Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(2)
Message 322 of 350 (670741)
08-18-2012 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Big_Al35
08-17-2012 3:52 AM


I have supplied you with two definitions for natural selection.
Neither of which is adequate, one being fundamentally erroneous.
An old darwinian definition "survival of the fittest"
But that isn't Darwinian by any means. Darwin only used that term in the 5th edition (of six) of "On The Origin Of Species," published some 9 years and 3 months after the original publication of the book (Nov. 1859 to Feb. 1869). Darwin never liked the term and never used it without making a reference to his theory, natural selection. The phrase, "survival of the fittest," was coined by the socialist philosopher, Herbert Spencer, after he had read Darwin's book. Darwin finally used the phrase after it had become common as a reference to his theory. He only did so after convincing by T.H. Huxley.
So you are wrong. "Survival of the fittest" isn't an old Darwinian definition but an incorrect understanding of Darwin's theory that was forced on him by a social theorist whose idea was accepted by the populous.
and another which I have conjured up myself.
I have to wonder why you thought that was necessary. Why do you not think that the biological definition of natural selection, used by evolutionary biologists everywhere and the one that I learned more that 40 years ago is sufficient?
I am totally bemused as to how you have chosen to define natural selection, as "screening process" doesn't really tell me anything.
Nor does your definition tell anyone anything. Let's see. What did you say?
quote:
Natural selection, rather than being defined as "survival of the fittest" might be better viewed as "allele domination under significant environmental and sexual selection pressures".
Well, at least you seem to recognize that "survival of the fittest" is a totally erroneous definition of natural selection. However, your definition is unnecessary and extraneous. Why not go with the definition used by evolutionary biologists? Looking at natural selection as a screening process is a pretty good understanding of the concept.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to offer your own definition.
I would be happy to. This is the definition that I learned more than 40 years ago and that is still used by evolutionary biologists today.
Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of organisms that possess benificial genetic traits (that lend a reproductive advantage).
I added the parenthetical phrase in order to clarify for you. That parenthetical phrase is actually redundant.
And as for mutation, I didn't even mention mutation once in my post. Does mutation have anything to do with this topic?
As noted, mutation is one of the sources of genetic diversity upon which natural selection acts. Mutation and natural selection are but 2 of the 9 recognized mechanisms of evolution. Would you like to learn about them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Big_Al35, posted 08-17-2012 3:52 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2012 5:58 AM pandion has not replied
 Message 325 by Big_Al35, posted 08-19-2012 10:02 AM pandion has replied

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 3000 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


(1)
Message 329 of 350 (670808)
08-19-2012 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Big_Al35
08-19-2012 10:02 AM


Well, I added the parenthetical phrase at the end because I knew that you didn't understand the concept. Anyone who furnishes "survival of the fittest" as a substitute for Darwin's theory of natural selection doesn't understand the subject. The definition, "survival of the fittest," is most definitely a tautology. Differential reproductive success of individuals with beneficial genetic traits isn't - unless, of course, you intentionally misrepresent what it says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Big_Al35, posted 08-19-2012 10:02 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2012 1:35 PM pandion has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024