the winning ratio of Jews and Britain. 4, On the other hand, the difference of the number of winners in United States and United Kingdom as well as France and Germany are relatively large. Implying that intermarriage between different races in Britain and United States in the century has formed a large number of new human species after hybridization of different races. New human populations with intelligence and wisdom continue to expand, and follow the Jewish people to form a new generation of human community rapidly. Traditionally, Germany and France are more concerned with the pure racial thinking; the wisdom has a tendency of degradation. 5,' After the Second World War, many western countries had their reproductive concepts changed, generally advocated to breed less. Britain, United States, Germany and France were all the same. There is data showing that: the birth rate of those countries declined after the Second World War, but the number of winners in United States did not diminish after 1974, while those in Britain drastically declined. Firstly, the intelligence of the new human in general environment is more advanced than that of children born under the main rule. Secondly, by comparing the distant hybridization and assimilation of different races in United States with that of Britain and her neighboring races in Western Europe, there are some differences between the IQ of their off springs. This proved the words of the great biologist Charles Darwin: Distant hybridization breeds good strains is very correct ------ The key word is the "distant". 6, In the second half of the twentieth century, the number of immigrants to United States increases dramatically, lowering the winning rate of the total population, but this is the prelude of cultivating the new human. In the ancient times, the old grandmother of human moved from Africa to the other continent, it is likely that the source of the new human is generated from Africa. The newly elected president of the United States Obama is one of the examples, from observing his certainty of being elected, to clearing up the mess after three years, we discovered his innate eugenics unintentionally derived from his parents. Even the first born can be smart; it is not necessarily to follow the basic rule in the primary stage of reproduction. Genetic change and natural selection are difficult to be predicted, but exploring and analyzing as well as judging are necessary, the infinite potential of gene power should never be underestimated. According to the Nobel Prize record in 1901-2000, by comparing the winning ratio of Nobel Prize with winners born after and before the World War II; the number of winners in Britain, France and Germany decrease obviously (calculation excluding the Jewish people who have won the prize). The statistics of the three types of Nobel Prizes winners separating in two periods of time in the following five countries during 1901-------2000. 1901- --- to--- ---1973 1974- ---to--- ---2000 Country Name; Physics; Chemistry; Biomedical; Physics; Chemistry; Biomedical; Britain ; 14; 16; 16; 3; 5; 4; France; 6; 5; 5; 1; 1; 1; Germany ; 13; 21; 9; 7; 3; 2; U S A; 17; 17; 25; 21; 18; 24; Jews; 22; 10; 28; 17; 12; 21; Source: "Nobel", "Why are Jews so intelligent?", edited by Abola, Central Compilation and Translation Press in 2007 Illustration and analysis of the above statistics: 1, The comparison is divided into two parts, one is (1901---1973) and another is (1974---2000). People bred more before World War II and less after the war. 1974 is when the post-war baby had grown up and received university education and worked for some time, there should be a research capacity or performance demonstrated in them. 2, Number of winners in different countries has already removed the amount of Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc. Winners in Britain, United States, France and Germany are basically offsprings of the local residents. 3,If comparing the last quarter of the century with the previous three quarters, the number of people in Britain, France and Germany obviously decreased, it was the formation or precursor of the intelligence regression. The above three countries insisted on the theory of pure blood relationship and orthodox theory, it is 3-4 times less comparing with the number of winners in United States after a quarter of the century. France was most adhering to the racial orthodox theory, therefore the number of winners in the last quarter of that century was the least. 4, Winners in Jews and United States in the last quarter of the century did not decrease, and the ratio even increased much. For the former race, the reasons have been mentioned as above; for the latter race, according to the Distant hybridization breeds good strains, only four to five hundred years history of intermarriages, in addition to the large amount of infiltrations of African people in two to three hundred years, their intelligence will follow the Jews, and quickly catch up the ranks of new human. Therefore, in contrast, the China's "one-child" policy will invoke absolute degradation of intelligence, this is not simply a horrible story. Are the above brief analysis of Jews' intelligence and the rise of new human in United States reasonable? ( Talker: Q. Y. Zhang; 香港; 張其澐--173.76.134.128 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Please elaborate, skeptical raptor

For me, the lead definition may have been a bit technical for a laymen, especially a student to understand. I went on to try to clarify it in easy to understand words and briefly explain why it is a key mechanism of evolution. Please elaborate as to why you think it is inaccurate and/or changes the point of view of the article, whatever that may be. As it was a relatively brief one-sentence statement, I would appreciate if you pointed out specific areas you found inaccurate or POV. Cadiomals (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:RS, it's up to you to source and explain your changes. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

1) I did just explain the reason for my addition. Did you not read my above message? You need to explain what you found "inaccurate" or "POV" about it; this is not a one way conversation. 2) Also, a source is not necessary as I did not add any new information that was in need of sourcing. All I did was clarify the previous statement and succinctly summarize the basic concept of the article. There's no need to keep linking to Wikipedia guidelines, I've been editing here for over two years and understand them fairly well. I hate getting near the realm of personal attacks, but from your record it seems you think of yourself too highly around here. Cadiomals (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cadiomals, my understanding of your explanation is that your think your wording is easier to understand. I do not see that myself directly. To me the feel is of an elaboration of something you are interested in, which is often something editors want to do in leads. I also tend to agree with SR that your elaboration might not be fully correct, or at least not uncontroversial. Hopefully others can also comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the exact text of my edit so you guys can pick it apart and say exactly what you think is wrong with it and so maybe it can be modified. SR himself has yet to respond.

Natural selection is one of the key mechanisms that drives evolutionary change in that it promotes, or favors, those traits that help an organism better survive to reproduction.

OK, let me say what I think is controversial. This implies a teleological understanding of causation, whether that is intended or not, whereas the core of modern evolutionary theory assumes no such thing. In other words, understanding evolution as having a direction is not part of the theory of evolution. Of course a lot of normal language (such as the word random, which means something does not have a real cause) is influenced by medieval and classical ideas and this problem is common, even amongst scientists. But in reality the distinction between random and non-random is a can of worms which should be mainly discussed in philosophy articles. The distinction makes no sense unless you believe nature has a direction, and intentions to follows directions which sometimes fail to play out. When scientists use such medieval wording they are often just doing so without realizing the implications.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I see exactly what you're saying now. Using the words "promote" and "favor" implies natural selection is a conscious force, and it isn't. I didn't notice that before, because I was trying to explain it in an easy to understand way and that often requires using the "medieval" language you speak of. What are some possible solutions, or more specifically how do we succinctly explain "differential reproduction" in words that a lay person could understand? Cadiomals (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The simplest current definition of natural selection that I'm able to find is taken from the glossary of Campbell Biology by Reece et al. (2010). The authors defined natural selection as "a process in which individuals that have certain inherited traits tend to survive and reproduce at higher rates than other individuals because of those traits". Hope this helps. danielkueh (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Natural selection: a "non-random" or "part random, part deterministic (non-random)" process?

It's said, in the begin of the article: "Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process". But, in What Makes Biology Unique?, Ernst Mayr says that natural selection is composed of two processes. First, the generation of variation, which is a random process. Second, the selection itself, which is a deterministic (non-random) process. What point of view should this Wikipedia article adopt? 201.95.74.35 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict betwen the two. The second step in your Mayr citation is the one called selection right? It sounds like he was just being a bit odd in wording if he called random variation a process of selection. It is a starting point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is no conflict. Mutation has traditionally been treated like a random process (though things like frame shift mutations on duplicated genes might mean that some mutations are actually more likely than others) but natural selection is decidedly non-random. On the other hand I think that Mayr misspoke when he called it deterministic. Deterministic is not really the same as non-random. If you drop lead ball from a balcony the path the ball will follow is pretty much deterministic, which means that it is repeatable. Research such as the E. coli long-term evolution experiment has shown that natural selection is NOT deterministic in this way (Steven Jay Gould used to emphasize this point all the time). So I think we should characterize natural selection as a statistically non random process acting on variations that can be treated as if they are random, but with all do respect to Mayr we should avoid calling any aspect of evolution "deterministic". --Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember the exact expression Mayr used, I don't have his book here, but it was something in the sense you said, "non-random". I prefer to agree with Mayr, when he says that the production of variation is the first of the two steps of the process of natural selection, because without variation it's impossible to select anything (and therefore, in whole, natural selection is a part random, part non-random process). What do you think? In relation to the generation of variation, it includes not just mutations and recombination by crossover, but also the recombination generated in the (random) pairing of homologous chromosomes during meiosis, cited by Mayr (moreover, the definition of recombination used in Genetic recombination - the breaking and rejoining of DNA strands to form new molecules of DNA - must be wrong, because it excludes this last form of recombination. In Griffiths' Introduction to Genetic Analysis, chapter 3, the definition is production of new combinations of aleles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.56.12.231 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this conversation does not make much sense if you do not have the exact wording, because this is basically just a wording question. But secondly, we do not have to use Mayr's wording. What he is apparently describing is not in disagreement with our article, just an odd way to say it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a better way to express those ideas. If we talk about natural selection per se, it is a non-random process. But if we talk about "evolution by natural selection", it encompasses the generation of variation, so in that sense the whole process is part random, part non-random. Could we clarify this, putting a section or paragraph about it in the article?

By the definitions of random and deterministic it is clear that natural selection is neither, beeing a two steps process, both random. Mutation is random, regardless If it is or not limited to a more or less restrict set of possibilities. Mutation will present to the next process of selection with a set of choices, hence the name "selection". This selection is natural and subjected solely to the interactions between the individuals and the ecosystem. And those cannot possibly be viewed as a non-random process. First, the ecosystems conditions are themselves random to a considerable degree, and most important, mutation may or may not present viable options, it may also present several incompatible alternatives and it is proved, that under the same conditions, organisms can "choose" diferent evolution paths. So, natural selection is a random process, and therefore matematicaly insuficient to explain on its own, evolution. It must be seen as a meere regulatory process, able to provide species with a means to adjust to the environment over a certain range of stored (trough heneritance) possibilities. Those henerited solutions can have much more complex origins, and pose scientists with huge questions that some atempt to hide behind impossible teorizations. Viral activity is known to be a process trough wich genetic information may be communicated from one population to another, it can indeed cross the species barrier. One can speculate about partialy symbiotic actions taken by the virus, on behalf of the host, as a selfminded process to ensure the availability of host stock. And yet, viral processes are unable to explain the origin of the information. Trial and error? That seems more likely to explain how scientists come up with such conclusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:27, 8 December 2012‎ (talk • contribs) 2.82.208.6

The origin of the information is the environment of the living organism, including other living organisms: these environmental factors affect differential survival of inherited traits, in other words natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 21:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

How about including a link to cambrian explosion, given Charles Darwin stated it was a major objection to his theory of evolution 129.180.1.224 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Darwin said it was a major objection? Or did he understand it supported the fact of evolution in a lovely way. You might want to not read creationist websites. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But what is your answer to the question? To me it sounds like a good idea to include a link to cambrian explosion, but I do not know enough about natural selection to make an informed judgement. Lova Falk talk 16:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is really off topic for this board but Darwin did write in On the Origin of Species that the fact that there were fossils of numerous well developed multicellular organisms in the Cambrian era, many related to modern animals, but no fossil evidence of any living things before the Cambrian was a potential problem for his theory. This remained true until the 1960s when it was realized that the animal fossils of the Ediacara biota were actually pre-Cambrian, and that fossil Stromatolites in the Gunflint chert formation contained microfossils of cyanobacteria that were about 2 billion years old. As history of paleontology#Pre-Cambrian fossils, which covers this topic in detail, says: "By the end of the 20th century paleobiology had established that the history of life extended back at least 3.5 billion years." So there really is no issue and certainly not one that needs to be addressed in this article. --Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Survival of the fittest" and a questionable claim of tautology

We have a claim backed by a single source that sounds rather dubious: "Although the phrase is still often used by non-biologists, modern biologists avoid it because it is tautological if "fittest" is read to mean "functionally superior" and is applied to individuals rather than considered as an averaged quantity over populations."

This is a very confusing claim and someone may want to check the source on this one to make sure the source is being interpreted correctly and to also ensure this isn't just the claim of a single lone philosopher of science.

After all, how is the phrase "survival of the fittest" or "survival of the (functionally superior)" tautological without already assuming natural selection, the very idea the phrase originally sought to explain and summarize? We can imagine one arguing against natural selection and claiming that only the functionally inferior and most poorly adapted specimens survive or that functionality has nothing whatsoever to do with survival of varieties and species. "Survival" and "functionality" (or "functional superiority" to be modern and verbose) do not necessarily share the same definition and are not contingent on one another. As any consumer knows, while functionality may give a product the edge, your "functionally superior" cell phone may not be the one that survives in the marketplace.

I also don't see much sense in claiming that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean that the fittest individuals in a population don't tend to survive. After all, new populations, whatever their "averaged quantities," don't arise at once. Rather, individuals that are functionally superior within their niche tend to survive and displace those in their own population that are not so well adapted. These functionally superior individuals may give rise to a new variety or species that displaces the old one.

24.113.109.228 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If functional superiority is in a particular case being defined to mean that something has a higher chance of survival (and of reproduction etc), and if you are talking about tendencies within hole populations the term tautology would hold. Does that clarify? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the cited source, perhaps Evolution and Philosophy: Tautology from ToA might help. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Question before I suggest any changes to opening sentence

Is natural selection not substrate neutral? In such that if given parameters are met, natural selection will 'always' occur whether it is biological or not? It is obviously primarily used in the context of evolution of life on earth, but could it not apply equally validly to say, computer programs, or self-replicating robots. Not to sound like a nit-picker, but I believe when viewed in this light, it's an extremely powerful algorithm of thought. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe by extension this biological word will be increasingly used in non-biological contexts in the future, but it is not yet, except to the extent that it is clearly an extension of the core meaning. So for example changing the lead seems questionable to me at this stage, but mentioning how natural extension can be extended to mean similar processes in other contexts might be acceptable. Will be good to hear what others think. By the way, as the language changes, how will "biological" change in meaning?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest mentioning the effect of the geography on natural selection. There is a field titled biogeography. I suggest adding it to here, although it might be too long:

(The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC) 

Changes to introduction

I changed

This occurs partly because random mutations cause changes in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

to

This occurs partly because random mutation causes change in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

I felt that the original confused the process of mutation with the product of mutation. In my changed version, I felt that it is clearer that the first use of mutation refers to the process, while the second use with the change that has occurred.

Candy (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. It is confusing. Actually changes in the genome ARE mutations, but what is the point in saying that mutation causes mutations? How about the following:

This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring.

This will be a little less teleological - at least we will not be implying that random mutation is purposely causing mutations.Khaydock (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

observed or observable?

This may be a trivial point, but wouldn't the better word be "observable" rather than "observed"? Also, is it really part of the definition of natural selection to call it observed/observable. To make it clear, I am not arguing about whether natural selection can be (and has been) observed. I am merely suggesting that that information is more properly placed later in the article, rather than in the lede. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminological problems with the term "selection"

Strictu sensu, the term "selection" needs a "selector", i.e., a person who "selects", e.g., a herd-breeder or theologian (like Charles Darwin himself), or a jewish-christian "god" (who breeds "the selected flock" or "selected race"). Hence, due to the jewish-christian roots of the term "selection", it is extremely interesting to see that the term "selection" is still used by so-called "neutral and objective" modern scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.205.186 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with the word 'selection', but the same problem is there for any other word we might try using instead: our language tends to be teleological, and we need a non-teleological term. Can you think of a better term? Maybe in some languages other than english there are better terms. Darwin (1860) complained that 'natural selection' is a bad term - because it sounds like an intentional process of selection is occurring. He suggested that maybe 'natural preservation' is a better term, but abandoned it because it "would not imply a preservation of particular varieties & would seem a truism"

Charles Darwin did not consider himself a theologian, especially not after he took his famous voyage. For example, in 1880 he wrote, "...freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightenment of human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science.”

Do you have any evidence to claim otherwise?

Modern scientists should and usually do realise that we are not and cannot be "neutral and objective". Like everyone, scientists function as interdependent members of society, affected by history, and affected by our ways of looking at the world. Khaydock (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Darwin Theory

I added a few very interesting quotes from Aristotle, showing his arguments for and against a sort of natural selection. Khaydock (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is rather a large insertion. Can it perhaps be compressed a bit? This article is one where we have to be a bit careful about adding too much. Keep in mind that there is an article about the history of evolutionary ideas where a lot of details have been split off to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial definition

I reverted the initial definition because the changes affected the meaning and connotations in slightly incorrect ways. The original wording was easier to understand and technically more correct. The word "function" is better than "result", because "function" allows for more complexity than cause and effect, which is what "result" implies. The term "differential reproductive success" is more technically correct, rather than "relative reproductive success" - (as used for example in ). The "interacting with" is important to include to emphasise the complex process of interaction that is occurring, rather than just the existence in the environment.Khaydock (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally do not see the problems with "result" and "relative", which just seem simpler and less ambiguous words to me than "function" and "differential". And I do not see why you simply reverted all the attempts to make the word order better. But in any case we have to find some way to make this sentence better, surely? It is too long and complex. Behold:

Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment.

Can we split this up for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. My aim was to get the issue of environment in at the outset, the wording can be improved and splitting the sentence is worthwhile. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The initial definition should be made more succinct to allow people to get a quick idea of what natural selection is. If they want a more scientific idea they can scroll down the page to get a detailed definition. --Baldwinwt —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge with "Selection"

Can someone merge this with Selection? Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Less is more

I think this article would be better if it tried to say less.

There is too much history, and the history is botched and old-fashioned. If you can't be bothered to read current historical scholarship, then you shouldn't be writing about the history of this topic. It is simply mistaken to suggest that Dobzhansky established the idea that mutation supplies the material on which selection acts. This was established much earlier by de Vries, Bateson, and others. The most important scholarly work on this topic in recent decades is Gayon's _Darwinism's Struggle for Survival_, which argues that Darwin's conception of natural selection was mechanistically yoked to blending inheritance of masses of variations, that this is why the scientific world was correct to abandon Darwin's original view upon the discovery of genetics, and that early geneticists (de Vries, Morgan, etc) carried off "the most important event in the history of Darwinism", which was to reconceive a principle of selection for the Mendelian world that Darwin and his early followers had denied. When mechanistically oriented scientists invoke selection today, they are using the geneticist's principle. It is very important to understand that most of what evolutionary biologists read about their history is garbage-- a fetishistic view of Darwin and his influence peddled by what historian Peter Bowler calls the "Darwin industry", and a self-serving history of the 20th century "synthesis" peddled by Fisher, Mayr, et al. to make Fisher, Mayr, et al look good. Some earlier historians of evolution such as Provine and Allen clearly were drinking Mayr's kool-aid, and Provine has been very open about this, and about how the view that he held in 1971 (when he wrote his famous history of theoretical population genetics) fell apart within a decade (read his later works, or the Afterword to the 2001 re-print of his 1971 book). Generally historians have caught on to "Synthesis Historiography" and are trying to get away from it, but this article is just replaying old myths.

The tone of the article has a significant aspect of justifying and glorifying the concept of natural selection, whereas advocacy is not the job of wikipedia. Obviously this is not the place to debate with creationists, but the editor is mistaken if he thinks that substantive scientific and philosophical issues are out of scope. The nature of selection, and the operational legitimacy of the concept, are issues debated by professional philosophers (e.g., Fodor and Palmarini-Piatelli, to name a recent prominent example). The current article cites Daniel Dennett-- are you aware that this guy is like the Dawkins of the philosophers, an extremist who is very articulate and bombastic? It is obviously relevant to this article to address scientific views of the scope and power of selection as an explanatory principle. That is, what do scientists believe about the extent to which natural selection shapes the biological world? Finally, the concept of natural selection is obviously a matter of confusion among practicing scientists. The current article demonstrates this confusion. For instance, the example of penicillin appears to attribute the "development" of penicillin resistance to "natural selection", but then also suggests that selection only eliminated non-resistant individuals. Which is it? Does natural selection cause traits to arise? Wouldn't the world be a better place if this article pointed out the confusion rather than quietly exemplifying it?

I think the solution to this is just to scale back the article, try to say less, and try to be more careful about what is said. The point is not to undermine the concept of selection or to glorify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabs (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tidying up the last three main sections

The section on historical development is too long, and the last section on “The Genetic Basis of Natural Selection” lacks logical coherence and is very scrappy at present. I propose to start a new article on “Historical Development of Natural Selection”, which would allow this section to be substantially shortened. Note that, in my view, the historical development of natural selection is separate to that of evolution because, prior to On the Origin of Species, natural selection was primarily evoked as an anti-evolutionary mechanism, to keep species in their place, whereas evolution was primarily evoked as occurring through other (generally teleological) processes. I also propose to substantially cut down and revise the last section. I also propose to add a section on “Universal Darwinism” to the penultimate section (“Impact of the Idea”) Mikeweale (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Competition

Competition deserves its own separate article, and the content copied over here is far too detailed for this article. This one does require a mention of competition, but not at the level that the merger resulted in. Therefore, I have partially reverted the merger. I am happy to discuss this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Darwin's editions

I happened to notice that there are currently three editions of the Origin of Species referenced in the article. I don't know the various editions well, but I would imagine that information present in the earlier ones could be found in the latest; is there a good reason not to consolidate them that I am not seeing? Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusing grammar is confusing!

"the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment"... are you freakin' kidding me? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

XD Yes, it's pretty terrible. I've been meaning to re-write this for a while, now that a couple of other major projects are out of the way I'll get around to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to a much shorter and simpler version. Still needs to be properly worded though; this is just a temporary sentence of choice better than the one above. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The definition

The definition currently in the article:"Natural selection refers to the gradual process of allowing the survival of the fittest." is not referenced to any third party reliable source, or any source for that matter. Apparently because it does not come from anyone with expertise on the subject. I recommend the following alternative: "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction (i.e. fitness) of individuals that differ in phenotype". This definition does not confound adaptive evolution with natural selection as the current one does. Adaptive evolution is actually the response to natural selection. This idea is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability#Response_to_selection Emoneill (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This definition is also consistent with "types of selection" found on the Natural Selection page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Types_of_selection. "Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including sexual selection and competition with members of the same or other species. However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants." Emoneill (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Emoneill, I'm happy to replace it with whatever version is supported by reliable sources. I'm no expert on the subject, so I don't know if this sounds about right, but I'll take your word for it if you truely have an PhD in the related subject and be supportive of your proposed wording. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther Great, Thank you. What exactly do you mean by be "supportive" of my proposed wording? Emoneill (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Emoneill, I mean I support implementing your suggest wording, "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction (i.e. fitness) of individuals that differ in phenotype". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther Oh, okay. I misread your last post. I thought you wanted me to be supportive. I thought that was odd. So now what? Emoneill (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Emoneill, so now you can safely implement your wording, BUT -- be sure you include your sources and cite them to the new addition in the same edit to avoid further confusion. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Emoneil has fallen silent, hopefully just due to limitations of editing time rather than having become discouraged by our process. Since there is consensus here on their proposed wording, which will improve the article, I will make the change at this time, with due credit to that editor for proposing the change. I will ask them, when they return, to advise us here whether any one of the cited (offline) sources is sufficient to support the statement, and if so, which one, or whether all three are needed to fully source the content. General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction: that was Emoneill (two 'l's), as Emoniel (who I mentioned in my summary) is someone else entirely (and blocked since 2009). General Ization ^Talk 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

General Ization, just to be clear, are we talking sock puppets here or have I misread something? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we're talking typo. I mentioned the "i before e, one l" editor in my edit summary, but our PhD is "e before i, two ls" and I have no reason to think they are related except possibly that they share a couple of initials. General Ization ^Talk 22:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jonas Vinther and General Ization for helping me figure out how to be a better editor. I went home for the day so that is why I was silent. And I have no sock puppets. I have always edited under this account. I have no idea who Emoneil is. I'll look into which citation is preferable. I don't think we need all three. I see quite a few other issues with this page that could use some attention. I may make some suggestions for further revisions in the near future.Emoneill (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

References

There are too many definitions of natural selection (open a dictionary or biology textbook, none will be the same), the metaphor is subjective and has been twisted to almost any interpretation, as shown below the concept of natural selection has no empirical basis in the real world.

Here is another definition of natural selection "the elemental operational relationships between an organism and its environmental conditions such that the organism satisfies all its physical needs for establishment." Mason, H. L., and J. H. Langenheim. 1961. Natural selection as an ecological concept. Ecology 42: 158-165. Latenightjogger (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

A criticism section should be added to the article

Lewontin (1974) inserts that selection is empirical untestable. Donn E. Rosen and Donald G. Buth (1980) write:

"In order to formulate a new theory, however, we eschew the use of the metaphor "natural selection" because that metaphor has now been used in many senses and contexts that seem entirely divorced from the empirical world."

Brady (1982) discusses the tautological formulation debate of natural selection:

The theory of natural selection has been re-examined in recent years by a number of critics concerned with the possibility of tautological formulation (Himmelfarb, 1962; Smart, 1963; Manser, 1965; Flew, 1967; Barker, 1969; Macbeth, 1971; Lewontin, 1972; Grene, 1974; Bethell, 1976; Peters, 1976).

• Lewontin, R. C. 1974. The genetic basis of evolutionary change. Columbia University Press, New York and London.

• Rosen, Donn E; Buth, Donald G. Empirical Evolutionary Research Versus Neo-Darwinian Speculation. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 300-308.

• Brady, R. H. Dogma and Doubt. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 1982, vol. 17, pp. 79-96. (online version)

Ecologist Robert Henry Peters writes:

"In summary, I should reiterate that the general theory of evolution through natural selection is tautological because it defines fitness in terms of differential survival, although other problems, such as the historical dimension, do exist. Specific theories may be predictive because they define fitness independently (e.g., the capacity to burrow), but their falsification cannot affect the general argument, since in all cases the fittest are, always and only, those which survive."

Peters, R. H. (1978). Predictable Problems with Tautology in Evolution and Ecology. The American Naturalist. Volume 112. pp. 759-762.

Richard Lewontin in the journal Nature admitted natural selection is not scientific:

"Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."

Lewontin, R. C. Testing the Theory of Natural Selection. Nature March 24, 1972 p.181

Counter criticism of Peters can be found in * Stebbins, G. L. 1977. In defense of evolution: tautology or theory. Amer. Natur. 111: 386-390. *Ferguson, A. J. 1976. Can evolutionary theory predict? Amer. Natur. 110: 1101-1104. *Castrodeza, C. 1977. Tautologies, beliefs and empirical knowledge in biology. Amer. Natur. 111:393-394. Though in the 1978 paper I listed above Peter had responded and rebutted their comments.

In Bertram G. Murray's paper "Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific?" he writes "The important point to make is that neither 'survival of the fittest' nor 'differential reproduction' has produced predictions that are testable with independent evidence." Murray, B. G. (2001). Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? Biol. Rev. 76: 255-289.

Campbell and Robert in their 2004 paper "The Structure of Evolution by Natural Selection" argue that the debate over natural selection being a tautology has still not been adequately settled. Campbell, R; Robert, J. C. (2005). The Structure of Evolution by Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy. 20: 673-696. The question is why these detailed papers are not on the Wikipedia article? The debate exists but is being ignored here. Latenightjogger (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Types of selection

I have rewritten this section to address the following concerns: (1) well-known types of selection such as stabilizing and directional selection were not included; (2) the section was lacking a well-described classification structure, to explain the ontology behind different types of selection (this is important given the bewilderingly large number of types of selection). I felt the only way to achieve these aims was via a complete re-write. I have kept the original figure describing selection in terms of life cycle, however.

I also would propose to remove the next section on “Sexual Selection” as redundant, but have left it as-is for now. Mikeweale (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had no feedback so far. I'm going to go ahead and delete the "sexual selection" subsection as per my comments above Mikeweale (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to see what's going on now, however you probably need a better edit summary than 'Delete "sexual selection" section'—why should that section be deleted? If there is a long reason, it should be placed on the article talk (here), and the edit summary could say "remove because xxx per talk" where xxx is a very brief reason and "per talk" is the clue that more can be seen here. Are you just saying the section is redundant, or is there a little more explanation somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unclear. The redundancy is created because "sexual selection" is also a "type of selection", and in a recent edit to the "type of selection" section I had added a paragraph on sexual selection (immediately prior the "sexual selection" section). I also had in the back of my mind previous comments in the Talk section which referred to this article being too long, which I agree with. In summary, removing this section was my attempt to make this article less verbose. A shorted version of this section now appears in the "types of selection" section, which makes more sense to me because it is indeed a type of selection, and if anyone wants to learn more about sexual selection they can of course follow the link to the main Wikipedia article on this subject. Anyway, my apologies for lack of clarity and I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to revert back to deleting the "sexual selection" section. Mikeweale (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Mikeweale, thanks for working on this article. My recommendation is to fold in the sexual section content into the types of selection section and edit the remainder into a short summary of our article on sexual selection. That allows you to reduce the redundancy somewhat while still retaining a pointer to what is one of the more important mechanisms for selection.

I would also encourage you to re-use the sources we have now in the sexual selection paragraphs or add new sources to the types of selection, as we want to make sure readers can verify the content in an article like this. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a concern about the title of this section; 'types of selection' implies distinct types, of which those listed are not (e.g. stabilising and purifying selection are the same thing, and many of the others overlap), and this may confuse people. I've been trying to think of suggestions but haven't come up with anything yet, 'how selection is classified' may be getting closer to an appropriate title. 129.127.101.245 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

natrual selection

natural selection is undeniable fact of the universe. but, natural selection works only if be properly designed.

can we delete this? It's not relevant to the article nor is it a constructive talk topic. I'm not sure of the rules here, but surely such a post is in violation of at least one of them.129.127.101.245 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

re: speciation

I have a problem with the first sentence "Speciation requires selective mating, which result in a reduced gene flow".

I'm not sure how common this terminology ('selective mating') is, but to me that sounds like it implies a choice of some sort (akin to mate choice). All speciation requires is cessation of gene flow (genetic isolation) between two sub-populations, which can come about by the various processes mentioned in the subsequent sentence.

Regarding the subsequent sentence "Selective mating can be the result of 1. Geographic isolation, 2. Behavioural isolation, or 3. Temporal isolation."

'Selective mating' should be replaced by 'Genetic isolation'; 'Can result from' may be better than 'can be the result of'; and I'm sure there are other phenomena than the three mentioned e.g. broadly, sexual incompatibility (which could include things like wolbachia infection, and incompatibilities from genome duplication).129.127.101.245 (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you think of a more neutral way of wording it? I agree some of the metaphorical language used casually in such articles is potentially misleading to general readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

only what I suggested. "Speciation requires cessation of gene flow; this can result from (1) geographic isolation, (2) behavioural isolation, (3) sexual incompatibility, or (4) temporal isolation." 129.127.101.245 (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I was about to make the proposed change when I realised that that whole paragraph contains inaccurate information. Instead of the proposed change, I changed the first sentence to "Speciation requires cessation of gene flow, which results from reproductive isolation". "Reproductive isolation" covers all of the isolating mechanisms previously mentioned as well as those that were neglected. As the details of reproductive isolation are relatively complex I thought a link to the reproductive isolation page was most appropriate, as the natural selection page isn't the place for this to be explained. In light of that, I removed the remainder of the paragraph, that described examples of reproductive isolating mechanisms, and linked it with the following paragraph.

Thinking about it further, I think this whole section needs to be shaped more around speciation as it relates to natural selection. As it stands, it's just a summary of speciation in general, which I don't think fits on the natural selection page 129.127.101.245 (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

lead sentence

I have a problem with the lead sentence "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction (i.e., fitness) of individuals that differ in phenotype."

This sentence can be equally applied to genetic drift (without the mention of fitness that doesn't make sense where it is anyway); it needs an amendment.

I propose changing to "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype." Note the important change of 'that differ in' to 'due to differences in'. Individuals removed from the population by genetic drift also 'differ in' phenotype but are not removed 'due to differences in' phenotype.

Then the lead on the genetic drift page (which also has problems) could be changed to "Genetic drift is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to chance".

I think these edits would make the descriptions more accurate, and help highlight the parallels (and by doing so also the fundamental differences) between natural selection and genetic drift 129.127.101.245 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems there is no objection to the proposed change, so I will go ahead and make it.129.127.101.245 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

While we are looking at this sentence is there any way we can avoid the jargony "differential". Maybe even the "normal English" "differences in" would be good enough?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why we couldn't do that.129.127.101.245 (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going to offer another alternative that might reduced jargon and be more grammatically correct: "Natural selection is the variation in survival and reproduction of individuals because of differences in phenotype.66.18.39.197 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Or, to put it even more simply: "Natural selection is the variation in fitness among individuals resulting from variation in individual phenotypes."Emoneill (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So, anyone willing to discus this change?Emoneill (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

second sentence

I have a problem with the second sentence "It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time."

Evolution is not only a change in heritable traits, which are phenotypes. More generally it is a change in the genetic composition (i.e. genotypes) of a population. Populations may evolve genetically without any correlated change in phenotype.

I suggest the following: "It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in genetic composition of a population over generations."Emoneill (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You would need to provide mutiple third party citations for such a change. Please provide them here and we can discuss them. Cheers.--Adam in MO Talk 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I would need multiple third party citations because this change actually makes the statement more consistent with the citation that is already there. Emoneill (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So, what is it going to take to get a discussion going on this? I am also discussing this on Talk:evolution. If I can get a change there, I will also suggest changing this one for consistency. Emoneill (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

People have been suggesting since 2009, without opposition, that Selection (biology) should be merged here. Given that Natural selection is now generally agreed to encompass Sexual selection, and the article here goes along with that, the current article is sufficient to cover the topic, and Selection (biology) is a needless WP:FORK, covering a small part of the same ground, much less thoroughly and with inadequate citations. Given the clarity of the overlap I'm almost minded to boldly go, immediately, but would value other editors' views. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no objection, I am now merging the other article here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplication in lead?

The lead current includes the passage (my problem highlighted in bold): Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important

It seems to me the same thing is being said twice here. Anyone agree? 86.170.123.24 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This instance may be benign (it being helpful to be simple and clear when the concept is first introduced), but the article actually states this same argument many times, often without citations. That's what needs to be fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Role of timelines in article

There are two timelines of evolutionary history, for humans and for life in general, on the right hand side of the article.

For an article on phylogeny, or for a timeline of human evolution, one or other timeline would be useful and relevant; these are interesting and carefully-crafted objects with encyclopedic value, in the right places.

However, this article is specifically on the mechanism of natural selection, not on the Evolutionary history of life. If life had evolved on very different timelines and with entirely different species (somehow ending up with beings who could edit Wikipedia, of course), the article would still work. Further, the timelines are not discussed in the text, nor is there mention of most of the stages, time periods, or species named in them: and quite rightly, for the account of natural selection does not depend on them. Editors who have focused on the task at hand, to explain what natural selection is and how it works, have not seen (and will not see) it necessary to describe these timelines. In other words, the specific timelines are not relevant.

The timelines are both very properly in use in other places, but they should not be duplicated in this particular article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for your comments - they're *very much* appreciated - the timelines (ie, "Human timeline" and "Life timeline") were added to the "Natural selection" article in good faith - as possible improvements to the article - the timelines seem relevant to the article since they describe a relevant factual context - a process known to have actually occurred, based on available evidences - for considering the mechanism of "Natural selection" - each timeline contains about 30 wikilinks to related articles for further detailed discussion(s) - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for replying, but "seem relevant" isn't really enough for two very large graphics that take a lot of screen space and reader attention. The timelines link to topics in phylogeny and evolution (I linked to the top-level ones already), not to anything to do with the mechanism of natural selection at all, which, recall, is the topic of this article. Examples are given in the text, but the wikilinks in the timelines are support for evolution, not for natural selection. Of course, the article already links to evolution, and that family of articles is where the timelines belong, not here. I appreciate you like them, complete with smiley faces and exclamation marks, that they are finely hand-crafted, are full of 30 wikilinks, and so on and so forth, but none of these things do anything to support your case. The timelines belong at one remove to here, not in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removal. These are very nice graphics. Still, they should be confined to the two or three most appropriate articles (each). Natural selection is not one of them. --Ettrig (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - FWIW - Thank you for the comments - removed timeline templates from article body - added related links to the "see also" section - for those interested in the timelines as a factual basis of an actual instance for natural selection - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Britain

change ((Britain)) to ((Great Britain|Britain))

 Partly done have changed Britain to Great Britain, but it does not need linking, as stated at WP:OVERLINKING do not link " The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)" - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone

Well, as you can see we've managed to get this article to GA at last. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the article over the years. Great work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Other processes

The lead mentions that natural selection is "one of the key processes" and compares it with artificial selection. Is it intended to imply that artificial selection is the only other key process, or are there others which should be mentioned, and does the article mention what the others are if this is the case? Either it is a bit vague or I have missed the others in spite of looking for them. Also "Natural selection remains the primary explanation for adaptive evolution". This implies at least one other explanation. I assume that this excludes non-explanations. Are the other explanations mentioned in the article? It did not seem to me that they are, so either they are missing, or insufficiently obvious from the context. Or maybe I am just having a bad day... Generally an excellent article. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The ambiguity, if there is any, is about whether natural selection encompasses sexual selection, or whether people are more comfortable with that as a separate process; mainly it's now included. Obviously, selection requires variation to work on, which requires mutation and recombination. Drift was once also thought important: less so in the past 20 years or so. I'll tweak the wording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Answer is at microevolution#four processes. Artificial vs. natural vs. sexual is a downstream question, relatively speaking - the distinction is subordinate to the four microevolutionary forces. You could probably make the argument that in an artificial breeding setting, migration (called "gene flow" in that article) can be virtually eliminated, but mutation and drift are always present no matter what - cf. mutation–selection balance. Also, the influence of drift relative to selection decreases with increasing population size. For instance, a bacterial population could be so large as to be considered to be entirely governed by mutation and selection, as any mutation events lost by drift would be compensated for by recurrent mutation. Exactly what importance should be given to gene flow depends on how you define "population". HTH, Samsara 12:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Evo-devo

@Chiswick Chap: No strong objections to your edit, but have you made sure that it matches what the listed sources say? Thanks, Samsara 11:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I paraphrased it from a source I used for the evo-devo article, I'll check it's here also. On the sexual selection image, there is surely no doubt at all that the peacock image is relevant, I'll cite it with three or four refs if need be: if you have an issue with a caption, the appropriate response is surely to edit the caption text, not to remove a good, relevant, and useful image that is certainly helpful to the sense for the first-time reader. I'll replace it now and tweak the caption: feel free to tweak further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe there are better illustrations that the space can be used for. The peacock image seems like un-necessary puffery. An image of one peacock does not explain anything other than, "oh look, it has excessively long trains" - which the caption did not even say! Samsara 12:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is puffing anything: the peacock example has been used by Darwin, Wallace, Fisher, a multitude of researchers and pretty much every textbook since, so it is certainly *the* classic example, and I'm happy to cite it as many times as is necessary, it won't be difficult. Other large and conspicuous birds with sexual dimorphism such as pheasants might have been chosen, but were not. I repeat, the cure for a less-than-perfect caption is to edit the caption. A peacock image is *exactly* the right thing here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain to you that citing it does not make it more useful. There are much better illustrations of the peacock that could be used if they were recreated under a free license. There is also nothing that obligates us to use the peacock just because it has been used previously. By the end of reading this article, the reader should have a good understanding of natural selection, not of the history of model organisms used. Samsara 12:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Its usefulness is that it illustrates the domain, i.e. both the actual biology and the intellectual history, as citations can prove, so the bird is the right example. On which peacock image to use, that is a matter you had not raised until now, but clearly we can choose one to show the train more clearly than a flying image. I'll look one out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, it's an improvement. I still think that if any illustration of the peacock should be used, it should eventually be one of the classic cutting tails, gluing tails experiment. Samsara 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The use of an experiment at this level sounds an odd choice to me. From Darwin and Wallace onwards, people have remarked on the selection by females, so an image of courtship and display seems exactly on the button. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Now you sound like you're not familiar with the experiment. It involves female choice. Samsara 13:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't cast aspersions. I mean, Darwin et al did not see experimental results, they saw the natural results of female selection. At the top level of coverage of the topic, a single paragraph indeed, we should focus on the basic fact of sexual selection and its history, not experiments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with your view. An article must reflect an up to date understanding of the topic, not some 19th century perspective. Samsara 13:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, there's no 19th century perspective here. I have made clear repeatedly that there is a continuous thread of interest in the peacock's train from Darwin to the present day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"focus - this is only for major sites which offer wide, objective coverage of the topic"

I don't understand the explanation for dropping two references: "focus - this is only for major sites which offer wide, objective coverage of the topic". I don't want to get into a edit war, so I'm not reverting the change, and I hope that the editor will take the opportunity to explain here, where there is more space. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. The article is fully cited, and furthermore has that luxury, a further reading section of major sources which are not cited in the text. Having further papers that are neither cited nor major enough to qualify as further reading might be thought somewhat over the top, but it's reasonable to provide links not to papers but to major sites which offer wide, objective coverage of the topic. It isn't reasonable that all kinds of other papers and websites should also be included: Wikipedia is Not a Directory, and the article requires focus in every section including this one. If a source says something important that isn't already said in the text, then it should be summarized in the text and cited as an inline reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead statement suggests selection/evolution at the wrong level?

The lead statement for the article is: "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype." This suggests that natural selection occurs at the level of the individual, which is fundamentally incorrect per Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene. Selection should occur at the level of the replicator, the base unit of selection (genes, memes, etc). A more correct statement would be: "Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of replicators due to differences in phenotypic expression."

Dawkins continues to elaborate on this concept within The Extended Phenotype, where he discusses in depth the phenotypic expression of genes at a distance and other actions that occur outside the level of an individual. (This was written by 67.164.212.80 ) 12.4.55.222 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC) -SA

Thank you, but I'm not sure that's what we should do. Firstly that's Dawkins's view, which by no means all biologists agree with. Secondly, the actual unit of reproduction is an individual. Thirdly, the proposed statement could not be understood by a general reader coming fresh to the subject: the start of a lead is not the place for maximum "correctness", at the expense of intelligibility, and one sentence can only convey a small part of a large subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The existing article discusses the debate over the unit of selection within Types of Selection and provides additional information in the link to Units of Selection. In any case, wouldn't the replicator still be what is selected, and the definition of that replicator as the gene or individual be the subject of that debate? Depending on how one defines the term "individual", it may or may not be a unit of reproduction. For instance, many species rely on mitochondria or other prokaryotic cells, but whether or not they are a part of the individual depends largely upon how individual is defined. Since individuals in many species can, in fact, be divided, the term is difficult to apply at the level of the organism in a technical sense. I'm not a biologist, and I understand keeping the lead simple enough that it can be understood by anyone visiting the page, but it seems as though it has been simplified to the point of being incorrect. 12.4.55.222 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC) -SA

It's right. See UC Berkeley's Understanding Evolution site which starts with an even simpler treatment (and goes much further on some of the related pages). It definitely talks about individuals, as well as the population they're in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting - I suppose it's largely about interpretation. I read that page as directly opposing the individual as the unit of selection: "The more advantageous trait (phenotypic expression of genes), brown coloration, which allows the beetle (individual) to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population (gene pool). If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown (alleles are reduced by selection pressure)." So the genes that produce the phenotypic expression of brown coloration would be selected against those that produce green coloration, such that they become more common within the gene pool. The individual is simply discussed as a medium through which the phenotype is expressed, not a unit of selection. -SA

Clearly things can be thought about from different points of view. However, the treatment here describes the topic in terms of individuals, population, phenotype and genes, both in the lead and in the text, as it should. The lead wisely avoids talking about "units of selection", and I didn't speak of it here either. Goodbye. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chiswick Chap. "Natural selection acts on the individual" is a catch-cry used to counter the notion of Group selection. Also, what is killed or prevented from reproducing by being less well adapted is the individual, and thus it is the sum of its genetic endowment that is being acted upon, not individual genetic loci. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)