Talk:Natural selection/Archive 2

message: I've noticed that the pages dealing with creationism enjoy a healthy representation of critiques and opposing viewpoints, which this page does not. I think including a section that deals with this issue is important for a couple reasons.(Or--better yet--relocate one of the better articles dealing with the point I'm about to make as a section of this article or--failing that--at least link to one of them. BTW, there are at least two or three of those articles and someone should probably erase the lesser quality ones.)
First, from a philosophical perspective, the concept of natural selection seems to be a tautology or truism. As this article states, natural selection represents the view that nature presents the most adaptable (and most likely to produce thriving offspring) specimens with the carrot of survival and the least adaptable(and the less likely to produce offspring) with the carrot of extinction in order to ensure the survival of the fittest. But what places one in the category of "fittest"? It seems that the fittest would have to be those that successfully reproduce. In essence, we say that natural selection is the device that ensures that the fittest will reproduce while identfying the fit as those that reproduce. Given this, it seems that natural selection is the secularist counterpart to the Cartesian circle. 
Secondly, Darwin made this point:"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discuss in this volume on which facts can be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on each side of the question." On this point, I agree with the man. We need a discussion of substance on this issue. Today, the debate concerning evolution is mainly carried out by narrow-minded assholes like Steven Pinker and Pat Robertson. Let's not be like them. Let's give each view representation and debate the resulting positions on their merits--the view that creationists are idiots and that evolution is an errorless and universally accepted explanation for the origin of the species is lazy and cartoonish.Eskatos 13:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think no other criticisms than the thoughoughly debunked "tautology" argument that belong in Natural Selection.  Your second point pertains more to Evolution, not Natural Selection.  Natural Selection was identified as a mechanism for maintaining Platonic ideal types under a creationist view before Darwin came along (natural selection removed the forms which deviated excessively from the true form).  It might be worthwhile to have a section framing and debunking the "tautology" hoo-haw, just to make it super-easy to find by those who need educating on the point.  But let me add that calling people "narrow-minded assholes" just makes me want to ignore everything you have to say.  You may find people respond better to editors who act more like educated adults. Pete.Hurd 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Natural Selection 

message: I've just added a todo list to this talk page. I'd like to invite you all to write down any suggestions you may have for the improvement of the article, and work on any of the items already suggested. I hope this will help us make better progress. - Samsara contrib talk 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo list 

message: Guys, whatever happened to being bold? We've had lengthy discussions like the one above over at evolution and they actually resulted in very little change. I think we all agree on a few things, e.g. the material in the lengthy introduction must be dispersed to other, possibly new sections and articles. Can we just go ahead and do this? - Samsara contrib talk 11:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samsara, please go do it.  I think the consensus is close to but not quite at unanimity on what needs to be done.  I'm up to my eyeballs in midterms, various manuscript deadlines (and an infant that appears to be member of some sort of cult opposed to any and all sleep on anyone's part), but I'll be checking in a couple of times a day at least to lend help on details and other issues.  Bold on! Pete.Hurd 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I am particularly in favour of changing things that are factually inaccurate, such as the statement that Darwin was the first to discover NS. The introduction is meant to be just that, an introduction to the article and its different sections. The introduction is still trying to be an article unto itself, as you've pointed out yourself. However, it is clearly not sufficient as an article, so let's go and shake out the dirt, and return to the talk page if disagreements happen - I take it they haven't happened yet? If so, please say. - Samsara contrib talk 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for action 

message: Dear All,
I felt it was a good idea, in the light of our attempt to bring down the size of the intro and get this article to FA standard, to move a section dealing with Elliott Sober's contribution to the unit of selection debate to that more specific article. I have noticed that my change has been reverted. The section now exists in duplicate, once at unit of selection and once here. Can we reach a consensus on where it belongs? Let's hear your views. Thanks. - Samsara contrib talk 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the idea of having an article to cover this topic, the coverage in this article is a bit opaque and a lucid treatment of the issue would be really valuable.  I'm not totally opposed to having some dupication here in Natural selection, but not in the lead section (as I've said a here a couple of times before).  I think a brief (one short paragraph) section or subsection with a link to the main article is the way to go. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 16:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: i'd recommend that you all truly reflect on this issue.  if that does not help, i think that you should read sober's book.  this is not a side-issue, this is about the very essence of what selection is and what is not, and is very important because grasping this allows one to avoid confusing selection and evolution by selection and the many confusions that arise when people do that (e.g. group vs. kin "selection")  Marcosantezana 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with Samsara; the material should be moved. The paragraph that remained still described the issue briefly and provided a link to unit of selection for elaboration. On a side note: Marcosantezana, please make use of the "Edit Summary" feature. This is especially important when you're reverting changes someone else has made. To indicate a reversion, include the word "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary, preferably with a section heading and/or some indication of what is being changed and why. --Barefootmatt 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sober section moved from intro to [[unit of selection]] 

message: Hi there, the header says it all: if I remember correctly, the irony of the Origin was that it does not make a link between natural selection and speciation. Hence, we can shorten the intro from
:Natural selection is the metaphor Charles Darwin used in 1859 to name the process he postulated to drive the adaptation of organisms to their environments and the origin of new species.
to
:Natural selection is the metaphor Charles Darwin used in 1859 to name the process he postulated to drive the adaptation of organisms to their environments.
Correct? - Samsara contrib talk 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...although he may have done in subsequent publications? - Samsara contrib talk 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: be this as it may, darwin did not "forget" the origin.  it is obvious that he knew that one needn't be a rocket scientist to figure out that populations would diverge adaptively and become different species.  are we kidding here?  are we all bookish sophists?  to the very least one should write that the origin followed from his treatment of adaptation.  and the mere title justifies one saying that he proposed selection as the driver of speciation.  Marcosantezana 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like that quote is addressed more to chronospecies than what we would now call allopatric speciation.  Also, I think it was implicitly acknowledged by the founders of the modern synthesis that Darwin really didn't solve the problem of the origin of species more generally (which is why there are so many books entitled something and the origin of species).  And yet, as that quote shows, Darwin certainly made some connections between natural selection and speciation.--ragesoss 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is not in keeping with the times. Modern evolutionary biologists are not concerned with chronospecies; they are far more interested in the process of speciation, and the "origin of species" is widely considered synonymous with speciation. However, as I said before, Darwin is concerned with adaptation through selection, not with the branching of species that is speciation. Fastfission's quote shows that Darwin was thinking about the effect of extinction, not that of speciation. - Samsara contrib talk 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Origin of species'' does not afaik make a link between NS and speciation 

message: I have changed the first sentence because it was wrong.  Darwin's natural selection is not a mechanism that leads animals to adapt.  This as the opposite of what natural selection is and thoroughly distorts Darwin. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are wrong in your reading of the existing text:  being the "driver" of a process does not make you into a *sufficient* factor/cause.  furthermore, genetic variation is already mentioned in the same paragraph and appropriately so.  20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You still haven't explained to me what you mean by "driving adaptation of organisms to their environment."  I know of no definition or synonym for "driving" that would render this a correct statement.  As I read it, it is flatly wrong. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: "Darwin, moreover, had also to overcome the then dominant view that individual organisms can transmit to their progeny modifications elicited in them by environmental factors. In contrast, Darwin argued that adaptation is the result of the culling by nature of inheritable variation that arises without directionality."
As far as I know, Darwin did accept the transmission of "somatic" modifications, he proposed pangenesis, his own idea of that. Thus accepting then that the modification could arise directionally.
But with natural selection taken in consideration, acquired characteristics, by itself, were not the main mechanism driving the evolution of adaptations. Along with that, there was the point that the environment is limited (Malthus influence), and those who are better adapted would succeed reproductively with more ease, outnumbering the lesser adapted variants, and eventually only the better adapted ones would exist. 
Only with the rediscovery of Mendel's works with heredity that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was finally abandoned. Initially Mendel's genetics were also seen as a trouble for natural selection, by some. However, nowadays there's the myth resulting from oversimplification and historical incorrectness that Lamarckism and Darwinism conflict each other in the sense of "natural selection of non-acquired characteristics" versus "transmission of characteristics acquired by individual effort". 
Even though Darwin received a letter of Mendel himself, as I've read it or heard it, he never opened, for some reason. Mendel's genetics remained unknown for some more time, and were never defended by Darwin. (I guess I've read that on Carl Zimmer's "at the water's edge", but I've also read something that makes me suspicious, I guess that was in wikipedia, about Darwin citing some of Mendel's papers.
*that's not quite a reference, but a text that says things in the same sense I'm saying: 'The Imaginary Lamarck: A Look at Bogus "History" in Schoolbooks'
--Extremophile 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a reference. Michael T. Ghiselin is a well-respected evolutionary biologist. - Samsara contrib talk 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  acquired characteristics, Darwin's pangenesis 

message: *To answer the question above, I'm a layman interested in Darwin but not a biologist, and would hesitate to define the modern perception or understanding of natural selection. Darwin clearly sees "the strength of the hereditary tendency" as part of his definition: the analogy with preservation and accumulation of varieties in "domestic productions" depends on the relevant variations being heritable. He uses "characteristics" but not "traits". I thought traits might imply heritability, but my dictionaries give "a stroke, touch, a characteristic" and "a distinguishing feature or quality, especially of a person's character". Presumably it means something more to biologists, as does "organismic" which isn't in my dictionaries – please avoid that term, and use characteristic rather than trait. The following aims to present Darwin's essential points more concisely:
:In nature, all organisms produce more offspring than those that will in turn succeed in reproducing, and all offspring show variations in characteristics which can affect their chance of surviving and reproducing in the prevailing conditions. Successful heritable variations can accumulate over generations. Darwin called this process natural selection in an analogy with a farmer choosing variations with characteristics he desires for breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection. ...dave souza, talk 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (minor modifications to clarify the above).. Note that this statement shows the culling effect of natural selection operating without heritable variations, in the same way as a farmer will select characteristics whether or not they are heritable, but the useful effect in both cases only occurs when the variation is heritable. Natural selection will cull an animal with a broken leg or may favour an animal that has exercised and developed its muscles for non heritable reasons, but these cases are irrelevant for the breeding which is the point of Darwin's analogy. ....dave souza, talk 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In nature, all organisms produce more offspring than will in turn survive to successfully reproduce, and all offspring show variations in characteristics which can affect their chance of surviving and reproducing in the prevailing conditions. Darwin called this process natural selection in an analogy with a farmer choosing variations with characteristics he desires for breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection. In both cases if selected variations are heritable and the selective preference continues, the population of descendants will have  the favoured characteristic as an evolved adaptation. ...dave souza, talk 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it works for me.  I think the last sentence is unnecessary, and detracts from the flow into what is now the 3rd paragraph.  I suggest using this, drop the last sentence and join the 3rd para to this second one. Pete.Hurd 02:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposal

message: Some just proposed this version of the intro:
:Natural selection is a process to explain the origin of species.
:Charles Darwin proposed natural selection theory based on the fact that organisms are adapted to their environments. Along with the rules of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel at about the same time, natural selection provides the fundamental mechanistic foundations for modern evolutionary theory.
The previous version read:
:Natural selection is the phrase Charles Darwin used in 1859 for the process he proposed to explain the origin of species and the fact that organisms are adapted to their environments. Along with the rules of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel at about the same time (but unknown to Darwin then and rediscovered only at the turn of the twentieth century), natural selection provides the fundamental mechanistic foundations for modern evolutionary theory.
I object to the new version on several grounds:
#A bit of historical tragedy helps set the context: Darwin was unaware of Mendel's discovery. This is an important fact that even a person who reads only the introduction should not go away without.
#Natural selection is not in the first instance about speciation at all, although, as Marcosantezana has pointed out, Darwin does hint at the implications by putting it in the title. In the first instance, the book is about explaining adaptation in a non-teleological way.
#Darwin did not propose natural selection on the basis of adaptation. He proposed it on the basis of artificial selection because this was the only "fact" he had. Everything else was speculation. His very purpose was to predict adaptation, not take it as a prima facie fact!.
- Samsara contrib talk 11:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The version just proposed 

message: I have tried to read the article, failed and I am not happy about it. I have the strong feeling that natural selection (which is a process) is confused with the outcome of natural selection (who survived) and the variation in crucial components that contribute to this outcome (aka what contributes to survival). Variation in components, such as life-history traits, change the likelihood of an individual to survive and reproduce, it does not change the process itself although it can change the mechanism along which the process operates. --KimvdLinde 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Axel, so you say that natural selection is the endresult you observe, not the process? --KimvdLinde 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said all along in this discussion page that natural selection is a process, a process that can be defined in terms of its result: the preservation of favourable variations. The selection of fit individuals and reproduction are part of that process.   — Axel147 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that clarifies your idea. I disagree with you that a process can be defined by its result as many different processes can lead to the same result. Therefore, the process needs to be defined by itself. I prefer a clear distinction between the process, the results of that process, and the actuall mechanisms how those results are obtained. --KimvdLinde 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that to define a process only in terms of its result is not sufficient but all I really meant was that the result should be part of the defintion. The process is 'differential reproduction' generation after generation (where 'fit' individuals reproduce more frequently on average). The result of the process is that favourable characteristics become more common. That was the part that wasn't understood and needs to be emphasized. The understanding of the result is key so perhaps it is better to view natural selection as a principle or theory rather than as a process.  — Axel147 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the impression that if I were to seriously restructure this article, you would be perfectly happy with it as it would make both the process as well as the results perfectly clear. I agree with you that the results can be very convincing, and need to have a place in the article. --KimvdLinde 01:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural selection versus the outcome of natural selection