Talk:Selection (biology)

message: with Natural selection ?
I came across this article today and I really don't understand why it exists. It should be deleted - the Natural selection article already covers this topic and it is cited. I see the figure by User:Duncharris that schematically classes Selection above natural vs. artificial selection. However, there is no citation to back the conceptual notion - at best this should be a footnote on the natural selection page and treated separately. I have never encountered it in my studies and reading on evolution. Unless this can be backed up by some external peer-reviewed or expert opinion - I vote this page be merged or removed. Thompsma (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Why has this not been merged yet??? Peteruetz (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since this has been unopposed since 2009, and nobody has objected to the proposal at the target article, I have now created the redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article should be merged

message: In the chart, "natural selection" is subdivided into two subcategories: ecological selection and sexual selection. Shouldn't a third subcategory be added: kin selection?  EPM 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on the chart

message: It seems to me as if no distinction is made between selection on the genetic level or on the level of individuals. I think this is important because Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection seems to be dubious. The reason seems to be that the mean fitness is determined as mean over the set of genes, assuming that a gene may have a fitness of its own.
On the other hand, if we assume that the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes in a large population and determines the mean fitness over the set of individuals we may for instance get the theorem of gaussian adaptation leading to quite different properties of evolution.
Kjells 11:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some reference to the Unit of selection article would help. Pete.Hurd 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unit of selection 

message: I've suggested evolutionary pressure be merged into this article. This one is quite short itself, and evolutionary pressure is no more than a stub. Any arguments in favour of keeping it separate? If it can be developed more there's always the possibility of splitting it off in future. Richard001 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from evolutionary pressure

message: (I'm not sure how to link to wikipages with parentheses) discusses "focus" in computing.  "Selection" is related to "focus" in subtle ways and should be discussed in Wikipedia.  Recommend disambiguation page under "selection" which, for now, can link to focus (computing) page.
Rokahn (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguate from selection in computing

message: Who put that there? It doesn't make sense with the sentence to me. What do you think of it? 76.70.89.203 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pragmatics...? (overview) 

message: Scientists should definitely avoid religious and anthropomorphic terms like "selection" (etc.) altogether (e.g., "God has selected the Jews as the foremost people among peoples").
Instead, selective processes in "nature" can be replaced by stabilization processes on all biochemical and populational levels, from genomic stability up to sociological and political stabilities (only some populations will have enough stability through time, depending on fast shifting environments; and some populations are so instable, that they die out). ---
OE, Feb 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.209.90 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "selection" is not scientific 

message: According to which person? 
:In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes segregating within a population may be subject to selection. Under selection, individuals with advantageous or "adaptive" traits tend to be more successful than their peers reproductively—meaning they contribute more offspring to the succeeding generation than others do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.253.89 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection defined by who?