Talk:Reproductive success

message: I added background to the human section of this article. It is important to note that my changes only cover an example of how reproductive success can be studied with birthing intervals based on the situation present for the females. In addition I noted how there is a variance of distribution in energy across the three main categories of growth, maintenance, and reproduction.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannbev (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "..Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on". Who defined or established this? T. H. Clutton-Brock book is given as a reference, what page did he formally establish this. And "success" is alway associated with consciousness as a human specifies some sort of goal that he achieves. What if beavers were meant to build A-frames, would their present structures then be a failure? Defining success in this manner means anything that exists is a success. A rock for example is "successful" at being a rock. TongueSpeaker 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Reproductive success is a technical term, and thus "success" does not imply consciousness in the way you say it "always" does. Pete.Hurd 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "technical term" for what? What is the intent that we try to convey with the word "success" if not to reach some sort of predetermined goal. Nature is not conscious and therefore has no goals and would not achieve a "success". You are making the English language undefined. TongueSpeaker 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not doing anything to the English language... this article documents how the term of art "reproductive success" is used as a technical term by biologists.  Your points of sophistry and rhetoric, while interesting, really have no bearing on the matter.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to accurately convey how the term is used. We're not going to alter wikipedia to reflect how you think the term ought to be used. Pete.Hurd 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who established the definition

message: Darwin never used the phrase Reproductive success. When was it first used and what is the intent or pragmatics with the phrase? TongueSpeaker 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where the first use was, but it first entered widespread use with after Bob Trivers' Parental investment and sexual selection, the intent was to replace the term "fitness" which had both a clear meaning, and a bunch of connotations, with a term which had none of the baggage of fitness, and retained only the biologically relevant meaning.  In the introductory material of chapter 2 of Natural selection and social theory (p63) Trivers mentions that his paper only popularized the term "then not widely in use", and discusses how he used the term to avoid the problems with the imprecision of "fitness". Pete.Hurd 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin never used the phrase

message: Reproductive success is interchangeable with "unequal reproductive success"; inherent of all living organisms within an ecosystem competing for resources - not necessarily reproductive success between two far branched species. Related to Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, "fittest" may not always refer to physical/mental strength but of characteristics apt of the organism's environment. For example; beetles, their shell color ranges from light gray to black (an inherited trait). On a beach of white sand, pelicans will spot the the darker ones more easily (for food), and in effect, the less contrasted beetles will have more reproductive success. Jward91 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation for Psych 101 

message: The page could benefit from everything: citations for more of the claims, jargon reduction, less of a lecturing tone, and basic grammar and even logic. This is a not-atypical statement:
::If the Humans in general, consider phenotypic traits that present their health and body symmetry.
Probably an interesting thought, but unintelligible.Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs work