Talk:Stabilizing selection

message: Apparently, there is some confusion about this -- there are a lot of inaccurate things on these pages about stabilizing selection. Go read this article if you want to know about selection: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Negative-Selection-1136 Natisto (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as far as I can see in my text books on this topic. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Purifying selection = negative selection. You are right, it's not the same as stabilizing selection. See http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Negative-Selection-1136 Natisto (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable

message: Asserting that the increase in C-sections has increased optimum birth weight is misleading, as increases in the incidence of high birth weight (due to increased incidence of maternal obesity and gestational diabetes) is a significant factor in the increase in C-sections.
The birth weight example is a good one, but the discussion on  C-sections is completely irrelevant to the basic illustration of this genetic phenomenon.  It is true, C-sections have possibly affected stabilizing selection in SOME, but hardly ALL, human populations.  The way it is illustrated here makes no sense whatsoever.  If you want to relate C-sections to this example, make it logical.  "C-sections are relevant because..."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.197.21 (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth weight 

message: My interpretation of these different terms is this: while many instances of negative selection are also instances of stabilizing selection (aka. purifying selection), as there is selection against a change in the organism because the change is deleterious, it's also possible that a change in the environment can cause negative selection in a way that causes directional selection, rather than stabilizing selection.
I should not that I'm not an expert on population genetics and evolution, and neither of these articles have references, so I'm just going with my gut feeling on this with my general biology understanding. And some cursory google searching.
So, I'm going to remove the merger tag and edit the Negative selection page to no longer claim all instances are purifying selection. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm jumping the gun on this, but there aren't any references, these articles look poorly maintained, so I don't expect anyone would respond to a solicitation for opinions. If you do think I've made the wrong move and you can give a reference, please go ahead and revert my change and also add the reference to these articles.  -- Madeleine 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged them regardless (I just had a popgen advanced course if that matters). The simple reason that each is basically a 1-sentence dictionary entry with bells & whistles should be reason enough. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This merger is incorrect. Negative selection doesn't only get to "claim instances of" purifying selection -- the terms are synonyms ! The "Negative Selection" article has it right, saying "negative selection (AKA purifying selection) can cause stabilizing selection". Anyway, I made the change; now purifying selection redirects to negative selection, and I changed the stabilizing selection page so that it does not claim to be synonymous with purifying selection any longer. Natisto (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Negative selection (natural selection)|Negative selection]] vs. [[Stabilizing selection]] merger proposal 

message: The article says that stabilizing selection is not the same thing as purifying selection, but then purifying selection redirects to stabilizing selection, and the article does not clarify the difference.
/130.237.120.251 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Purifying selection does not redirect to stabilizing selection, it redirects to negative selection, which is exactly what it is. Natisto (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: Hi!
The graph shown on this page along with the associated pages concerning directional and disruptive types of selections lacks both axes and could be more intuitive. I'll make them and update them on the pages.
This will be my first edits, so if there's anything I should know - tell me (:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epitoke (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: The stabilizing and directional selection diagrams are misleading because the extremes before and after selection are at the same points on the x-axis. The diagrams shown in the Natural Selection article have got it correct.
It would seem like a good idea to just use the same diagram as the Natural Selection article mainly because it is correct but also because it makes sense if the four selection articles (Natural Selection, Directional Selection, Disruptive Selection and Stabilizing Selection) are consistent with each other. The other three articles all use the same diagram. The Disruptive Selection article additionally has a misleading diagram that should be removed. I will put a comment on that talk page.
If anyone can do this it would be great but if not I am happy to have a go but it may take me a while as I have not used image or other files when editing Wikipedia yet. Gourdiehill (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now replaced the selection diagrams and corresponding legend with those from the article On Natural Selection. Gourdiehill (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection Diagrams