Falsification theory of Natural Selection

The problem you are having is that your 'model' of natural
selection is too narrow and limited.Natural selection DOES operate around differential reproductive
success.The comparison is NOT natural selection.Natural selection is the end result of differential reproductive
success.e.g.An environment has two species A and B, and two resources X and Y.A requires X, and B requires Y for survival.The distribution of X and Y is fairly even across the environment,
but once consumed replenishes slowly.An individual of species A, A' comes about by mutation that can
use both X and Y to maintain itself. All A' offspring share
this ability.As resources X and Y deplete A' has a better chance than either A
or B of survival because it can utilise either resource.New variant A' will eventually replace both A and B, because, on
average A' types will reproduce more often.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, the standard theory of Natural Selection does not neccesitate competition, at least that is what I've been assured. Competition, when it occurs, is an incident to Natural Selection and not a neccessary part of it.

---

Natural selection is about survival of the fittest.It's not direct competition of separate species, but competition
for mates within a species. Its an integral part of natural
selection.The limited resource is/are individuals to mate with (in sexually
reproducing organisms).For asexual reproduction then the only way that there can be a
differential reproductive success is if some organisms can better
utilise the environment to gain the energy required to reproduce.Competition of some form seems integral to natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

But I can also falsify competitive reproductive success.

​

First there is species A with a population stable around 100.
Then a mutation occurs resulting in variant B.
In some time the population stabilizes at 80 A and 60 B.
This does not reasonably all fall under competitive reproductive success does it?

---

The variants are only subject to natural selection if one
variant has a survival advantage over the other (like in my A'
example previously).Otherwise no selective pressure exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Maybe part of it does, but really the variants occupy separate niches also.

---

No. They are variants of the same organism, and so occupy the same
niche (by definition).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
So this constitutes a fault of ommission in the theory of competitive reproductive success. There are more possibilities of what can follow after a mutation happens (like mutual benefit of the variants), and I'm sure all theoretical possibilities have also actually occured somewhere in Nature. All of that can be covered by a general theory of reproduction, and only replacement would be covered by competitive reproductive success. That means competitive reproductive success is a subset-theory to a general theory of reproduction, where there are more subsets then just competition (ie. something like divergence, and mutual benefit)

---

Natural selection only operates when there is an environmental
pressure which one variant can exploit more effectively than
another.So in that sense you are correct, that natural selection is a sub-set
of reproduction. Natural selection does not operate ALL the time,
only when a variance within a species makes some individuals more
likely than others to survive (and thus breed).It is SURVIVAL that is key to Natural Selection. Those that survive
long enough to breed pass on their traits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Also you both make a logic error. If at all, competition does not result from different rates of reproduction, competition results from reproduction.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Competition results from limited resources, and can occur without
any reproduction going on at all.Continuance of a species cannot happen without reproduction.I think you are viewing the issue from two separate levels
without making the distinction.Natural Selection operates at the level of the individual.The resulting evolution operates at the level of the species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As far as I can tell, you distinguish between the mechanism of Natural Selection (which is the same as what I called a general theory of reproduction), and the process of Natural Selection (which is the same as what I called differential reproductive success).

---

But YOU seem to be focussing on REPRODUCTION, when natural selection
is about SURVIVAL of an individual.If a creature can breed for 10 time periods, but dies after only
4, it will reproduce less than on which survives for 8 time
periods.That's common sense if reproductive rates of the two individuals
are platonic. http://207.36.64.70/ubb/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]IF some genetic trait of one individual allows it to survive
longer, then this selection is based upon an inhertible trait.THAT is natural selection in operation.Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution
takes place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

So I would argue that the description in terms of a process of Natural Selection is without scientific merit. When horses have two variants of teeth, you need to use the theory of mechanical Natural Selection twice. I just don't see any benefit in describing in terms of the process of Natural Selection, over describing in terms of the mechanism of Natural Selection. You would have to show some scientific benefit for adding complexity to a theory, especially since the complexity that is added consists of essentially platonic relationships.

---

There is no added complexity.My opinion (sorry) is that YOU do not understand what you are
arguing.To get a grip on natural selection you need to think at the level
of individuals, and then consider the effect on the species
over a number of generations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

As before, I think it is very problematical to consider physical relationships such as competition and mutual benefit among variants, when there are makeshift comparitive relationships imposed on my view of Nature from the theory of the process of Natural Selection.

---

I also think that by variants you are thinking of SEPARATE species.I'm not entirely sure it would be deemed Natural Selection when
one is considering the competition of two species within the
same environmental niche.Natural Selection is about a SINGLE species, and which individuals
are more suited to the environment in which they live.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To Andy, yes I've posted many reviews on Amazon, and you may find much of the same wording in my reviews there as you can also find in my first post on this thread. By Platonic I mean, not physically affecting each other, (the variants not increasing or decreasing each other's rate of reproduction). The word is also often used for people that love each other but don't have sex.

​

regards,
Mohammd Nor Syamsu

---

The variants don't increase/decrease each others rate of reproduction,
but the variation does.The VARIANTS aren't the parameters/variables of Natural Selection
the VARIATIONS are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
To Peter,
It doesn't make sense to me to focus on survival in stead of reproduction, and then to interpret surviving in terms of reproduction again. You have added an extra word survival, but it gives no extra meaning.

---

No. Natural Selection is about SURVIVAL at the level of the
individual.It is a mechanism for evolution because heritable traits are passed
to offspring via reproduction.I am not interpreting survival in terms of reproduction at all.Reproduction is vital to survival of a SPECIES, not an individual.Natural selection is selection based upon an INDIVIDUAL's ability
to survive. The longer it survives the more chance it has of
successfully breeding, and passing its adaptation/trait on to
subsequent generations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think the theory of the mechanism of Natural Selection should be anchored in the observation that given a feedingdish and some "naked" DNA on it, the DNA will reproduce.

---

DNA is not an organism. Natural selection is targetted at organisms
not at the mechanism of inheritance.Traits cannot be passed on without reproduction, true, but WHICH
traits become fixed in a population depend on how well those
traits allow an individual to survive its environment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To say that the DNA on the dish is surviving until it "can" reproduce (Quetzal), or that it is contributing to populationgrowth (Fischer), or that it is struggling to become an ancestor (Dawkins), or that it is favoured in the struggle for existence (Darwin), are all very peculiar ways to treat reproduction IMO.

---

But if, instead of some DNA, we a bacterium, then it is surviving
until it can reproduce so long as there are chemicals within
the environment which the bacterium can use to produce the
energy it requires to reproduce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Eventhough the word reproduction is in the theory of the mechanism of Natural Selection, I doubt even a small share of Darwinists knows to describe an organism in terms of the event of it's reproduction. I can't find a systematic overview of how to describe organisms in terms of the event of their reproduction anywhere in Darwinist literature.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Reproduction happens.Without it there can be no natural selection, and no evolution.That does NOT mean that natural selection is ABOUT reproduction.Reproduction is the mechanism by which inheritable traits are
passed to subsequent generations.ANY trait can be passed by reproduction, whether beneficial to
a particular environment or not.Natural Selection is the mechanism by which those adaptations which
are NOT beneficial to a particular environment are weeded out.Natural selection works on individual organisms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The definition of the mechanism of Natural Selection is for an individual to reproduce or fail to reproduce. So you are mistaken. It also makes no sense to say NS is about survival because if a creature lives longer it doesn't neccesarily mean that the chances of reproduction goes up. And again, you've also lost the relationship of an organism reproducing, to the special quality of it's DNA being able to reproduce on it's own.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

---

First, here's a link to a certain Charles Darwoin's chapter
on Natural Selection.
http://www.zoo.uib.no/classics/darwin/origin.chap4.htmlWhere did you obtain your definition of Natural Selection stating
that it is about an organism's failure or otherwise to reproduce ?Natural selection is about survival!!!An individual with a trait which benefits it survives longer than
one without that trait.In single celled, asexual organisms this DOES mean that the longer
lived variant will reproduce more.In sexually reproducing organisms we have the added factor of
mate selection ... most often based on some sort of prowess
measure (strongest, best nest building, most colourful (??)
or whatever).Check source for natural selection before you post again, and cite
these please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
The definition is in the talk.origins faq, and in this very thread Quetzal (message 11) says it also, and even you yourself say it more or less. The unit of selection is the individual, the individual reproduces, or doesn't reproduce, to be selected in means to reproduce, to be selected out means not to reproduce.

---

No. To be selected means to survive/thrive. A result of this
is that the surviving individuals can breed (or breed more).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In a stable population the average reproductionrate for each organism would be one.

---

Eh ? Please explain that bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There may be organisms that reproduce more and that produce less then that (don't reproduce), but it is conveniently assumed that this all averages out to one for each, stasis is the rule.

---

Oh, is this still restricting to asexual reproduction ?One is not a clear rate ... what time span are you referring to ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You should consider that you possibly wouldn't have made the mistake you did (that the behaviour of organisms can most basicly be described in terms of staying alive in stead of reproducing)

---

It's not a mistake ... it's nature in action.If reproduction rates of individuals are static, and are not
affected by the reproduction rates of other individuals, then the
only source of differential reproductive rate must be survival.What heritable trait would make one organism reproduce more
than another in the same time span ?With your asexual organisms reproduction rate (by division)
will be roughly equal across individuals. The only way there
can be differential reproductive success in this scenario is
for some individuals to survive longer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

if you had learned in terms of a general theory of reproduction, in stead of differential reproductive success / process of Natural Selection.

---

I've never really heard it referred to as differential reproductive
success ... only as survival of the fittest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

By my experience, I think it is pretty likely you will repeat the same mistake over and over again if you would not adopt a general theory of reproduction, and make any other theories derive from the general theory of reproduction.

---

But Natural Selection is NOT about reproduction!!!!!!!!!Suppose you have a population that, barring starvation of
being killed by another creature, lived forever and did not
reproduce.Over time, and changing environmental conditions, some would
die because they could not survive.This would still be Natural Selection and there is NO
reproduction going on!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

​

This may largely just be semantics, using more straightforward names to describe, but apparently the rules of semantics cannot be ignored.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

You need to try to separate in your mind reproduction and
selection of the fittest individual for the environment.Reproduction is how traits are passed on to subsequent
generations ... and thus how evolution progresses. We cannot
have evolution without reproduction.Natural selection is how environmental factors favour those
traits which provide the best survival prospect. Evolution
will not happen without natural selection, but natural
selection could happen in the absence of reproduction, and
so without evolution.In the scenario I put forward above, given sufficient change
in the environment ALL individuals would die, because survival
traits are not passed on the offspring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
First I would like to say that a formal overview of Natural Selection would leave no doubt whether or not Selection is about reproduction or about survival, so it's a shame that it doesn't exist.

---

True .. although since Darwin coined the phrase I would tend
to start with his description ... effectively survival of the
fittest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

All organisms do actually die, without any exception. I think your illustration with foreverliving beings is therefore false. If we had foreverliving organism maybe we would describe like that, but we don't.

---

Yes, organisms do die ... what I was trying to point out is that
natural selection would still be seen with non-reproducing
individuals in a population.Those that suit the environment would survive, those that didn't
would die ... THAT is natural selection whether they breed or
not.Natural selection only powers evolution if reproduction DOES
occur.Reproduction is the link between natural selection at the level
of the individual and evolution at the level of the
species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

And again, you yourself describe survival in terms of reproduction. It makes no sense that you disagree to describe in terms of reproduction, when you yourself define survival in terms of reproduction (breeding).

---

It's mixing levels that is the problem.When I say natural selection is about survival I mean
survival of the individual.It can only be deemed to be defined in terms of reproduction
if I were referring to survival of at the species level.I'm not ... and neither is the concept of natural selection.Again I would ask how a trait can influence reproductive rates
in asexually reproducing organisms apart from the assumption
that those individuals who live longest produce the most offspring.This is NOT stating survival in terms of reproduction.The inheritance of survivors' traits is not natural selection,
the selection occurred when the parent survived longer than
other individuals in its environment ... not when it
reproduced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

If you had to put a mathematical value on survivalability, it would be exactly the same as the value for reproductive ability, wouldn't it?

---

No. It is entirely possible for an infertile individual to be better
suited to a particular environment than its fertile siblings. In
survival terms it could well be selected for (at the individual
level) but would never yield offspring so its adaptations would
be lost to the species.Again, hypothetical, but I'm just trying different ways of
illustrating why survival of the individual due to traits better
suited to its environment (natural selection) is not actually
about reproduction.Continuance of the species IS about reproduction ... but the
traits which get carried forward are those traits which have
allowed an individual to survive and thrive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

​

BTW you misread my intelligent design post where I assumed evolution did occur

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Sorry I'll be more careful next time!!

I don't have any problem with your posts ... in fact
I quite often look in threads just because I notice
you've posted there.As for Syamsu ... I think he is having touble differentiating
between survival of an individual and survival of a species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Evolution is a change in *reproductive* material of a population,

---

Yes (assuming that by reproductive material you mean genetic
material).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

not survival material.

---

Survival material MUST be genetic traits, and is therefore the
SAME as reproductive material (in an individual).They are genetic materials which can be passed on to subsequent
generations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

If some organism in a population dies, it's already evolution.

---

No its not. Evolution can only happen by passing traits to
offspring. If an organism dies it passes less (or no) genetic
material to future generations ... therefore no evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Populations without reproductive material do not evolve.

---

Populations WITH reproductive material might NOT evolve.Natural Selection is NOT Evolution.Evolution progresses (at the level of the species) only where
variations in a population lead to an increased chance of survival
for some individuals over others.I'll try again::Selection occurs when an organism is better able to survive its
environment.When an organism reproduces selection has already ocurred.
Before the reproduction event.Reproduction allows the beneficial adaptations to be passed to
offspring ... and so powers evolution.With reproduction alone, and no natural selection, there would
be no evolution.BUT there could be reproduction WITHOUT natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think you are right here. My point was to say that evolution can happen within a generation.

---

What do you mean by 'within a generation' ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I don't understand how you can in your first post say that selection denotes the action of the environment on the chances of reproduction, and then defend Peter saying that selection is the action of the environment on the chances of survival/staying alive.

---

This wasn't directed at me, but ....Selection affects the 'Chances of Reproduction'.If you do not survive, your chance of reproduction is NIL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

You say that I confuse the levels, and that's true, I confuse them all the time and have to correct myself all the time. But I don't see how my confusing the levels, relates to my basic question if selection should be defined as acting on the chances of reproduction of an individual, or acting on the chances of survival, or some combination of survival and reproduction.

---

The answer to your question is contained in the phrase
'Chances of reproduction'.The fittest animal in a niche still might NOT breed (maybe
it's really ugly to other's of its kind), but if it survives
longer ... or is the only breeding male/female left, it will
breed.It's fittness for the environment allows it to survive better,
and increases its chance of breeding.Suppose::Any individual within a population can breed once per year.Any individual can breed for 8 years during its life.Some trait exist in some individuals which allow them to live longer
than those without the trait.Those without the trait die before reaching the end of their breeding
life.Result::Those with the trait live for the whole breeding life and
so produce 8 offspring.Those without the trait survive less than their breeding life
and so produce fewer than 8 offspring.There are MORE individuals WITH the trait in generation 2 than in
generation 1.This is repeated for generation 3, etc., etc., ...The ability to survive increases the PROBABILITY of reproduction.That does not mean that natural selection IS reproduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I have not actually seen any reason at all in any of your posts, and of Peter and others, why you use the term survival. I have given several reasons why it is false, or at least deceptive, and I've given a narrowed definition of survival in terms of reproduction, which was rejected.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Consider Artifical Selection (perhaps in dog breeding).The breeder decides on a trait (say coat length) that is desireable.The breeder then selects only those puppies which exhibit longer
coat length, and disposes of the rest (humanely of course ...
perhaps passing them on to others as pets )In order to perpetuate the desireable trait the breeder then
mates pairs of these.Amongst the puppies some have short fur, and are discarded (removed
from the breeding pool) and the process starts over with the new
generation.The SELECTION happens independent of the REPRODUCTION.The TRAIT is SELECTED FOR.Perpetuation of the TRAIT comes about via REPRODUCTION and
is a separate event.If the breeder chooses to stop breeding after 5 generations,
and has all of his remaining animals nuetered ... his population
still shows the SELECTED for trait, but there is no reproduction.Instead of a breeder we have environmental pressures, and instead
if selling off the unwanted we have dieing (sp?) off of the
unfit.Some unfit individuals will still breed, but over time they
will produce fewer and fewer offspring as their numbers
decrease due to Natural Selection.[Added as an afterthought]There are traits which are selected for on aesthetic
grounds.e.g. The peacock with the best tail feathers is more likely
to be accepted by a mate, and so, over time, peacock tails
become more and more splendid.It's another environmental factor determining chance of breeding,
but if splendid tail feathers got you killed young, the females
would still breed with the males that were left.Survival is the key to being selected for.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 06-11-2002]

Viewing competition as a selective pressure I would
have to concede that it IS part of natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I agree, I don't see where the difficulty lies. Syamsu seems to want everyone to phrase the definition the same way. This isn't going to happen. Even if the word we were defining was "consensus" it wouldn't happen.

​

Perhaps we could all agree to use the definition of Natural Selection that's in the glossary. Or a formal definition from some other source. I don't think most of us care how the definition is phrased, so long as the definition is correct.

​

--Percy

---

I would prefer to phrase it as 'Differential chance of reproduction ..'BUT then I would be being as picky as I feel Syamsu is ... so I'd
be happy to work from the glossary definition

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Take Salmon, they reproduce, and then they all die. Your theory of selection on survival clearly doesn't apply here (or does it?).

---

If they ALL die there was no selection ... if some survived
THEN there is selection.The above (your example) illustrates why Natural Selection is
NOT about reproduction, but rather survival.In the above, there no individual has an advantage over another,
so there is no differential reproductive success, and hence
no natural selection (in THAT situation).Natural selection does NOT occur constinuously ... only when
there is a genetic variation within a population that gives
some individuals a survival advantage over others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The ability to survive does not neccesarily increase the probability of reproduction. To say it does is simply false. False and therefore should be discarded, it does not belong in science.

---

The probability of reproduction is greater if you have more time
in which to reproduce.If you live longer than another individual, you have more time,
and so more opportunity to reproduce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In some article I read that was also critical of the lack of rigour in Darwinism (although not on the would-be faults I'm arguing), it pointed out that "science is judgemental". I think that about sums it up.

---

Is the article on-line (or do you have a reference) ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I'm disappointed in the other reactions. Clearly you are being defensive, not even beginning to make arguments in favour of my position.

---

That's because we disagree with you

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

My position is to have a theory of reproduction that is formal, uniformly understood, and focuses on physcial relationships. The new setup is then like this:

​

theory of reproduction=describing individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction

​

selection=for an individual to reproduce or not to reproduce
(realisation of the chance of reproduction of an individual to zero or one)

---

Reproduction does not happen once in a life-time ... unless the
individual involved dies after only one offspring.The 'chance of reproduction' in your post, would have to be
based upon breeding capability.e.g.Organism A, unihindered has a lifespan of Y years, and is
capable of producing O offspring per year.MAX[offpring of A] = O * YThe actual life span of any individual A(i), is Y(i) years.So::Num. Offspring A(i) = O * Y(i)Some individuals are more fit to the environment than others.A(1) lives for 6 years because it can eat green or red berries
A(2) lives for 3 years because it can only eat green berries and they run out.O = 3 offspring per yearA(1) produces 3 * 6 = 18 offspring
A(2) produces 3 * 3 = 9 offspringThere is differential reproductive success between A(1) and
A(2) purely becuase of survival.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To put the focus on physical relationships the formulation of differential reproductive success should largely be discarded. This would be replaced with a number of subset theories to the general theory of reproduction, that describe the physical relationships between individuals in terms of the event of their reproduction. Like competition etc.

​

It is generally understood to be better to have formal and uniformly understood theories that focus on physical relationships. Do I have to argue why this is better then the contrary? I hope not.

---

Natural selection does focus on a physical relationship.The relationship between longevity and breeding potential.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Actually the main reason I argue for this is to sustain the ideal of neutrality in science. The lack of formalcy corresponds with an abundance in making valuejudgements as part of Darwinism, by many "lay" people, but also by the most influential Darwinist scientists themselves in their main works.

---

In what way is natural selection not neutral as a concept ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

In the chapter on evolution in the textbook of the teacher Scopes of the famous monkey trial, it reads that the highest race are the Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and the USA. In other words, all the would be do-gooders on the evolution side were advancing the right of a government to teach racist slop, and have children confirm that racist slop on any test on the subject.

---

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or natural
selection.It has to do with the mis-use of data for political ends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

One of the reasons that this racist slop is in the textbook, is because of the lack of formalcy in the works of the likes of Darwin. Darwin's common sense talk about the races of man encroaching on one another as some kind of ancient law of nature, and his constant use of higher and lower, facillitates these sort of quasi scientific valuejudgements.

---

That's more to do with the values and beliefs of the time, than
anything inherent in the ToE.Bear in mind that the concept of man as superior to other
animals comes from the bible and not from evolutionary theory.Some narrow minded, unsrupulous politicians have used this
fundamentally western world view and extrapolated it onto the races
of man to serve their own ends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

BTW the point about me saying that evolution can happen within a generation, is because John said that evolution only applies on multiple generations.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 06-12-2002]

---

Evolution can only happen to a population over time and a number
of generations.An individual organism cannot be said to evolve ... only
the species to which it belongs.

While I agree that some creatures choose mates based upon characteristics such as tail-feathers or nest building ability
I still think it is most useful to think of natural selection
in terms of survival of the fittest.There are plenty of critters where the selection of a mate is not
based upon any obvious physical chracteristic.A male lion mates with all mature females in the pride ... the
selection happened when the male lion and his friend proved
stronger than the former lead male, and then killed all the
cubs.The fact that the young males survived long enough to do this,
roaming the wilderness hunting together has already proved their
fittness without the presence of females.I'm sure this sort of behaviour is by no means uncommon in the
animal kingdom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Good point.

​

How about "natural selection is the selection of traits that ultimately result in increased likelyhood of reproduction?

​

This includes both survival fitness & mate selection. D. Futuyma describes ns (after some discussion, as "any consistent difference in fitness (ie survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities." (Evolutionary Biology. Third Ed. p349 Douglas J. Futuyma). He goes on to note that heritability is implicit in the definition.

​

Mark

​

---

That'll do me as a definition for NS.