Talk:Natural selection/Archive 003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Statement of resignation

Let me then also explain my reasons for resigning from editing this article.

For the past few days, I have been trying to mediate the discussion between the increasingly entrenched views of different editors here. I sympathise with most of the points raised, and have repeatedly applauded various efforts made in expressing views and trying to achieve consensus. I feel that particularly those editors that have repeatedly made attempts at achieving consensus have been unduly attacked - but I would be repeating myself. Often, all that could be brought against such edits was a destructive criticism of the choice of vocabulary. This is entirely unnecessary, and I would strongly suggest to the admin involved that he reconsider either his role in this discussion or his admin status. Repeated reverts do not lead to progress.

On several occasions, I have restrained myself from editing the article myself in order to not deepen the conflict that exists here. In fact, I have on several occasions copyedited edits that I did not entirely agree with.

Finally, I have been fed up with the repeated unwarranted rudeness inflicted upon myself and others. If we cannot be civil, we should not be pretending to be capable of such a fine cultural achievement as Wikipedia.

Yours gravely,

Samsara contrib talk 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel similarly. I gave up arguing shortly after I nominated the article for SCOW, because I felt overwhelmed by the problems with the article and the stubborness of the editors responsible. I'm glad the article received SCOW status, and it seems to be gradually improving, but I'm also glad I didn't stick around for the bickering. Thanks, Samsara, for all your efforts on this article's behalf. Good luck to those of you sticking around! --Barefootmatt 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're all referring to the reversions of Macrosantezana's efforts, frankly, his/her prose is extremely bad, and I agree with the reversions. The level of bickering on this talk page is minimal. If you think this is heated, you ain't seen nothin'. I think you're overreacting. Also, I'm not sure where you detect rudeness, Samsara. This is a minor tiff at best, and suggesting that SLR needs to abandon his admin status (?) is out of all proportion. Graft 06:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I am going to make a serious attempt in the weekend, by generating a version in the sanbox of my own user pages. I would appreciate the input of you on that. --KimvdLinde 01:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


RfC

To all editors: As a neutral outsider, I have been asked to look at this page and as a result, I believe that an RfC would be beneficial to bring some fresh eyes to the ongoing dispute about the introduction. Thus the follow has been posted. Please add information about the two (or more) sides of the dispute in a good faith attempt at a resolution. I sincerely hope the issues can be resolved.pschemp | talk 06:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Lisited at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Users should only edit one position or view other than to endorse.

  • Can you post links to the most relevant versions from the edit history in the dispute section? Thatcher131 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Various users have spent a great deal of time discussing the fine points of the wording and meaning of the Introduction. Very little true progress has been made, and edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. While civility has been maintained for the most part, it appears that the editors involved are less and less willing to collaborate. An outside view into the issue would be beneficial for all involved, particularly as the stress levels of the editors appears to be rising.

Position 1

Natural Selection is a principle or theory that explains how characteristics which increase reproductive success become more common in a population. It is the selection of favourable characteristics resulting from the selection of fit individuals and inheritance.

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

Position 2

Natural Selection is the selection stage in the evolution process, a stage required for adaptive evolution. Darwin uses 'Natural Selection' synecdochically to represent the whole process, but the underlying meaning is the selection of fit individuals. In this defintion Natural Selection is equivalent to 'selection' and occurs regardless of whether charactertics are heritable.


Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

"In this defintion Natural Selection is equivalent to 'selection' and occurs regardless of whether charactertics are heritable."

That is absurd. Selection cannot act on characters that are not heritable. A review of high school biology may be in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.48.172 (talk • contribs).

Evidence for Position 1

  • DARWIN - Origin of Species
But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.
  • ENDLER - Natural Selection in the Wild (1986)
Natural selection is a process that results from biological differences among individuals, and which may give rise to cumulative genetic change or evolution, but does not guarantee it. The process is derived from a syllogism; given three conditions for natural selection (a, variation; b, fitness differences; c, inheritance), two conclusions necessarily follow: (1) differences in trait distributions among age classes or life history stages; and (2) if the populations is not at equilibrium, a predictable difference among generations. By the nature of its defintion, natural selection can be broken down into various components, either by separation into alternative (sexual and non-sexual selection) or sequential subprocesses (phenotypic selection and genetic response).

The following extracts from Wikipedia appear to have been prepared independently by different authors:

  • WIKIPEDIA - Evolution
Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.
  • WIKIPEDIA - Survival of the fittest
Natural selection does not simply mean that "survivors survive"; rather, it means that "survivors survive, reproduce, and therefore propagate the traits which allowed them to survive and reproduce". Propagation is the interesting fact; differential survival and reproduction (that is, differential fitness) is the purported cause of this fact. In this more accurate formulation, the tautology disappears, leaving way to a legitimate deduction based on the testable assumptions of variation, heritability and differential survival and reproduction. This whole mechanism is what is understood by the term "natural selection".
  • WIKIPEDIA - Evolutionary Psychology
Natural selection involves three main ingredients. Variation : refers to a state in which there exists a variety of traits within a population. Heritability : refers to those traits that can be inherited via reproduction. Selection : refers to those heritable traits that remain in and spread through a population because those traits ultimately aid the organism in survival or reproduction.
  • WIKIPEDIA - Genetic Drift
Natural selection describes the tendency of beneficial alleles to become more common over time (and detrimental ones less common).

To be completed.

Evidence for Position 2

  • DARWIN - Origin of Species
But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

no more synecdoche, i apologize. let's read this thing again: "if variations useful [...] do occur" ... "individuals thus characterised"[... will be] "preserved in the struggle for life". read: will survive.

"This principle of *preservation* I have called[...] Natural Selection" [my emphasis].

the guy couldn't be that stupid and he wasn't. initially i didn't care about reading carefully the passage since it was so wrong what it was purported to say. and wrong it was, but not what darwin wrote but rather the reading made of him by people who obviously do not know how to read victorian english.

again: variations useful to you (read: that make you function better) increase your chance of surviving. who survives has been naturally selected. period. the inheritance thing is separated by a semicolon. know anything about punctuation?

what is saddest here, however, is the biblico-exegetico-literalist attitude of too many: e.g. if darwin wrote it, even if patently obfuscating and wrong, it must be right. Unfortunately this does not bode well for wiki since scientists produce tons of garbage even when their texts are read correctly. wiki should be an instance in which one makes sense or dies regardless of one’s medals, not a place in which supine exegetes display their ability to embrace and rationalize any idiocy as long as it is backed by some monumental philopautic oeuvre.

since when does it make sense to use the same word for a cause and its (sometimes) result ? can anybody profit from such a disorderly verbalization?

since when it is good for anything to say that A=B but A is not always equal B? ("natural selection is the same as evolution by natural selection but curiously natural selection not always results in evolution by natural selection" [sic]). this stuff is truly only for very insightful minds, indeed.

p.s. note the laughable circularity of the wiki entry to debunk circularity. with defenders of evolution like these who needs creationists.  :( Marcosantezana 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

I think the solution is not this slow pace edit war. I tried to read both versions, and I find them both unclear. In general, it can be much more concise, and I think it should be getting more to the point. In my opinion, there should be a short intro, first defining what it is, then briefly summarizing history, current usages and whatever is essential. After that, the several points can be elaborated, without being overly long. I suggest to develop the page in the sandbox, not in the actuall version. --KimvdLinde 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

Discussion

Discussion should be posted here. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted here, rather than in the above sections.

I think it is important to use the word as nowadays is used, and make the difference with the past clear under history. --KimvdLinde 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the two positions, as they are composite issues, and not excluding each other.

From 1: Natural Selection is a principle or theory that explains how characteristics which increase reproductive success become more common in a population. From 2 fits with that: Natural Selection is the selection stage in the evolution process, a stage required for adaptive evolution. Combined: Natural Selection is the selection stage in the evolution process and this mechanism explains how characteristics which increase reproductive success become more common in a population, resulting in adaptive evolution. Natural selection acts on the phenotype of individuals, in which the individuals of the same species can be part of the selective process by competing for food, or so. In that sense, survival of the fittest is a pretty decent term to use.

From 1: As Darwin does not use the word 'evolution', 'Natural Selection' is synonymous with and shorthand for 'evolution by Natural Selection'. From 2: Darwin uses 'Natural Selection' synecdochically to represent the whole process, but the underlying meaning is the selection of fit individuals. See no conflict here.

From 1: It is the selection of favourable characteristics resulting from the differential reproduction of individuals and inheritance. From 2: In this defintion Natural Selection occurs regardless of whether charactertics are heritable. Combined: Natural selection acts on the phenotype of the individuals, but is only effective in selecting for favorable characteristics when the relevant phenotypic variation is based on underlying additive genetic variation.

--KimvdLinde 05:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with KimvdLinde. Marcosantazena, if position 2 is your position, let me applaud you for finally putting it into graceful and clear English. It seems to me that positions one and two are not mutually exclusive and can be merged into a satisfying third position. Beyond that I have one comment/suggestion for Marco: it may be more constructive if all of us assume that aside from a plain meaning that stays very close to the way Darwin used the term, or that most evolutionary scientists today would accept, there are in addition a variety of interpretations or analyses of "natural selection" from a variety of perspectives (e.g. zooligist, geneticist, philosopher of science). If this is the case, it may be impossible to combine them all into one intelligible paragraph or even two or three paragraphs that introduce the article as a whole. However, it would be very easy (and sensible) to review these different views in the body of the article. One model for this could be the Race article which is organized in a way that presents very different definitions/understandings of race. Marco, I think your understanding of natural selection is ideosyncratic - but that does not mean it is not valid. Could you summarize the view - or different views - you are trying to represent, and present them not as "the" definition of "natural selection" but rather as one (or two, or three) views of evolution, and identify whose views they are and provide verifiable sources? This would be a way to include content that seems to be important to you, without continuing the edit-war. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

it has to makes sense. forget the holy texts (but if you cannot live without celestial endorsement look in futuyma's "evolutionary biology", a textbook for advanced graduate students that is used to train practically every evol.bio. phd student in the usa and often in europe too; it was praised by r.c. lewontin and s.j. gould as the best such book on evolutionary biology; and if you need the best conceptual dissection then it's elliot sober's book "the nature of selection").

but the following example requires only that you use your brain and common sense:

those gazelles that run faster than others get to survive for additional breeding seasons *because* they run faster and escape better from predators (<-- causation of fitness difference)

and thus end up reproducing more than the other, slower gazelles (<-- elicited fitness difference).

what causes the enhanced reproduction is *described* as selection, but the reality is that differential relative function (i.e. relative to the functioning of others) results in differential reproduction.

there is no more to "selection" than this: functionality differences between "units of selection" end up causing differences in the reproductive output of the units, where the causation of fitness differences points to what the relevant units are. all other stuff about evolution, history, etc, is important but in an article about "selection" should be subordinate to the description of the process itself. Marcosantezana 14:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I think Marcosantazena and I at least agree that there are two positions that are not equivalent. Maybe Slrubenstein is right in that one is preferred by evolutionary biologists and another by philosophers of science. Dictionary.com seems to attempt to fudge both positons together:
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
The debate we are having here is similar to Elliott Sober's "selection of" and "selection for" distinction in his book "The Nature of Selection" and what is meant by the phrase 'unit of selection'.
  • I think we all understand the entity which survives or not, which reproduces not, which is "visible" to nature as the object of selection, the entity which has a one-off existence: it is the individual, the phenotype (or at a higher level a tribe).
  • But 'unit of selection' can also be understood in terms of the entity which persists, the entity which can be copied, which can become more or less frequent in a population, the entity that is responsible for fitness differences. This is the entity nature "selects for" over generations: it is a characteristic, a trait or a gene. — Axel147 14:43, 04 March 2006 (UTC)


Just to emphasise yet again we are defining Natural Selection not selection and where I disagree with Marcosantazena and KimvdLinde is that I believe the 2 are different! — Axel147 15:03, 04 March 2006 (UTC)


I think we have to be carefull to make an encyclopedic article based on what Darwin exactly said almost 150 years ago. Darwins ideas have evolved into Neodarwinian ideas, into the Modern synthesis, etc. We as evolutionary biologist do not use the exact defintion of Darwin anymore. Futuyma's book is indeed one of the more used books, and a good basic book when it come to this. Furthermore, even as there are slight differences in how it excatly is used by many researchers, the similarities are so high that it should not pose a problem for this article. Same for the unit of selection. There are some exceptions where you can argue that the unit is different, but in general the unit of selecion is the individual. An individual lives, reproduces and dies.
Axel147, we have discussed a bit more on our different ideas, and as I said before, I have the feeling our ideas are not as different as you think.
I think that the first is to decide whether this is a article about the historic meaning of natural selection, or the current meaning, or that we use the current meaning and devote a nice piece describing how the ideas have changed over time with increased insight. In the two earlier cases, I would suggest to make actually two articles, the historic and modern meaning separate, but I think combining them is much nicer.
I have the feeling that we maybe best start with either someone making a full sandbox version (a person who has not yet edited in this particular article, but knows NS), or build it up over the course of several weeks, starting first with outline (which sections etc.), write intro, etc such that it in reasonable pieces so that the discussions are limited to clear pieces of the text, and not 25 discussions about different pieces all the time (would drive me crazy). I realise that it would take several weeks before we would have a good version, but I would prefer that with a clear and constructive discussion over the chaos that otherwise might occur.--KimvdLinde 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with KimvdLinde once again and believe that position 1 is the most universally accepted definition today. Of course I agree that both postions are in use, but evolutionary biologists do not own the defintion. There are 327,000 Google hits for "theory of natural selection" which doesn't prove much in itself but it is fair to say that Natural Selection is very widely understood in today's language to be a theory that embraces selection and inheritance. Of course language evolves but maybe it has done so independently in the world of evolutionary biologists and in common usage: perhaps we have 2 species and we may have to disambiguate by pointing people to articles entitled 'selection' and 'the theory of natural selection'. — Axel147 16:25, 04 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I go by how we use it in daily practise when I and my collegues do research on how species, traits, etc have evolved and are evolving. The Theory of Natural Selection is a very important aspect of evolutionary research nowadays. Natural selection (which acts on phenotypes) only has a selective effect when the trait that is selected for is heritable in the individuals that survive to the next reproducing generation. So, for natural selection to be effective, heritable genetic information needs to be present. The linkage of heritable information with natural selection is a logical one, but heritable information is only a prerequisite for natural selection to have an effect on a trait in the next generation. So, the definitons used there are ok under some implicite assuptions they do not express (and are beyond the scope of an dictionary, but not of an encyclopedia. --KimvdLinde 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
KimvdLinde (or anyone else), please could you say whether you agree with the definition in Dictionary.com. Thanks. — Axel147 17:15, 04 March 2006 (UTC)
There are four different definitions there, and they all do pretty much the same, they define the process by explaining the result that the process has (under some unmentioned assumptions). The result is not the process itself, but some things are easier defined by the end result than the exact details of how the process works. The major trouble with NatSel is that there are so many mechanisms by which natsel results in better adapted individuals that it can not be done with a single mechanism. Take for example fecundity. In some cases, a increase in fecundity leads to a higher inclusive fittness (that is roughly equal to the number of grandchildren), but in other cases, it is detrimental, for example in cases of extensive broodcare when the parents can not find enough fod for that extra mouth. We have very nice systems in birds where we can see that the fecundity the next year goes up after a good summer and down the year after a bad summer. --KimvdLinde 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think it is a bit ridiculous for KimvdLinde to say that the Dictionary.com defintitions are ok as long as one bears in mind some 'unmentioned assumptions'. I think it is possible to encapsulate the meaning in a short defintion. After all, we have more or less done this here. I perfectly understand what she is saying but I don't think hers is the main usage (outside evolutionary biologists and their textbooks at least). So I think I would it would be a serious omission if this encyclopedia did not make reference to position 1 as a current defintion.
I appreciate that it may be difficult for some specialists who use the term on a day-to-day basis to accept there may be a subtly different widely accepted alternative. But that doesn't make either definiton 'right'. Position 1 is not 'wrong', or 'old' or inconsisentent with modern thinking: it is perfectly reasonably position which focuses on what is "selected for" over generations rather than the object of selection in a single generation. — Axel147 16:20, 05 March 2006 (UTC)
So, what you way is that an encyclopedia should reflect the popular notion of things, not the scientific? --KimvdLinde 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think an encyclopedia should reflect all mainstream notions by disambiguating where necessary. But as I've said I don't think it's right to label position 1 as 'unscientific'. I think you are a little on the fence here: at least Marcosantezana agrees all the other defintions are 'wrong' and should be changed. — Axel147 15:59, 04 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that an encyclopedic article should deal with all major usages of definition, and clarify which is the correct one, which have been used in the past, which are used nowadays, and why and how the usages of the term has changed. --KimvdLinde 02:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What a joke

I am sorry, for the past days, I have been following the edit war that is going forever. It is a joke. This will not solve anything. It will be going back and forth between two versions, till someone gives up. --KimvdLinde 16:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

At least we're having debate now! — Axel147 15:45, 04 March 2006 (UTC)
there is no debate. we are a point in which some are arguing that the scientific usage of a scientific term has lower priority than the average joe's usage. this is fully against the esprit of wiki, which is to provide reliable knowledge rather than to give people what they already know even when it is wrong and obfuscating. what is more, the scientific usage has become what it is, not because scientists are geniouses etc etc, but rather because it allows one to grasp correctly the true workings and causal relationships of the process (i.e. how reality works) and to avoid common misunderstandings. Marcosantezana 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe I have noticed any difference in our understanding of the way evolution and natural selection operate: what we are debating, like it or not, is the use of words.
I think that Darwin probably used the phrase synecdochically as Marcosantezana suggested, with both meanings, and that those meanings have passed down to current day usage. In any case I am not sure it is helpful to characterise the distinction as one position held by laypeople and the other position held by scientists. I myself am a scientist though not an evolutionary biologist.
I am probably a bit outnumbered here in that people who dedicate time to Wikipedia entries tend to specialists. So in the event of dispute the view that persists is likely to be the position favoured by specialists. This may be reasonable enough. But we must not forgot one of the objectives of Wikipedia is to make the topic accessible to the layperson.
Of course I agree that a common clear defintion would be better particularly for people who find this more difficult to grasp and for creationists who are often predisposed to misunderstanding it.
I understand that the reason for Marcosantezana position is to make a clear distinction between the selection process and the results of selection. And I respect that argument (even if I do not respect the way he is putting it).
I prefer to emphasize the increase or decrease in frequency of characterics over generations, which I believe is part of the defintion not something that arises out the definition when it is combined with inheritance.
But this is not about what defintions we would like. It is about definitions that exist right now and unfortunately there seem to be two. Let's not try to disguise that by merging them into a single definition: a single clear defintion, or 2 separate defintions would, in my view, be far preferable to an attempt to merge two positions into one.
In fact I could quite happily live with Marcos' definition (with acceptable phrasing) but only if we change all those other defintions in Wikipedia to achieve consistency. Surely the definitions of natural selection in articles for survival of the fittest, evolutionary psychology, evolution (which look like they have been created independently by different authors) would need to be changed along with the defintion in Dictionary.com and other dictonaries too, unless we simply accept that there is more than one defintion? — Axel147 21:29, 04 March 2006 (UTC)
I have the tendency to search first for the similarities before dealing with the differences, and to be honest, I do not really see that much differences here. I agree with Marcosantezana that we have to strive to a article that is up to par with the current day understanding of the process. On the otherhand, I want it to be as good as possible understandable for lay people as well, and I have always my own mother in mind whe writing something for the general public (who has only done elementry and tradeschool, but is not stupid). I think we should set the standards high, and that is this is going to become a featured article, and that requires a very good understanding of the matter, being capable of writing it such that it is easy understandable, consise, not to long but not missing either and to the point. I think that if we write a very good article on natural selection, and provide a good understandable definition, the other articles are perfectly willing to take that definition over. (and I would not hesitate to contribute to those articles as well on this point)
On being outnumbered, there have been encouragements posted recently in Evolutionary biology lists to contribute, so that could result in more specilists to show up (I came before that independently). See also http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438890a.html. However, I am not here to win a vote, contest or battle, I am here to improve the quality of wikipedia, and as such, the more opinions, the better it can become. Based on what I have read untill now on the opinions of the editors of this article, I believe that consensus is possible, and actually will result in a better readable and understandable article!
As for the definition, I think the two above definitions are partial defnitions, highlighting a part of the total defintion. As such, I think the total defintion will be clearer than either of the partial versions.
As for my objections to both of the current alternating versions, the main issue is that they are difficult to read. They are not readable or understandable for laypeople. To explain this concept, it will require some hard thinking. I am willing to do my piece, but I am not going to participate in an endless edit war without discssion. --KimvdLinde 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

use this example. it introduces the causation of fitness differences, which is the crucial concept of selection and which once nailed clarifies everything else and blocks common misunderstandings.

gazelles that run faster than others get to survive for additional breeding seasons because their running faster allows them to escape better from predators year after year (<-- ultimate cause of relative fitness difference)

these gazelles therefore end up reproducing more than the other, slower gazelles (<-- elicited relative fitness difference) and this happens for a non-random reason.

the processes involved in causing the enhanced reproduction of some and the reduced reproduction of others are *described* as selection by nature, but what really happens is that differential relative function (i.e. one's functionality relative to that of others) ultimately results in differential reproduction. Marcosantezana 23:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

fully right, axel. i'll clean up the other definitions and you guys can work at rephrasing my stuff to make it more readable without damaging the content. note that historical things should be less name-dropping and more descriptive, that's why i chose "geological change" over "uniformitarianism". also since it is the intro of the nat.sel article, mentionings of evolution should be included mainly with the goal of making points about selection and its role/significance. otherwise one should use links. Marcosantezana 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Marco, I do not think we differ on what NatSel is, how it works, and what the results are. The reason I am not editing anything at the moment is that I am just going to contribute to the edit war, and I pass on that. I rather let the alternating pages as they are than to contribute to the slow pace edit war, even if I could improve the aricle, because as soon as I have submitted it, it gets reverted to the other version, and my edits just become part of the bigger play. Nobody is reading each others edits anymore at the moment, they look at it, see it is roughly the same old version they have reverted last time, and do it again. If I am going to become actively involved in writing, it will be a sandbox version, that is build up slowly (section by section, paragraph by paragraph) with contructive discussion, and good text editing. --KimvdLinde 00:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Some sources to look at for inspiration

From the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences:

--Rikurzhen 05:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for lead paragraph

Ok, lets be constructive. I have written a new lead paragraph, no idea how it will be recieved.

  • Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype (e.g. the outward form determined by genes, environment and interactions between them), but only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation, and the frequency of those traits will increase in subsequent generations. The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species". The underlying genetic variation in traits is the result of genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations. Together, they result in evolution, which is a corner stone of modern biological and medical research. See new version below.

I have added to it:

  • NatSel is a process.
  • The result is change in traits.
  • NatSel works on the individual (aka phenotype).
  • Introduction of the term by Darwin.
  • Cause of genetric variation.
  • Combined effect: evolution.
  • Importance nowadays.

Any opinions? --KimvdLinde 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Rewrote somewhat. --KimvdLinde 05:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC) and again --KimvdLinde 05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks useful to me. I've tried to clarify some points, taking the description at IIA here into account. Note that trait needed disambiguation, and survive links to an irrelevant page.
  • Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess traits favoured by the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype) in interaction with the environment. The underlying genetic variation in traits comes from genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation, and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations, gradually resulting in the evolution of new forms adapted to the environment. This is a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research.
  • The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer choosing variations of characteristics he desires for breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.
Hope this helps with a way forward. ...dave souza, talk 10:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok in trying to be constructive, I think this has lost 2 points where Marcosantezana and I agree. i) Evolution can occur without natural selection as a result of genetic drift. ii) The possibility characteristics become common in a population due reproduction of a 'relative'. The analogy with "artificial selection" seems to me to support postion 1: it is the "selection for" some characteristic, over generations, rather that a one-off selection stage. — Axel147 16:51, 05 March 2006 (UTC)

Axel, I do not see those points in the current intro paragraph. Kin selection is a special form of natural selection (having a trait to help your genes to survive better), which I think should be mentioned (as needs the Selfish gene concept), but not in the intro paragraph. Evolution by other mechanisms is indeed important, but I think if we make clear that this is not the only way evolution can take place, it will be sufficient (the evolution article can deal with those, or we can mention it in the more extensive description later)
It was there, the reference to 'related individuals'. Darwin does not exclude it in his simple definiton by asking which individuals have 'the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?'. I don't think we should either. — Axel147 19:50, 05 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave, have added some of your ideas, left the first sentence as is, because it would explicitly exclude sexual selection. At the same line, NatSet can be stabilizing, and as such, evolution not always result in new forms. And funcky enough, the phenotype can be determined by only environmental variation, without genetic variation or interaction (basically, just pertubations).
Marco (at my talk page), I tried to clarify the issue with the mutation selection balance wich I think is important to address.
NatSel in absence of mutations leads to increased frequencies of heritable traits. Mutations in absence of NatSel lead to increased random variation. Together, it depends on the balance between the two.
New proposal:
Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype), the environment and the interaction between them. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations. The underlying genetic variation in traits is the result of genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations, and can undo the effect of natural selection if strong enough relative to the effect of natural selection. These two processes, together with other mechanisms such as drift, are important components of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research.
The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer choosing variations of characteristics he desires for breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.
I am getting more confident that we are going somewhere. --KimvdLinde 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point about sexual selection, which of course Darwin set out later in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. The link survive seems to be to some game, so presumably a new page, perhaps survive (biology), is needed. ...dave souza, talk 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and I think in the main text we have to mention that in more detail, but here it will do. I think we just should drop survive as a link, I just linked some logical terms, had not yet checked them and unamighued and unredirected them. --KimvdLinde 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All, I have softened the defintion in postion 1 in the hope of making it more palatable. My original reason for saying 1 is synonymous with 'evolution by natural selection' was to emphasise that we are dealing with 2 different views, both of which have been expressed in the history of this natural selection article and which remain in the current version. However on reflection it could reasonably be argued that 'evolution by natural selection' includes other ingredients such as the source of variability. I did not intend to imply that this (mutation) fell inside the defintion of position 1 so I have removed this part to avoid confusion.

The essential difference still remains: position 1 is the "selection for" characteristics resulting from the "selection of" fit individuals and inheritance; whereas position 2 is the "selection of" fit individuals. I believe we must represent all mainstream positions (even if we identify some as common misunderstandings) in this encyclopedia. — Axel147 19:50, 05 March 2006 (UTC)

The way you are saying it now makes position 2 a part of position 1, unless position 2 implies that selection of individuals does not result in selection for characteristics.
The question I have for you is whether you insist we deal with popular definitions directly in the first general intro paragraph of the article, or that we deal with it in a seperate paragraph a little bit later (in the ==Overview== section I would say). I personally think we have to address these issues but incorrect popular usage does not trump the correct scientific usage. If you do that, you better refrain from calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia, as at that time it becomes a collection of popular consensus articles, irrespective of their actuall validity (and in that context, we should include supernatural powers in evolution as most people in the US belief there is at least a theistic component to evolution).
Furthermore, it is not my intention to make this a article on evolution by natural selection, but for natural selection to work, the prerequisite of genetic variation, and the generation of new genetic variation needs to be mentioned. However, I do not intent to duplicate the evolution article here, and my focus is at NatSel. However, the intro paragraph needs to set the context of the term for people to understand how it relates to other aspects of evolution; otherwise, it is just a naked term. --KimvdLinde 21:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, positon 2 is contained within position 1. The debate is whether natural selection is just the selection of fit individuals or whether it is more than that. The reason I am persisting is not just that position 1 is a widely accepted current day defintion, but it is the position of Darwin. I have compiled the following abridged extracts in the hope of convincing you that Darwin intended the term Natural Selection in a wider sense:

  • I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection.
  • And in two countries very differently circumstanced, individuals of the same species, having slightly different constitutions or structure, would often succeed better in the one country than in the other, and thus by a process of 'natural selection,' two sub-breeds might be formed. That natural selection will always act with extreme slowness, I fully admit.
  • Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications.
  • It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.
  • On the other hand, I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, often only at long intervals of time, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time. I further believe, that this very slow, intermittent action of natural selection accords perfectly well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of this world have changed.
  • Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection.
  • Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure. Natural selection may perfectly well succeed in largely developing any organ.
  • Natural selection will then accumulate all profitable variations, however slight, until they become plainly developed and appreciable by us.

— Axel147 21:25, 05 March 2006 (UTC)

Axel, I think I see your point. I have two ways of approaching this. First is to make the analogous comparison with artificial selection. If I do an artificial selection experiment, and I get no response over 10 generation, what do you call that?. I would still call that artificial selection, because I selected for a specific type of individuals, with your idea, you would not call that artificial selection, as it did not result in selection of the characteristic. Am I right about this? The second way is to go to the quantitative genetics theory which says that the response to selection (R) is the result of the heritability (h2) times the selection differential (S) combined: R = h2*S. When h2 goes to zero, R goes to zero. What you say is that it is natural selection as long as there is a response, but as soon as it disappears because h2 = 0, it is not anymore. As such, depending on the outcome of exactly the same mechanism, the process is called differently. And out of curiosity, how would you call it when it is not NatSel because of the lack of a response to that mechanism?
I agree with you that Darwins text can be intepreted as including the response as an essential text, although I can read many of your quoted pieces also as trying to explain NatSel by using its results. --KimvdLinde 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Minor tweek:

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype), the environment and the interaction between them. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations. The underlying genetic variation in traits is the result of genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations, and can undo the effect of natural selection if strong enough relative to the effect of natural selection. Natural selection, together with other mechanisms such as genetic drift and mutations, is an important component of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research.
The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer choosing variations of characteristics he desires for breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.

--KimvdLinde 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Well I am glad you are starting to see my point. I agree that some of these can be read either way because one view is just an extension of the other. But take another look at this one:

I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time.'

It is surely impossible to reconcile this with position 2. Now that does not make position 2 'wrong' if it is widely used. But, if what you and Marcosantezana say is true, we must conclude that the definition used in modern evolutionary biology is different from the way Darwin used the phrase. I am keen the article should not dilute or misrepresent Darwin's idea. — Axel147 14:15, 06 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I posed a question above, could you answer that one? Second, if you insist on an article based on Charles Darwins definition, I wil go and make another article dealing with the modern usage of the term (Scientific usage of Natural Selection). I am here to make an encyclopedia worthy in 2006 based on our CURRENT understanding of topics, not a version worthy of the 1800's based on the THEN understanding of topics. --KimvdLinde 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To KimvdLinde. My answers to earlier points:

  • In a dictionary or encyclopedia the only criterion for inclusion should be that a position is widely held. There is no right and wrong and the role of an encyclopeida is not to be judgemental. One position should not attempt to trump another. Much as I disagree with it, if there is a widely held view of natural selection that embraces creationism (and is different from views already expressed) I think it should be included and the community it represents clearly identified. However the positions being debated here are very close (hence the relunctance to disambiguate) and both are scientific views. Perhaps the distinction is classic Darwinism vs. modern evolution biology?
  • I think Darwin's main point is that Natural Selection has the capacity to preserve 'favourable' characteristics, that in principle this could happen, that there is a tendency for this. However if you look at the last quote, Darwin says he believes natural selection will act 'on only a very few of the habitants' . Yes Darwin is talking about response. So in the absence of 'response' it is just blind non-adaptive evolution, not natural selection.
  • The reason I am persisting is that a lot people associate Darwin with 'natural selection' by iteslf rather than 'evolution by natural selection'. This is quite reasonable as Darwin does not refer to 'evolution'. They consult this article to find out what it is about. In Darwin's usage the phrase encapsulates the essence of adaptive evolution: the preservation of favourable characteristics. There is a real risk that if people come away without this CURRENT DAY understanding of 'natural selection' the whole concept is diluted and the main point is missed. What is profound is not differential reproduction by itself: it is that over generations this leads to an increase in frequency of good characteristics. Darwin very much meant that as part of his defintion of 'natural selection' and it is dangerous not to say so here.

— Axel147 17:22, 06 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you want this to be about Darwins definition, I wish you good luck with that. In that case, I will retreat and start an article using the modern definition of the term including highlighting the change in usage over time from Darwin to now. I have repeatedly indicated that the change in usage of the term, and as such also Darwins usage, should be included in the article but under the header historical usages, and as it is such a prominent idea, with its own subheader. That will make it possible for people know what Darwin was meaning, and how the term is used nowadays. It also will provide students etc with an accurate understanding of the term when they would use this as a complement to their education. Insisting on Darwins definition as the prime deinition to use will require teachers to correct the students, and that can not be the purpose of this article. --KimvdLinde 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcosantezana proposal

Marcosantezana proposes the following arternative:

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms endowed with favourable traits come to reproduce more than those displaying less favourable traits. Natural selection evaluates the performance of organisms in the struggle for existence as determined by each individual's phenotype (traits) and by the way these differ from those of other individuals. When traits favored by natural selection are heritable, their frequency will tend to increase over the generations resulting in adaptive evolution. Natural selection is the force driving the evolution of adaptive organismic characteristics, can let populations become different from each other until they become different species, and is a central organizing concept of modern biological research.
The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book The Origin of Species, in analogy to how farmers select individuals that display desirable characteristics in the hope of improving crops or live stock (see artificial selection).

I have serious problem with this text for the following reasons:

  • It is at various places incorrect English Example: individuals [...] come to reproduce. Individuals do not come to reproduce, they just do.
  • By writing Natural selection evaluates the performance of organisms, it suggests an entity (as the farmer in artificial selection) who judges the performence of the individuals in front of him/her. The venue that s/he uses to evaluate the individuals is the struggle for existence, as if nature is sitting at the site as a jury observing the performace of ths indiviuals, and than makes a decision. Along the same line, endowed includes an action by an actor.
  • Natural selection not only leads to differential reproduction, but also to differential survival. (Which a anonymous editor changed with the edit summary: Read a biology book!)

Because of these arguments, I have reverted the text. Could you be so kind to contribute here at the talk page on this lead section, that would be appreciated. --KimvdLinde 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First section proposal

I think this is an important section that is needed to remove confusion about how the term is used:

Changed usage of the term natural selection
Although most people have a rough idea what the term natural selection encompasses, the definition of the term has changed over time. Charles Darwin used the term in a wide sense, which is equivalent to Evolution by Natural Selection. At that time, other mechanisms of evolution, such as Evolution by Genetic Drift were unknown, and natural selection was essentially used as a synonym for evolution. Over time, the definition of natural selection has been refined, and scientists nowadays use the term primarily to describe the mechanism of natural selection. In popular usage, however, the term is still frequently used as a synonym for Evolution by Natural Selection. This article focuses on the current scientific usage of the term.

Comments? --KimvdLinde 20:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Darwin held natural selection and sexual selection to be different processes, but both cause evolutionary change. How can NS and evolution be virtually synonymous according to him? Pete.Hurd 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In chapter 4, he starts with SS as specific version of NS, and than uses them as two different things. So, I do not think he was that clear about it in the first place. Maybe he makes a better distinction later. Anyway, I think the Sexual selection intro deals with it in a good way, and as such, I would prefer to do the same here. --KimvdLinde 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New version, just slight changes and a new paragraph:

Clarifying the term natural selection
Although most people have a rough idea what the term natural selection encompasses, the definition of the term has changed over time. Charles Darwin used the term in a wide sense, which is equivalent to the current usage of Evolution by Natural Selection. In Darwin's time, other mechanisms of evolution, such as Evolution by Genetic Drift were unknown, and natural selection was essentially a synonym for evolution. Over time, the definition of natural selection has been refined, and scientists nowadays use the term primarily to describe the mechanism of natural selection. In popular usage, however, the term is still frequently used as a synonym for Evolution by Natural Selection. This article focuses on the current scientific usage of the term.
Natural selection includes all versions of selection of a natural agent, including sexual selection and kin selection. Sometimes, sexual selection is singled out from natural selection, but the proper way is to distinguish sexual selection from ecological selection. Along the same line, natural selection is sometimes subdivided in biotic and abiotic selection.

--KimvdLinde 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be that I've worked with people outside of the mainstream, but it's always been my sense that sexual selection is not thought of as a type of natural selection by the people who work in that field. Pete.Hurd 03:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, there are people who promote sexual selection as something different as natural selection. The question is whether we should do that here as well, and I asked some collegues yesterday on this to get a feela bout what they were thinking, and the response here was of course it is NatSel. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Axel's book review

I started to doubt myself. Maybe KimvdLinde was right? Maybe Darwin's defintion emphasising increase in frequency of good characteristics is no longer in use. Maybe it's not mainstream, and maybe Dictionary.com has not got it quite right.

I returned home to London from Toronto, and went to the largest bookstore on Oxford St. I found myself in the basement surrounded by science books, biology books. Would there be any concesus? Would the defintions be limited to differential reproduction or would they go further? I had a sneaky look at Darwin to reassure myself he was talking about a response.

A dictionary of science: 'a process by which, according to Darwin, new species can evolve'. Too generic so I needed more. I looked at genetics books, books on evolution, biology text books, dictionaries of science, of biology, of zoology. And only 2 books out of the 20 I consulted defined natural selection as pure and simple differential reproduction. One went out of its way to try distinguish selection from the outcome of selection but the rest did not. Some talked about a wider theory, 'a process, that according Darwinism that results in the evolution new species...' but nearly all the rest mentioned in one form or another propagation of good genes, heritable traits, change in gene or allele frequency in a population. All of these alluded to inheritance as part of the defintion and the build up of favourable heritable traits over generations, and many defined natural selection in terms of this build up. Dictionary.com is not wrong after all. Phew! — Axel147 15:11, 08 March 2006 (UTC)

Axel, what is different from that with what I am saying? --KimvdLinde 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
My recollection - I do not have the book on me - is that Darwin defined natural selection as the process by which beneficial traits are passed on and increase over time, and harmful traits are eliminated. Everything else is icing on the cake - either working out how this actually happens, modeling it with mathematics, or exploring the philosophical ramifications. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
He describes the process using the prerequisite of available heritable variation to describe what the result/effect is of the process of Natural selection. Stabalizing slection also increases the number of good genes, as does directional selecion. --KimvdLinde 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with Marcosantezana

this nonsense should finally end. it's differential reproduction. the citations of darwin are ambiguous. what secondary sources say about what scientists mean is unimportant. finally the idiocy of saying A=B but at the same time A is sometimes not equal B is indefensibly pernicious. scientific verbalizations are not poetry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcosantezana (talk • contribs) .

There are two different things going on. One is that you single handed, and against the consensus archieved here at the talk page, edit new pieces that have been inserted. The language of those pieces is suggesting something different than you want to say. Secondly, this article is not your property (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Control of Wikipedia articles), and as such, you might have to compromise at places with other editors. I think you and I are pretty much at the same page, and we both want the focus on the mechanism. However, as you do exactly yourself, a mechanism is often easiest explained using its outcome (see your gazelle example). Instead of continuing this slow edit dispute and have the twice/trice dailey reversions from one version to the other, it might be nicer to discuss here, bring your arguments forward, and get consensus. I have made it one of my projects to get Natural selection article that deals with the current usage of the term, is clear to the wide public, understandable, written in good English, deals adequatly with all the confusion that is surrounding this term and explains the change in the usage of the term over time. I hope you want to be cooperative on this, instead of the continued push of your own version. --KimvdLinde 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Marco, before you claim again that it only differential reproduction, I suggest that you brush up your knowledge by reading section 6.2 Reproductive effort and survival, page 157-172 of Roff, D. A. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Theory and analysis. Chapman & Hall, New York. After reading, it will be clear that in cases of a negative genetic correlation between survival AND reproduction, a reduction in life reproductive effort (for example with 10%: 0.9R) resulting in a disproportional better survival (for example 20%: 1.2S) will result in a increase of the underlying genes (0.9R * 1.2S = 1.08 versus 1 in the unchanged situation) and result in adaptive evolution. As such, both survival AND reproduction are of importance for NatSel. --KimvdLinde 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
don't be ridiculous. differential reproduction includes mortality. didn't you read the cute gazelle example i kindly included for your mommie ?  ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcosantezana (talk • contribs) . as posted at my talk page --KimvdLinde 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Differential reproduction of the GENOTYPE, not individuals. And NatSel acts on the individuals, even in kin selection. For individuals, survival and reproduction are of importance. --KimvdLinde 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request: is there interest to make this a good page by discussion and seeking consensus?

I would like to know whether there are any editors out there who are willing to work on this page, and want to seek consensus about the text of this article, or that we let the page go to the most persistent editor despite that it is unreadable and factuall incorrect at places. If so, please let me know here. --KimvdLinde 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Samsara's thoughts

Maybe some of you would be interested in reading this: thinking about natural selection. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some reference to that? I see what you mean, just wonder how much and where it has to go into the article. However, I think at the moment the main problem is more to get a good page from start to end. If things evolve as they do at the moment, nobody is going to dealw ith this page for a while. So, can I count you in again? --KimvdLinde 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Stearns' book (The evolution of life histories 1992 OUP) does some explaining of why there are positive correlations between fecundity and viability across different qualities of individual despite trade-offs between the two within individuals... If that's what you are asking. Pete.Hurd 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Roff has a bunch more about it, and I can find many articles, but the things Samsara mentiones are pretty specific, so that is why I aksed for references. --KimvdLinde 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't know why Marcosantezana persists when he even admits English is not his strong point! So even though he has done better recently with his gazelles I support KimvdLinde's English! Anyway, I've now bought a copy of Elliott Sober's 'The Nature of Selection'. I will let you know if I think any differently having read the book. My view, just in case anyone has forgotten is still this: I think the narrow 'differential survival, reproduction' defintion is favoured only by some quantitative geneticists. The definition describing natural selection as a 'multigenerational' selection process, emphasising the selection "for" good characteristics by generation on generation of selection "of" fit individual phenotypes is the one generally used. And this is the one that correctly represents the understanding of Darwin. — Axel147 22:19, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Marcosantezana persists because he's right, then everyone else persists because his writing is hard to read and his logic not always obvious (and/or he dislikes explaing and/or enjoys being insulting). Axel, I think you are wrong, and Marcosantezana, KimvdLinde, and just about everyone else is right. Pete.Hurd 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Axel, would you mind to write down his exact defintion? I am curious. What I have heard of him is that he takes a very phylosophical angle to the problem.
As I have indicated before, and towards him, I am pretty much at the same page as Marcosantezana, and as such, I would seriously like to have him contributing in a contructive manner. However, I disagree strongly with his way of presenting it (the English is a minor issue, that is a matter of editing if he would allow people). My main issue I have with his way of presenting it is that he loses sight of the target audience of Wikipedia, which is from a very general public to students in evolutionary biology. Writing for Wikipedia is not equivalent to writing a science paper.
NatSel has a history of 150 years, in which various new insights have changed the concept, but as Axel makes very clear, the general public has not nessecarily changed with that. Therefore, I think it is crucial to place NatSel in a wider context so that the average reader get a good idea where things started and where they have gone.
After having created the context, I think it is crucial to have a good piece dealing with the concept at a level understandable for a broad public. Having a good, and visualised example of a appealing species can help significantly there. A subsequent section can go into more detail. Furthermore, I think there is the need for a history section, and maybe some other sections that come up.
This is rougly my idea for this page from the last days. Does this sound like a reasonable starting point for a cunstructive discussion? I would like to see several people to join in, Axel, Pete, Slrubenstein, Samsara, Dave souza, others, even Marcos if he is willing to honestly cooperate?
I think if we want to make this a truly good page, we have to be bold, and that is really start thinking from the bottum up. Articles evolve over time, and that can result in really nice articles, but only if sometimes the article needs bold editing. --KimvdLinde 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the issue here is defining what one wants in the article as i wrote a ng time ago when people were complaining about formalities like the length of the intro. what does belong in the intro?

here is my list:

main focus: what selection is as a material process of cause and effect.

secondary focus: what selection is good for; how beautiful selection is; what michael jackson thinks about selection. why bugs bunny rejected selection when he first was exposed to it, etc.

concretely, people who know a lot about evolution must remember that this article is not about evolution and remember that force-feeding the reader a lot of stuff about evolution, even when it sounds devastatingly impressive, won't make the workings of selection any clearer to anybody.

is not enough to say that fitness differences *happen* and then rush to the stuff needed for evolution to occur like children reaching for the candy. selection is fascinating. axel you will find out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.248.161 (talk • contribs) . Marcosantezana

Question? Are you willing to cooperate on this article? Or will this senseless edit war continue? I hope that want to cooperate.
So, your idea is that we should give people just NatSel without any context? --KimvdLinde 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to build on what Pete Hurd, wrote above, I agree that one issue is style and not content, specifically, Marcosantezana's weakness in English. However, I think there is another issue - one that is often difficult to deal with in the introductions to articles, though easy to deal with in the body, and this has to do with the multiple points of view that must be represented to comply with NPOV. Now, I will defer to others participating in this discussion as to what the actual, specific views are, and whose views they are. But there may be a difference between what Darwin originally wrote and what scientists today mean (even if there is also a strong continuity. I am not saying that scientists have repudiated or dismissed Darwin, only that in science the understanding of certain terms, and their application, often are modified over time). There may also be a difference between how different scientists - molecular biologists, zoologists, physical anthropologists - use "natural selection." There may also be differences among historians of science and philosophers of science as to what the ultimate significance of "natural selection" is. In most cases (as far as I can tell) these differences are pretty subtle or minor. Nevertheless, to whatever extent there are different usages or interpretations of the term, the body should present these differences. I am really not making a point about "natural selection" but rather about "Wikipedia articles" and "NPOV." In most areas where there is a good deal of diverse research, it is often unproductive to take a variety of different sources (Darwin, Sober, Stearn, Roff ... even Dawkins and Gould) and try to synthesize an overarching or unified definition. For one thing, doing so (synthesizing) violates NOR. Moreover, a discussion of the differences between different views and usages may actually be quite interesting and informative and an attempt to privilege one definition or view as the "right one" or to efface these differences by trying to find a LCD or synthetic definition would lead to an impoverished portrait of how scientists refine their definitions or applications of a concept as they confront new data and sometimes new questions, or how scientists who are addressing different questions may use the same concept in slightly, but significantly, different ways. When we work on articles on "fascism" and "Jesus" we never take one source and say "s/he is right" - this violates NPOV. It is the same when drawing on Dawkins, Gould, Sober, or others. What we need to do is acknowledge different views when they exist. we can certainly distinguish between majority and minority views, or prevalent views or understandings versus highly contested views. The point remains: acknowledge different views.

Now the work I just described really belongs in the body. An introduction has to be concise and has to introduce the body, and can't go into changing or contested meanings. But here is my suggestion:

  1. let's stop thinking in terms of Marcosantezana, Kimvdlinde, or Axel147's views - because the views of editors never go into articles. Let's instead look at the sources that M, K, A, and others are relying on. Do all use the same definition of "natural selection" or make the same claims about what "natural selection" refers to or explains? If so, well, whew, that will solve all conflicts.
  2. But if these sources at all differ in their definition of "natural selection" or their claims about what "natural selection" refers to or explains, let's stop trying to come up with our own synthetic definition (violates NOR) and let's stop making our own decisions as to who is right or wrong (violates NPOV). Instead, let's try to lay out the distinct views. Then, let's try to figure out what these differences represent (older versus newer and based on more data or sophisticated methods? the view of people from one discipline versus another and reflecting different disciplinary interests and research questions? the view of applied scientists versus sociologists of science, or philosophers of science, or historians of science?). Let's reorganize the body of the article so that it provides accurate accounts of each of these views.
  3. Can we discern which view is held by most people or least contested? If so we should be clear about that.
  4. then we will be able to craft an introduction that does what it is supposed to do, which is to introduce the rest of the article. In short, perhaps we can work out our differences by working on the body of the article first, and return to the intro later.

Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Number 3 is what is in debate here. My research experience is in the field of sexual selection, which is defined by researcher's in the field as "variance in reproductive success caused by competition between individuals of the same sex". It's my very strong impression that natural selection is defined in an analagous way by researchers in that area (the Endlers, Grants and Schluters of the world), as I take Marcosantezana, Kimvdinde and Samsara all agree. I argue that "held by the most people" is of trivial meaning if it the people included in "most people" isn't restricted to active researchers, at least not for the purposes of anything but a subsection discussing the historical uses of the term. Pete.Hurd 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "most people" I should have specified evolutionary scientists or scholars in adjunct fields, including history, sociology, and/or philosophy of science. And of course if there is no controversy, then there is no need to specify who holds the view. My sense by the way is that you are right. I wonder though whether the issue with Marcosantezana and Axel is simply whether or not they agree, or that there are other things they think should be added. Even if Axel is wrong when he says that your view is held by a small group of geneticists, there is still the question of whether there are scholars who share his view. My point is this: No one (Axel or Pete Hurd, or me) can claim what view is "right." We can only say that "this is a view held by x." If Axel has reliable and verifiable and appropriate sources to support his claims, then let's have them, and add the claims to the article, properly sourced. If Axel questions Pete Hurd's claims, instead of arguing he should just ask Pete Hurd for his sources, and add the claims, properly sourced, to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest Endler 1986 (chapter 1) as a reference for this point & role-model for this article in general (Endler "Natural selection in the wild" Princeton, 1986, ISBN 0-691-08387-8). Section 1.1 is a clear one page definition of Natural Selection, and the rest of chapter 1 would make a near-perfect WP article on Nat Sel. Pete.Hurd 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


There is an excellent wikipedia page on sources on wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Science_and_medicine. I think Slrubenstein points specifically to: Editors should not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. As such, coming up with a general accepted definition, even when it is not exacly quoted from somewhere else, is acceptable, but arguing that a certain definition is bogus based on a list of arguments made up by yourself, is not.
I think the first major problem we have is that we can not even agree on what should be the main line of the article, what should be included, and when included, were should it be placed.
Maybe we should collectively step back, take a deep breath and look for the wider picture...... When I do that, I see several options for this article:
  • A highly technical and specialist phylosophical article that deals with the fine nuances that even most evolutionary biologist are not bothered about?
  • Or, an article about Darwinism (aka, what wrote Darwin, with or without including his projection towards speciation)?
  • Or, an article about the popular view of NatSel?
  • Or, an article that documents the thousants of detailed nuances expressed by an equal number of authors?
  • Or, an article ....... (fill in whatever you think). See my idea above in one of my earlier posts.
--KimvdLinde 18:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll just make a small point here: presenting things in chronological order always works. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! --KimvdLinde 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I agree with Slrubenstein that we must present sources in the case of dispute. I am in the process of compiling mine.

The article must represent current widely held scientific opinion. If Darwin is mentioned his view must be included at this point (if different). The article should be clear to read and avoid jargon where possible.

On an earlier point I agree with KimvdLinde that both survival and reproduction are important (and that one isn't necessarily included in the other). But again it depends on defintions. A woman who produces only 2 children and lives has a better chance of propagating her genes than a women who produces 2 equally healthy children and dies soon after (unable to rear them). — Axel147 18:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Differential reproduction is generally used for genotypes (and with that, you get closer to Dawkin's selfish gene), while change of survival and reproduction are used in a context of chances of individuals within a population surviving and reproducing. The example that you just mentioned is also a way this works, but most of the time it is used as that you first have to survive to sexual maturity before you can start to reproduce.--KimvdLinde 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My point holds either way. To use Dawkins' language, the capacity of genes to propagate themselves into future generations depends not just on their ability to copy themselves but also on the ability of the copies to copy themselves. A gene which a can, through its 'vehicle', protect its descendents will be favoured. In other words survival of the parent vehicle and parent genotype helps, beyond the point of reproduction. — Axel147 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds we are at the same page here. --KimvdLinde 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of semi-protection

I'd just like to remind you that protecting of a page is not to be used in editorial disputes. It is reserved for cases of outright vandalism.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Having an edit war, POV pushing, non-communication, is more than an editorial dispute. Evasion of blocks as a result of WP:3RR by using anonymous IP-numbers is vandalism. Semi-protection can be used to prevent vandalism.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea to have full protection on this page, so that people maybe would be willing to discuss and talk about things. I can not care less which version would be the fixed for the time being, this stupid childish pushing of POV's, specific personal versions of pages, editing of pieces on which at least some consensus was reached (if people disagree with the lead section that has been discussed, please discuss it above under the appropriate header) has to stop.
I have come in a later stage to this page, and I have missed most of the previous discussion. I am just going to discuss here based on arguments, and I have nothing against anybody personal. If people do not want to participate, no problem, just do not complain afterwards if the page turns out different than you would have liked. --KimvdLinde 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear on this. I am not opposed to blocking people who circumvent 3RR, but I am opposed to using semi-protection to do this. I believe semi-protection is a harmful measure, both to the image of wikipedia and the fate of non-registered users keen to help with the article. This is generally understood. I doubt that Marcos could have easily acquired more than two IP addresses, and I therefore question the necessity of the sprotection. Vandalism, incidentally, is the defacing or destroying of property, not the circumventing of 3RR. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Semi protection is used when users use IP-number that originate from pools. I log in from home, and I can get another IP-address just by logging in and out. The admin who did the semiprotect checked the last IP-number, and reported it was linked to a IP-pool. These numbers are not blocked in general because so many different people use them. I should not have called it vandalism. --KimvdLinde

I have requested unprotection as block has expired. --KimvdLinde 17:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ernst Mayr on Darwin

I think people might find this interesting. Ernst Mayr The_Growth_of_Biological_Thought persuasively argued that "Darwin's theory of evolution" actually consists of five theories:

  1. Evolution as such
  2. common decent
  3. gradualaness
  4. populational speciation
  5. natural selection

--KimvdLinde 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

some remarks

i will continue stressing the causation of fitness differences as the essence of natural selection. nobody has challenged this centrality let alone has challenged it coherently. if you feel you can challenge it coherently, please go ahead and include a clear statement in the article directly since it would be a great contribution to the article indeed.

i will continue making efforts to give natural selection the central place in the article, and to make sure that references to evolution, etc, remain subordinate to the presentation of what natural selection is and is not, can and cannot, etc. nobody has challenged this let alone has challenged it coherently.

in general both a coherent challenge should be required to revise any position.

i will not give up defending factually correct and coherently justified content because of some consensus especially if the consensus is incoherently justified. (kim, your mommy got the gazelles).

by the way there is no need for lengthy discussions between good-intentioned people. and no amount of discussion can compel anybody to address points he/she prefers to ignore.

in that sense this talk page is a waste of time since too often people stick to their guns without addressing points made by others even when the points were coherently justified.

that's why even the short comments that accompany edits of the main article should be unnecessary. if they are well done the edits should speak for themselves .

an encyclopedia is not the place to which you go so you can find what you already know. so the best deference to the average joe is not to tell him "we know you thought this way and yet... ", but rather to explain the subject matter in very clear terms.

finally, when presenting the forces of nature one should stress cause and effect relationships, the state-of-the-art of the search for cause and effect relationships, and the historical obstacles that slowed down the search for cause and effect relationships. [my signature is not functioning: Marcosantezana] 19:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote: i will not give up defending factually correct and coherently justified content because of some consensus especially if the consensus is incoherently justified.
If you want to reach that goal, than I suggest you add your objection to the text at this talk page, at the appropriate place so it can be discussed. Furthermore, what has the remark (kim, your mommy got the gazelles). to do with this article? --KimvdLinde 19:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
To add to this. The way you are currently pushing your own version is not going to work. I doubt whether it will be tollerated that one single person can determine what will be on this page. This revert war is alredy going on for some time, and if you think that repeatedly inserting your own version is going to satisfy people, I am affraid you will be disappointed. In that sense, your effort at the main page will be a bigger waste of time than discussing things here. If you are here to get your way 100%, forget it. My suggestion in that case would be that you write your own website, start your own blog or whatever. Wikipedia is a community of people, and works by consensus. And you might not like it, but that includes compromising. If you do not get that concept, you are not going to get anywhere with your contributions. I will keep working on bringing all opinions together while maintaining in clear view the current scientific consensus and the major differences that extist. You can like it or not, but there is not a single definition of NatSel that is used uniformly across biologists. But with some smart thinking about structure and such, we can make an excellent version that deals adequately with the variety of opinions that are present among the editors. At this moment, the problem is not the content of the article, but the absence of communication, and the lack of willingness to reach consensus. --KimvdLinde 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


if we agree that the reader deserves the *best*, then we wouldn't be having any problems, we wouldn't be trying to push illogical things like "A is B but A is not always B (and if you don't like it, too bad for you)". nobody deserves this not even the ego of those who try to impose such things. and we would have a real chance a true excellence for the sake of the readers. (pers.note: kim wrote she wanted the article to be readable by her mother; the gazelles were an effort in that direction). [my signature is not functioning: Marcosantezana] 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on that we want the best, but we apparently disagree abuot WHAT is the best. And your total disregard for the work of other editors is just counter-productive. --KimvdLinde 07:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Marcosantezana's unilateral approach is counterproductive and support KimvdLinde's efforts (even though, as people know from these pages, I don't always agree with her opinion) — Axel147 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
We might not agree, but we at least talk, bring forward arguments, and, correct me if I am wrong, you and I are both willing to seek a solution that makes clear the differences that we see in the usage of this term. KimvdLinde 18:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde, I too appreciate your efforts - both substantive and procedural - here. Although I think most contributors understood my point, I want to be crystal clear and emphaize that providing sources is not just a way of resolving disputes; adding relevant, verifiable sources always makes an article stronger. By the way, I agree with Samsara's suggestion that historical exposition is generally the best way to go. I'd observe that there may be exceptions, but as a rule I agree with what Samsara wrote. I am disappointed to see Marcosantezana's intransigent refusal to work in good faith. For what it is worth, quite some time ago and in another context I urged - in good faith - Marcosantezana to be sure to comply with Wikipedia policies, especially when in dispute with other contributors [1]; then as here his response seemed to be defensive and obdurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request filed

I have filed a mediation request. The current situation is not going to work, and I think it is time for a different type of action. --KimvdLinde 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have only added myself and User:Marcosantezana to the mediation request. However, feel free to join by adding your name to the request. --KimvdLinde 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

removed RfM tag. KimvdLinde 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

kim, you are too kind by inserting my name there but i do not see the need for mediation. what everybody needs to do is to include and exclude text in ways that the article is clearly improved. e.g., i removed from the short intro the passages on how genes mutate and recombine. saying that traits can be heritable suffices. could you please remove me from the mediation request? User:Marcosantezana 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)~

You can indicated yourself here there that you do not want mediation. --KimvdLinde 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Kim, the article is looking better now. Thanks for that. I am still in the process of trying to gather sources which say that natural selection is a type of evolution, a mechanism of evolution: that the definition of natural selection is such that, by itselft without any other ingedients, it results in changes in gene frequency in a population. But, I have a different question. Although you are not happy with Marcosantezana's editing style do you agree with his view that natural selection includes the chain of biological processes that lead from genetic material, egg, to its expression as a phenotype? Or do you see natural selection as just the point of selection? I am not clear on this. — Axel147 12:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To define or not to define

I have taken the opportunity this weekend to scan several text books for definitions of NatSel. Try it.... I found actually just a few.... Most text books just circumvent the definitional question, and talk about the selection of individuals and the response to selection, but leave in the middle whether the result is part of the NatSel definition or not. Futuyma for that reason come to the definitional question only at page 349 (3rd edition), and without determining what is the right deninition, goes with the process only definiton for practical reasons. In line with that, I do not think it is our place to solve this definition question, but rather have to explian the two different things, and the consequences of that difference. The only difference is that the limited definition is always NatSel, while the inclusive definition is not NatSel anymore if there is no result of the selection. The latter will be extreme rare, as literally every trait has at least some underlying genetic variation.

To be practical, I think dicussing the difference in definition, and adopting one for the calrity of the article might be the way to go...... --KimvdLinde 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Darwin provides a one sentence definition. My suggestion is this: quote it, directly, and then state that since Darwin there has been much work concerning the theoretical framework for natural selection, and how and to what ends it can be used by scientists, and then elaborate on this (where exactly it fits into a bigger model, how it is used) in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think all major changes have to be included. --KimvdLinde 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes but Kim you haven't answered my question (not directly anyway)? — Axel147 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I missed it this morning, I just wanted to share some thoughts, did not read everything in detail (I have to work as well). I just read it in detail, and I am not sure if I understand correctly what you are asking. I have read Marcosantezana's ideas, but I get confuse about what he exactly means. So, if I give the wrong answer, forgive me.
In my view, NatSel can act on anything, and it can act on DNA directly (DNA that breaks is eaten by certain enzymes, and the result is selecion for versions that do not break), the eggs, the larvae etc. At issue here is that there are in general many many different selecting forces simultaneously acting on various aspect of the individuals (and groups etc), and these aspects can interact, and selection forces can compete with each other. And all these selection forces together determine whether an individual (or its kin) survives and reproduces.
Does this answer your question?--KimvdLinde 18:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we all agree natural selection can act at any stage of an organism's life. I think what Marcosantezana means is that the biological processes of life are included in natural selection. In other words there is more to it than just asking the question 'will this phenotype survive and reproduce' at each stage of an organism's life. — Axel147 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it sometimes difficult to get what he is exactly meaning. The best answer I can give is that I think any biological process is under influence by NatSel one way or the other. --KimvdLinde 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Response or no response

I just wanted to clarify that the essential difference between my position and Kim's is not about 'response'. If we look back at Darwin's sentence 'I do believe that natural selection will always act very slowly, and generally on only a very few of the inhabitants of the same region at the same time' this suggests 2 things:

  • The process is multi-generational
  • Certain conditions must be met before natural selection can occur

Darwin's view could be interpreted as response, however I think a softer position represents the current definition (which is hopefully more easy to swallow). What I have been arguing is that natural selection is a mechanism of evolution: it has a 'tendency' to alter gene frequencies, it is a force in this direction. Genetic drift is a another mechanism. It is possible (in principle) that there several mechanisms operating at the same time which cancel each other out. In other words it is possible there is no net response, but natural selection and genetic drift are still happening.

The fact that natural selection has the capacity to alter gene frequencies means that inheritance is part of the definition. — Axel147 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, our essential difference is whether we go by the precise defintion of Darwin, or by the current usage of the term. Part of that diffference is whether or not the response to selecion is an integral part to the definition of NatSel. The sentence of Darwin is interesting, as it includes at least two different theories, NatSel and gradualism (as opposed to for example punctuated equilibrium). The second covers the slowness and the multigeneration aspect.
You can have as easily different natural selection forces acting at the smae time at different aspects of the animal, cancelling out each other as well.
Inheritance is in Darwin's definition of NatSel a prerequisite, but to argue that it is part of the definition seems odd to me. --KimvdLinde 00:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Is inheritance a prerequite in your defintion ? - Axel147 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Given what little (next to nothing) Darwin knew about the processes underlying inheritance, I think it's silly to require that a modern term be defined according to all this reading between the lines of Darwin. If we're confined to Darwin's definition, then talk about "gene frequency" is out, along with the rest of the fruits of Mendel's genetics. Start with what the term means now, and put the historical interest material in a historial interest section. Pete.Hurd 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I have the said the defintion must represent current widely accepted scientific views. There is no requirement that it sticks to Darwin. But the terms used by Darwin ('preservation', 'variation', 'principle of inheritance' etc.) are understood today so it is legitimate to ask whether today's defintion is essentially the same as Darwin's (perhaps fleshed out with Mendelian genetics) or whether the modern defintion has a slightly different meaning. It may help us resolve disputes on this page. — Axel147 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
In my definition, no, as it works on phenotypes. In my defnition, NatSel can have zero effect due to lack of inheritable variation. However, I see also that for many, heritable variation is a prerequisite for NatSel and the absense makes the same processes something different without a name. --KimvdLinde 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


this is just so ridiculous. i have already written that darwin does not equate selection with evolution. i have asked a famous darwin historian about his interpretation and he agrees. darwin just assumes that traits will be heritable so that the pressure of selection will be the only cause of change. i will fix the nonsense in te artcile later. darwin btw mentions genetic drift so that's nonsense too. people, believe me reading victorian english is not easy and even less without knowing the cultural background. this would be funny if it weren't causing so much time to be wasted and if it weren't exposing wiki readers to so much incoherent nonsense. 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the major problem here is you, because you just keep changing everything to your linking without engaging in constructive discussions here. And if you find it a waste of time, maybe consider to cooperate and discuss things so that we can build consensus. KimvdLinde 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Darwin's English is generally more intelligible than Marcosantezana's. There are 2 Marcosantezana defintion's in the current version and these don't seem to be equivalent?
1) Natural selection is the phrase used to describe the fact that individual organisms should tend to differ in reproductive output when they differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment.
2) Natural selection is thus the phrase used to refer to the totality of the biological processes that participate in causing such non-random differences in survival and reproduction.
Anyway, to go back to the point of debate (other than the editing war) I think everyone agrees that variation is pre-requisite, that everything is not the same so there something to select. In addition to this I have been saying that inheritance is 'part of the definition'. Now, if people prefer to say inheritance is a 'pre-requisite' I am also happy with this. As long as inheritance is required (in the defintion or as a pre-requisite) I think it is ok. When I am not happy is if people say inheritance is a special case of natural selection. When they say natural selection is 'x' and when it happens to be combined with inheritance it results in something special. Forgive me for quoting Darwin yet again. Perhaps this is his most famous quote and should be put in the article. He mentions both variations and inheritance:
I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.
— Axel147 11:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am for now not adding the consensus piece to the article anymore, and wait till the Request for Mediation is rejected officially. I will than see what my next step in solving this unwanted situation will be.
I am not saying that inheritance is a 'pre-requisite', at least not the NatSel definition that I use. What I do say is that inheritance is a 'pre-requisite' to have a response to selection. And I think whether you include or exclude the response to selection as part of the definition of NatSel, inheritance is a pre-requisite to get a response, but outside the definition. I do not think anybody was saying that inheritance was a special case for NatSel.
I have a suggestion. Why do you not try to write a small piece (one two paragraphs) for a header with a title like Natural selection as defined by Darwin and post it here at the talk page. It is where you continiously are talking about and as such might be a good starting point. I think there is a pretty clear consensus among the other editors that we are not going to build this article around Darwin's definition but around the modern scientific usage of that term, and that we explain the changs in the usage in detail in a history section (or so). --KimvdLinde 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'll do that. But there is not concensus among other editors. Marcosantezana's view is that I am misrepresenting Darwin, whereas you think I am representing Darwin correctly but the modern definition is subtly different. — Axel147 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think you sometimes overintepret Darwin's words a bit. And in that context, you might want to read Ernst Mayrs book where he dicusses Darwin (see above). But I think it is better to discuss potential overinterpretations within the context of a concrete piece of text for the article, than to keep everything so abstract as it is now. --KimvdLinde 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been following all of the above, but I would say that using Mayr to interpret Darwin is very chancey. Mayr is well-known by historians of biology to often interpret his own views into Darwin's mouth, and is usually taken with a grain of salt. In looking over the discussion above, the one thought that occurs to me is that Darwin thought inheritance and variation were contradictory, not complimentary, processes, and certainly not part of the same process as they are seen today. (on this, Bowler's Mendelian Revolution is very explicit) --Fastfission 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Contradictory in the sense that Darwin was concerned about the possibility that inheritance would reduce variations through 'blending'. But complementary in the sense that both are required for adaptive evolution. I think this is what you are meaning? — Axel147 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's mostly it. Not contradictory in that they couldn't both exist, but that they were forces working against each other, even within his model, and not necessarily part of the same system (as we now know them to be). He didn't see this as fatal to his system, obviously, but it is one of the points at which his view of these things diverges sharply from what is currently thought. --Fastfission 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Mayr is sometimes not the best source, although I do agree with his analysis that Darwin actually descibed 5 different theories in his book. --KimvdLinde 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox development

I have created a page at my own userspace User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection for the development of a Natural selection page based on discussion and consensus. I will copy pieces from here to there when consensus is reached, but also feel free to discuss there at the talk page or to edit the main page, as long as you are willing to discuss about the topics, and strive to reach consensus. KimvdLinde 19:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Endler - Thankyou!

What a wonderful book by John Endler (1986) Natural Selection in the Wild describing exactly what we have been talking about over that last few months! I have never read it before. Thanks to Pete Hurd for providing it. Endler's Chapter 1 or highlights below. We would not have been debating this so fiercely if it were not the case that both defintions are used. Endler refers to the defintion apparently favoured by Kim et al. as phenotypic selection not natural selection. — Axel147 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Natural Selection Definition.jpg


So I agree with Endler that, 'To say natural selection is synonymous with phenotypic selection is to trivialize it—this is tantamount to saying that there are differences among different phenotypes, which can easily lead to tautolgy.' I hope this persuades Kim and others to do justice to the wider defintion as a current defintion not a historical one. — Axel147 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Axel, do you want to solve the issue which definition we have to use, or are we going to document the variation in how the definition is used over time upto these days? --KimvdLinde 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not possible to do the latter until the former is resolved. — Axel147 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? KimvdLinde 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And the short answer is, NO, this is not convicing, as he defines the differences between NatSel and drift not by the process, but by the prerequisites and the need to distinsuish them in studies. Furthermore, he first defines it, and shows that the other definitions are not good, because they do not fit the definition..... Talking about circular arguments. --KimvdLinde 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Kim, I wish you would have the grace to accept there are 2 defintions currently in play. We may disagree which is the most important or most widely used and can worry about the history later. — Axel147 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I did that already here: Talk:Natural_selection#To_define_or_not_to_define. Yes, I agree that there are several defintions going around. That is why I think that we have to avoid to define it in detail. KimvdLinde 19:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That is a cop out, avoiding the issue. What fun creationists will have if we can't even define it. — Axel147 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not our place here to solve the definition issue that is obviously present within the scientific community, that would original research in conflict with WP:NOR. It does not change the machanism, just what is exactly included in the defintion or not (aka, is the response to selection part of the definition, or not). KimvdLinde 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can't solve it but I think we should present all widely accepted defintions rather than no defintion, as neutrally as we can. — Axel147 20:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There are two widely accepted definitions. Besides that, how are you going to judge which of the two is wider accepted? That in itself is also original research. KimvdLinde 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why we are in any conflict at this point: both Axel and Kim have, in the discussion above, insisted that the other accept the fact that there are two definitions. Thus, both obviously do accept this. If Axel and Kim can agree that there are two widely accepted definitions then it should not be too hard to have a first paragraph that states that some define NS as x, because of y, and others define it as a, because of b. Then we can move on to go into the specifics of how these two definitions arose and who uses which definition and why. This way we will be complying with our NOR policy, as Kim rightly insists we do, and we will also be avoiding Axel's concern of providing "no" definition. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sober

I have now read most of Sober's Nature of Selection. I was hoping he would tackle the definition question but he doesn't do so as directly as Endler above. He asks whether "the fit tend to survive" is a tautology but doesn't say whether this is equivalent to Natural Selection. Despite this, I have to conclude that Sober uses natural selection in the 'phenotypic' sense but for him the debate is unimportant:

When conjoined with assumptions about heritability, natural selection may account for why 50 percent, or all, or none of the individuals in a population have opposable thumbs.

Sober says phenotypes are selected with certain properties. His focus is not whether the properites are heritable: it is whether the properties are the cause of selection (selected "for") or whether they are free-riders. The fact that there are two widely held definitions of natural selection is unfortunate. It does not help understanding. The best we can do is identify both.

— Axel147 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


it's not unfortunate, axel. remember that endler studies animals in the wild and not how to write clean definitions. it's just the way science writing works. you have to understand that scientists are not good with words and are even worse at writing analytico-philosophically clean sentences. futuyma's advanced textbook mentions that genes show up in endler's definition, but then futuyma embraces the phenotypic definition without comment. there is a good reason for this. Marcosantezana 16:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Futuyma does discuss the two different defintions and than for the clarifty, adopt one for the book without making an explicite choice. KimvdLinde 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. I have never read Futuyma. Hopefully we can put clarity in the article (without adopting either defintion). — Axel147 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am waiting till the RfM gets closed because of non-response (Marcosantezana has still not responded there). After that, I am going on with other paths to resolve this conflict. KimvdLinde 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
RfM has been rejected, becasue of non-response of Marcosantezana. KimvdLinde 04:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


the reason is simple: most people who study selection do it because they care about its evolutionary consequences. hence they put genes in the definition and don't care/don't know about the contradictions and confusions this creates. it's teleological definition writing. if you include genes a faster zebra that outruns predators and reproduces more than slower ones would not always constitute a case of selection. some "experts" insist not only in requiring genetic causation of the differences in phenotype but also in the differences being heritable in the narrow sense. ha ha ! Marcosantezana 05:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the day this is just use of words. Both definitions can be expressed 'cleanly'. In my opinion using Natural Selection in a narrower sense than originally used by Darwin leads to confusion, particularly among the general public. I think it would be better to use some other term such as 'phenotypic selection' for the narrower meaning. Maybe this would confuse some scientists but I think most would be intelligent enough to recognise the 2 positions. My focus is not to confuse the general public. However I have not been trying to change the status quo: I am just trying to report what's out there. — Axel147 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Phenotypic selection is a term I never heard yet beyond Endler. I would argue against it as it is kind of introducing a different term to descibe something that is normally also called NatSel. I have been busy the last days, but I will see if I can come up with an defintion paragraph that clarifies most issues. --KimvdLinde 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well there are 111,000 hits on Google. Though I admit it doesn't seem to be widely used. (And when it is used it appears to be frequently used to distinguish artificial selection methods that focus on phenotype from those that focus on the gene.) — Axel147 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration with regard to Marcosantezana here.KimvdLinde 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The case has been accepted, and can now be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. KimvdLinde 05:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of Genetics

Just to muddy the waters some more, I looked at an old version of Dictionary of Genetics by King and Stansfield (5th edition, 1997). The definition it gives for Natural Selection is: "the differential fecundity (q.v.) in nature between members of a species possessing adaptive characters and those without such advantages." This definition is essentially unchanged since the second edition in 1972 (the only two copies I possess).

An encyclopedia should be readable by an educated audience, but still ring true to professionals in the area. All the recent introductions I have seen fail the readability test. Ted 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Ideas enough, just not the time for it because I do not want to start an edit war. But it will come. KimvdLinde 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG editing this morning

JzG has edited the lead section substantially this morning. I understand his arguments and agree with him that the current section was difficult to read, but I (and others) have not reinserted the lead section as discussed above to prevent edit warring with Marcosantezera. Anyway, I copied that section here for discussion:

In evolutionary biology, natural selection is the process by which a species adapts to its environment over successive generations. It is commonly described as survival of the fittest. The phrase was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book The Origin of Species, in analogy to how farmers breed individuals that display desirable characteristics with the hope of improving crops or livestock (see artificial selection).
Individual organisms should tend to differ in reproductive output when they differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their biological and physical environment. The ability of individual organisms to tackle such challenges is determined by their biological traits and by the way these differ from those of other individuals. When trait differences resulting in higher reproductive output are heritable, the frequency of the superior trait(s) will tend to increase over the generations, i.e., adaptive evolution will take place. Natural selection is the main non-random force driving evolution and therefore plays a central role in the structure of biological thought and research.

Just a few thoughts. 1) Natural selection includes more than a response to the environment, it can also be due to sexual selection (although scholars differ on whether SS is included in NS). 2) NS can lead to higher reproductive output, but if that affects survival negatively, it is actually detrimental for the survival of that genotype, and gets selected against. It is the combined effect of differential survival and differential reproduction that is crucial. 3) I think the way it is worded now blurs the distinction between NatSel and Evolution by NatSel. Just my two cents.... Shoot me down :-) --KimvdLinde 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to post to Talk but I got called away. The reason I made the change is this: whatever the merits of individual detailed definitions of this term, the lead needs to amke a very short statement of what this concept is. I know what natural selection is, and I barely understood either of the recent versions. There is a danger that in getting down to semantic nitty gritty over the ways that organisms gain competitive advantage in the breeding lottery, we lose the fact that fundamentally this is a very simple concept, albeit infintiely complex in practice. So the lead really needs to say, in as few woprds as possible, what this concept is, and probably namecheck Darwin as having introduced the conept in the popular imagination. After that we can get down to details. I wasn't trying to piss anyone off (hah!) but I genuinely feel that we had lost sight of what the lead of an article should be. I think it quite likely that any casual reader would have given up before the end of the first sentence of what was there before, accurate though it appears to be. That's all. You'll note that the rest of the text remains, untouched, as para 2. I think it's para2 that;s being objected to here, and that was not me, that was the lead as I found it.
Actually the bit after Origin of the Species could go, too. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have given up for the time being (RfAr) to make something of this page. KimvdLinde 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be improved by simply removing that second para. We say all that below. Just zis Guy you know? 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am all for making it better. But as I said, I have given up. becaus I think edit wars with people who just do not want to cooperate are worse than bad text. The first sentence is now describing evolution by ecological selection, which is not exactly Natural selection. But it is fine with me as long as editing is impossible, and the whole article is crap at the moment anyway. KimvdLinde 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It does make the paragraph more readable. Unfortunately, it is incorrect and misleading.
  • What do you mean by adapt? Lamarckian traits?
  • What role, then, do the other evolutionary forces play, in particular, mutation? Aren't they all involved in adaptation?
  • Humans adapt to their environments by using clothes, housing, cooking, etc. Other species have behavioral adaptations to their environment. Is this natural selection?
  • How does this relate to the definition given by Charles Darwin ("This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.")?
  • Some people (or is it only me?) have problems with using a species-centric definition of natural selection.
It seems that many of these definitions use evolution as the basis for their definition. While it is certainly possible to do that, doesn't that reduce the impact natural selection has in the derivation of evolution? To me, the strength of Darwin's argument is that he has four basic "reasonable" principles, leading to evolution. Why weaken it using circular reasoning? Ted 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
In the lead paragraph it is not necessary to define adapt to any degree of precision. That is the job of the main article. The lead paragraph needs to be simple, accessible and written as far as possible in laymen's terms. It's all in the manual of style. I have to say that the version we had was bordering on unreadable. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Is was not borderline, both versions were square in the middle of unreadable. I don't think the choice has to be between unreadable but accurate (although I disagree with both versions being contemplated) and readable but incorrect. Ted 19:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you both indicate what was wrong with the proposed consensus version? I like to improve that, making it readable and correct. I will copy the last version to here as well. KimvdLinde 19:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus version as included was:

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype), the environment and the interaction between them. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations. The underlying genetic variation in traits is the result of genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations, and can undo the effect of natural selection if strong enough relative to the effect of natural selection. Natural selection, together with other mechanisms such as genetic drift and mutations, is an important component of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research.
The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer choosing individuals that possess desired characteristics for his breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.

Comments? KimvdLinde 19:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment it that it's pretty baffling to the layman, but I think I can puzzle out what's meant. JzG's version looked like having the potential to be clearer, provided it meets the scientist's criteria. Historically "survival of the fittest" is the 5th or 6th edition, and can be easily misunderstood, so as an interim measure I've modified that a bit. ..dave souza, talk 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the phrase "survival of the fittest" was in any edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. Ted 20:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article: The fifth edition published on 10 February 1869 incorporated more changes again, and for the first time included Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" However we probably should avoid this! It is shorthand for survival and reproduction of the fittest. — Axel147 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it now (in the chapter title, no less!). I guess I'm too much of a First Edition snob. Ted 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all I don't think KimvdLinde should give up at this stage. I sympathise with everyone's view here. I have been arguing that it is critically important to make the article accessible to the public, but also that the defintion is scientifically robust. I agree with Kim that both can be achieved. The new definiton is similar to my position but doesn't mention what is selected and seems a little vague. Everyone who's read this page knows Kim views Natural Selection as selection of phenotypes, whereas I view it as selection of 'characteristics that will be preserved'. I've taken the luxury of creating a dictionary defintion! [2]. No doubt people will object! — Axel147 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Axel, I am out of here. I had enough of your defintion pushing. KimvdLinde 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean...

The header was edited to include:

Herbert Spencer's term survival of the fittest was later introduced as an alternative, and is still commonly used, but loses the analogy and can be misleading if "fittest" is not read as "best fitted".

instead of "it is comonly described as survival of the fittest".

Now, the former may be technically and semantically correct, but in the lead paragraph it amounts to needless pedantry. Of course we can include this stuff, but we appear to be trying to get the entire article into the lead the whole time! At its root, this is a very simple concept. Why not state it simply? It has underlying complexities. We can explore them, but there is no need to intimidate / confuse / bore the pants off the reader with them in the first sentence! Just zis Guy you know? 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Resign

Ok, I am going to resign. If this is the way how it should be done, I am not at the right place. The current lead section is maybe better readable, but is even further away from what natural selection is (I just read the section to a undergrad biology student, who just shapked her head in disbelief). I not going to get in the next battle when the previous is not even ended. If this is the way this page is going to be forced around, I just leave. --KimvdLinde 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a pity. What we need is more discussion, not less.
The thing is, goign into detail about phenotypes and genotypes is intimidating for the reader. This is a general encyclopaedia, right? Of course we should discuss these things in the article, but the lead should be a concise statement of what natural seleciton is. I liked your text above: Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. That's very good, and exactly what I meant by a clear and concise lead.
Para 2 needs the same treatment. Too much detail, too early: lead the reader in gently! Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been busy to get more decent discussion for some time, but this page is mared by peiople who just either push their own (Darwinian) definition, or not even bother to discuss things here. I am perfectly fine with comments that things are unclear or anything like that. But lets discuss it. We had enough edit warring at this page. KimvdLinde 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
JzG, thanks for recovering KimvdLinde's lead sentence. I agree it is good. My intention was just to restore an earlier, clear, sentence - any well-written sentence. I should have looked further back, though. Anyway, well done, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

renewed lead section discussion

Ok, here we go again:

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the whole individual, but only the heritable component of a trait will be passed on to the next generation. This will result in an increase of the favourable traits in the next generation. With sufficient time and generations, this important mechanism can lead to adaptation and speciation (see evolution).
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones in modern biological and medical research. The term was popularised by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer selecting his breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.

Considerations:

  1. NatSel is wider than evolutionary biology alone.
  2. Weeded out difficult words.
  3. Avoided definition issues (darwins vs modern, strict versus wide).
  4. Wallace and Darwin introdueced the term in 1858 before the origin of species.
  5. Used trait, despite that in some corners of biological research, that term has been used in a more limited fashion, but we deal with the general public here.
  6. kept environment out of the description, as anything natural can cause NatSel. Sexual selection is also NatSel.

KimvdLinde 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I am not arguing with you, but the fact is natural selection applies to any environment in which one finds code - whether the code is DNA or words. This is one reason why Darwin has had such wide-reaching influence in not only the natural sciences but the social sciences an humanities. In fact, I think this point should be made in the body of the article. I also feel that the introduction should privilege the views of evolutionary biologists. Nevertheless, natural selection has been applied to other codes than DNA. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. KimvdLinde 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
While in general it might be preferable to have the phrase, natural selection in the first sentence, I think it leads to confusion here. As such, I prefer something more along these lines:
The biological characteristics of an organism can give relative advantages or disadvantages in that organism's ability to survive and reproduce. These advantages and disadvantages in the population lead to differences in reproductive success (including survival), which Charles Darwin termed natural selection in The Origin of Species (1859). The result of natural selection is that the genotypic frequencies of favorable genotypes increase, moderated by the genetics involved and other factors, such as mutation. Natural selection forms a solid foundation for Darwin's Theory of Evolution. As such, it also holds a prominent place in modern biology.
Starting off with "Natural selection ...." just doesn't seem to be readable. In addition, it parallels Darwin's arguments at the beginning of Chapter 4. Ted 17:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Could I just say, I don't know who wrote the current version, I haven't looked, but I think it is excellent - compelling and concise. Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

need sections on "fitness" and on "measuring natural selection in the wild"

how about doing some real work, folks? these two sections will be very hard to write and are very complex conceptually. no, writing "fitness is the process *in*[sic] which" won't cut it. ;) Marcosantezana 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've noticed some editors on this page have consistently violated 3RR. Please desist. Mccready 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Hey, McCready, I see it was you who wrote this version of the lead:

Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book The Origin of Species defined Natural selection as the "principle, by which each slight variation [of a species], if useful, is preserved." It is a mechanism of evolutionary change of species, whereby organisms best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce. Organisms not adapted to their environments do not survive.

Great! That was very much the style I was hoping we could end up with.
A note to Marcosantezana: phrases like he "made a thoroughly ocmpelling case" are editorialising, and we do not need that. Please keep it encyclopaedic in tone. Just zis Guy you know? 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

further work

Removed Wallace ref and puff. This is about NS. In any case Darwin and Wallace corresponded, cooperated and agreed on publication timetable. The Modern biologists para doesn’t make good sense and needs a reference. NS is about much more than “non-random diffs in repro”. What the ref to random or non-random all the time? Mccready 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcosantezana

Note to Marcosantezana: your failure to discuss your edits is not good WP behaviour. pls do so. Mccready 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Darwin puts it simply. Why not use his words? Marco, if you do not know what preserve means in this context, you shouldn’t revert. Preserve, it is obvious to me, means the trait is carried forward to the next generation. Instead of saying what it does, the intro needs to say first what it is. An outlink in the first sentence is not ideal. Discussion of randomness, controversial in itself, doesn’t make for a readable intro. I have reworded to try to accommodate Marco’s concerns and acknowledge some of his phraseology is better, though “tackling challenges” smacks of anthropomorphism. May I remind you again Marco of 3RR. You have yet to comment on the request for arbitration. Mccready 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Working on second paragraph.

Some concerns I have addressed:

  • Not all genetic diversity is selective. I do prefer the use of the word genetic to heritable. I hope my addition here doesn't mess up the flow too much.
I suggest sticking with heritable, since it's far more correct, clearly defined etc, whereas "genetic" isn't really well defined in this instance, and less correct. If "genetic" is preferable because it has a more intuitive feel to it, then let me suggest that the intuitive sense may often be misleading. Pete.Hurd 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
For heritable do you refer to heritable diversity, heritable trait, or both? After already talking about genetic diversity, do we even need an adjective in front of trait? Ted 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In the sentence "In general, when a genetic trait results in..." the word "genetic" raises all sorts of hoary Nature versus nurture issues about what a "genetic" trait is, or isn't. Substituting "heritable" for "genetic" solves these issues, and ought to go some way to soothing Axel et al. who point out that the official definition of "trait" requires heritability (which I think is counter-intuitive, and makes the whole sentence tautological, when it is actually trying to make an important point). I think it's a simple one word substitution... Pete.Hurd 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
That may be a one word substitution, but that doesn't mean it is simple. Let's face it, it is the genetic profile of the population that is changing, and, through that, the phenotypic profile. Whether you are an ethologist/ecological biologist and think in terms of heritable traits or a statistician/population geneticist and think in terms of genes, the basic diversity is still genetic. Of course, this is from the keyboard of one of those evil statistician/population geneticists. Ted 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This exact point was the topic of much debate a few weeks, months ago... Individuals may be naturally selected on the basis of their phenotype and not produce a response to selection (because the trait is not heritable). By analogy, if a dog breeder tries to select against hip dysplasia (despite the fact that hip displasia has exceptionally low heritability within breeds) are they not practicing artifical selection because they are only selecting who breeds?
My apologies if you have already discussed this. I find the archives essentially unreadable since they refer to a version of the main article that no longer exists. Here is my justification for those two sentences: We know there is genetic diversity for fitness (first sentence). Any differential reproduction leads to differences in genetic frequencies (except when in equilibrium with itself or other factors). That is natural selection. If you are worried about trait, then we can change it. If y'all have already gone through all this, then I'll simply shut up. Ted 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Aye, the archives are a pain. IMvHO including "heritability" was more likely to lead to enlightenment than leaving it out, but it's entriely possible that I have too strong an interest in heritability to judge dispassionately. Just my 2c, not unhappy with leaving both out, as you have. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 21:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Added definition of adapted. I see too many people who see the word adapt and think of the organism itself changing -- as they have adapted to the change from home to University. Again, I hope it doesn't change the flow of the sentences. In addition, frequencies don't always change, even under natural selection. My addition of the phrase, "In general" is meant to solve that problem.
  • Reworded adaptive evolution. I've treated this paragraph as a definition and rewrote the final paragraph as such. To me, it feels better this way. Ted 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Thus Darwin suggested that all species today have evolved from a common ancestor" Is this true?Gleng 20:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Common descent page suggests it is, more I do not know off-hand. Pete.Hurd 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean, is it true he suggested that, or is it true that all species today have evolved from a common ancestor? Ted 20:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Outside my area of knowledge. My understanding is both, but in ignorance I am merely assuming the common descent article to be accurate. Pete.Hurd 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I know it's true, I was just surprised that Darwin had postulated a single ancestor of all species, thanks for clarifyingGleng 21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Another first paragraph concern

Concerning the following two sentences:

Individuals best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce. Those not adapted do not survive.

Strictly speaking, these statements are not true. There is always randomness involved: "Individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce. Those less well adapted are less likely to survive." However, I'm worried that once we start correcting these mistakes, the paragraph will become quite unreadable. On the other hand, it allows some editors to state categorically that the paragraph is wrong and to undertake major rewrites.

On the third hand, it is small things like this that have forced me to tell my students that I will mark down any papers that use Wikipedia as a source (normally half a grade for each such reference). Of course, my students are not the intended audience for Wikipedia.

I strongly prefer the longer version. I don't think it's onerous reading, and don't view this as the thin end of the wedge. Pete.Hurd 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

yes pete your version is better. I was working a bit quickly to replace marco's reverts. Mccready 03:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Darwinain natural selection

I think we should rename this article to Darwinain natural selection. The focus is to much on his ideas, and not enough about the current understanding of that idea. We can than also make a seperate article about the current usage of that term. KimvdLinde 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To explain a bit more. I think the lead paragraph is getting worse, not better. And I think there are to many people who are to much focussed on Darwin this, Darwin that. I think we have to seriously think about NatSel, but I have the feeling that splitting the article in a Darwinian and a modern version might be needed. KimvdLinde 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to agree yet. To save me trying to reread the unhappy history, why? Could we deal with darwin quickly then get on with it?

Why? It is not NatSel as we use it nowadays. KimvdLinde 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
With separate articles already for History of evolutionary thought, Inception of Darwin's theory and Development of Darwin's theory I would argue that the stuff of historical interest ought to go there, and this article represent current state of the art. On the other hand, having a Darwin's five different definitions of natural selection page might mean we don't have to regularly re-debate this issue here (last debated on March 14th). I get the feeling that a modern definition is going to be easier than deciding what Darwin *really* meant, but most useful would be something that avoids this debate again in two weeks when someone else comes along and decides that the wrong Darwinian definition has been used. Perhaps relegating discussion of Darwin's various definitions to a subsection, with a sentence in the lead section saying that Darwin used the term to mean a number of different things, but scientists now use the term to mean FOO BAR BAZ. Pete.Hurd 06:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

on adaptive stuff, Lynch suggests that nonadaptive evolutionary forces play a critical role in shaping the structure of organelle genomes and possibly nuclear genomes.[3]. "The nuclear genomes of multicellular animals and plants contain large amounts of noncoding DNA, the disadvantages of which can be too weak to be effectively countered by selection in lineages with reduced effective population sizes. In contrast, the organelle genomes of these two lineages evolved to opposite ends of the spectrum of genomic complexity, despite similar effective population sizes. This pattern and other puzzling aspects of organelle evolution appear to be consequences of differences in organelle mutation rates. These observations provide support for the hypothesis that the fundamental features of genome evolution are largely defined by the relative power of two nonadaptive forces: random genetic drift and mutation pressure." Mccready 05:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should we be concerned with highy specific aspects when we can not even get the basics right? KimvdLinde 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the lead paragraphs are getting worse. There are things in the lead paragraphs that I wish were not said the way they are. I would love to get rid of "adapt" entirely. However, it really isn't that far off from a core definition of natural selection. Other than the word "adapt", it seems no different from the defintions you might read in Fisher's original work, or Sewall Wright (although, he liked the concept of adaptive topology), or Comstock & Robinson, or Crow & Kimura, or Kempthorne. It closely parallels the definition found in population genetics books such as by Roughgarden, Hartle or Emlen, to name just a couple that were close at hand and had "natural selection" in the index. Other texts didn't even really bother to define natural selection, but use it as individual variation leading to change in allele frequencies (Spiess, Hedrick, Lewontin, Wallace).

Or, is this just a wiki-turf war? Ted 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the current definition is evolution/adpatation by means of natural selection, which is not natural selection, but the result of prolonged natural selection. KimvdLinde 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Take out the last sentence of the second paragraph. Change "less adapted" to "least fit" and "adapted" to "most fit". It may be poor English, but it is a core definition of natural selection. I would love to take out the last sentence. However, I can read adapted in a non-evolutionary sense -- and it may actually be understood better by the general public than using fitness. I guess I'm not ready to tear apart this article over one sentence and a couple of words. Ted 18:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am ready to do that, precisly over the type of arguments you are putting forward. KimvdLinde 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize I had such power. I'll not stand in your way. Chalk another one up for your side. Ted 19:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Anyway, I have resummed the development of a Modern usage of natural selection page. KimvdLinde 06:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Focus of the article (staw poll)

Ok, were should this article focus on? Maybe we need to get an idea what people think, so, I would like to tally where this article is going with its current editors:

A) Primary focus is Darwin's definition(s), current usage is less important:

  1. ~~~~

B) Primary focus is current scientific usages of the term, Darwin's ideas are only mentioned where appropriate, primarily history piece of article:

  1. KimvdLinde 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Gleng 14:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (as indicated below)
  3. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (note: I do believe that it makes sense to begin with Darwin's definition, because it is clear and simple, and innnaugurated scientific discussion of the concept. Leading with Darwin's definition does not, in my view, signify that the article focuses on Darwin's usage.)
I Think it is the crux of the question and the reason why this article remains so messy, so I take it as that you are more at A).
Not at all. I am referring specifically to the introduction. I would turn your point around: if anyone thinks that putting Darwin in the introduction means that the article as a whole "focuses" on Darwin's definition regardless of current usage, they are mistaken, and their attitude will block progress on the article. i am not saying Darwin must be in the intro, only that if someone takes this view - (B) - they need not have any objection. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is crucial, because what you get with using Darwin's definition in the lead section is that you first define it one way, and than have to say later, "sorry, forget Darwin, we have changed the usage over time, so this is the correct usage". It also opens the can of worms about what Darwin was exactly meaning, and which of his various definitions should be used. KimvdLinde 17:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. Simply, you then begin the body stating that since Darwin first introduced the term, natural scientists and today evolutionary scientists have debated and refined the term, and then explain how scientists use it today and why. many articles are written this way, providing some historical context for a term. I share your concern to concentrate on contemporary usage. But you are flat out wrong to think that just because an article begins with the first formulation of a concept, it must therefore focus on that particular formulation. This simply is not true. Moreover, I think it is an unproductive attitude. You must be kidding yourself if you think most non-specialists are unaware of a connection between Darwin and natural selection. I think that in an encyclopedia (for non-specialists) they will be looking for an explanation of that connection. And if evolutionary scientists today say they use a different formulation than Darwin, non-specialists will want to know why. You shouldn't be so afraid of this question. You shouldn't want to leave Darwin out because you are afraid we can't explain to people that the usage has changed and explain why. People will want to know that it has changed, and they will want to know why, and if we are any good, we will be able to explain it to them. I think it is precisely this which will make the article so valuable to a general audience. Don't try to hide Darwin - you will only provoke our very wide readership to ask the question, "well, what about Darwin?" There is absolutely no reason why we cannot answer this question. Indeed, answering this question makes for a good start. And the result will be a stronger article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
1. I do not want to hide Darwin, but give him is place where he belongs, as a historical figure and definition. 2. What I have seen in the old talk before I arrived, and during the time that I have been here, is that all specialists try it work on this and leave disillustioned. KimvdLinde 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Pete.Hurd 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Axel147 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC). I agree with Slrubenstein above. I have long argued that my position, Endler's position (position 1 high up in this discussion page) is a current scientific one and very closely linked with Darwin's.
Excatly, it is A current one. Not THE current one. making that THE definition is WP:NOR. KimvdLinde 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. User:Mccready I agree with Slrubenstein and think Darwin belongs at top. Kim, I still can't see the prob with top containing 1.a darwin defn. 2. a statement that darwin's thinking changed (like a good scientist). 3. current defn. On readability, the tortured remnants of a previous editor's prose needs to go.Mccready 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It confuses because the old definitions are incorrect. KimvdLinde 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Kim, I do not see how you can say this unless you agree with Henry Ford that "history is bunk." Most people are interested in history, and there are even scientists who are interested in the history of their science. That it confuses you does not mean (as I think is now evident) that it will confuse most readers of this encyclopedia. They understand that things change. They also understand that trends have beginnings. It is simply meaningless to say "the old definition is incorrect." If you do not understand why, I urge you to read up on the philosophy of science - definitions are more or less useful. It was that old definition that led to a line of inquiry that has led evolutionary scientists to more precise and more useful understandings of the process. If anything, as educators we should show readers how scientists start with one formulation of natural selection and then refine it.
You know, the fact that you reject Darwin's definition of natural selection does not mean natural selection and the theory of evolution are wrong. On the contrary, it simply means that science has a history, that scientists debate and refine concepts which necessarily change over time. Do you think this is a trivial point? In the United States, at least, you are dead wrong. If you are not from the US let me tell you, there is a huge "creationist" movement which has, on numerous ocassions, had the theory of evolution banned from high schools. And you should know that one "argument" they make is that Darwin was - well, as you say, "incorrect." "See!" they exclaim, "even scientists say Darwin was wrong! We should no longer teach evolution!" Obviously, they misunderstand the way science works. They do not understand that scientists refine and develop theories without necessarily rejecting them. I think scientists have an obligation to educate people about this. Showing how scientists accept an idea, and then change its definition or conceptualization by refining it without repudiating it is the best way to accomplish this. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You confuse hiding Darwin versus focusses on current usage first and add darwin's definitions in the history section. KimvdLinde 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but with all due respect, you confuse starting with Darwin for focussing on Darwin. They aren't the same. There are two reasons for starting with Darwin: one, it is a reasonable starting point, two, whatever differences there are between you, Axel, Marco and others, or among different scientists who have published on natural selection, all can agree that Darwin introduced the idea. Why not just say @@@Natural selection, as first introduced by Darwin, refered to .... Since Darwin, evolutionary scientists have revised his definition based on new findings in genetics and molecular biology...? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.. I just do not think starting with an out of data definition does the job. Lets agree to disagree, and I will work on a Modern usage of natural selection version, while all that want to start with a Darwinian definition can work on a Darwinian natural selection page. KimvdLinde

C) Primary focus is popular usage by lay people. Science and Darwin are side issues:

  1. ~~~~

I think this will give us a clearer idea whether the article should be split in two or more seperate articles. KimvdLinde 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think KimvdLinde's trifurcation above is a bit naughty: positions A, B and C are not mutually exclusive. There is considerable overlap between Darwin's position, popular usage positions, and current scientific positions. Axel147 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just been watching this, with occasional copy edits. I think we definitely need an article to explain current understanding of natural selection, and this isn't it yet; there are other vehicles for the history. So I'd vote B, but with the emphasis on making the issues understandable to lay peopleGleng 14:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am with you on the readability. KimvdLinde 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(I've only briefly skimmed this discussion, so take or leave what I write.) The current pseudo-debate regarding evolution has one side refering to evolution as natural selection a la Darwin. This is a strategic decision. It establishes a straw man, one that is more easily burnt. While natural selection is much more than what it used to be, many can be confused. They may think Darwin still stands, unimproved. For this reason, I consider it valuable to note explicitely but briefly, in the intro, that there has been scientific development since Darwin. The focus of the article should be the current version. Cheers, Daniel Collins 05:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

Are specialists appreciated?

One of the outside critisisms on Wikipedia is that everybody has equals rights on an article, and that that can not lead to good articles. I agree with that right of every editor, but after working for some time on this article (and a few other more contengious ones, I see also how the critisism is unfortenately true. I have seen several biologists come to this article, try to improve it and leave. And I am probably the next one. I am frustrated with how this article is NOT getting better (just getting worse). I started a RfAr against Marcosantezana because I think his way of dealing with this article is not the way to go. But honestly, by now I understand why he is doing it. I have seen several specialist come and go just because the non-workable situation. O well, it is probably part of wikipedia..... KimvdLinde 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I checked your preferred version of the [article] but couldn't find the five Darwinian versions. I'm still at a loss to understand how your preferred first sentence differs from the Darwin quote I put in - though I like your prose at that point. BTW your comment on Wallace implies competition - in fact Darwin and Wallace collaborated, though there are lots of myths to the contrary. Mccready 07:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
KimvdLinde's focus is objectively wrong. KimLinde and I have both accepted on this dicussion page that there are 2 widely accepted current scientific defintions. We disagree on which should be the focus. It is obvious by consulting many reference books, that the modern definition which is closer to Darwin's (which includes propagation of characteristics) is generally used. I agree with Slrubenstein that leading with Darwin's definition, or one equivalent to it is more helpful in debunking 'intelligent design'. Some specialists in writing encyclopedic articles might be appreciated! — Axel147 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Good luck guys. I vote to revert Marco's edits because of weaknesses in logic, rigor and clarity from the very beginning of this version, but I'm going to hide out and leave it to you.Gleng 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
So does everyone else. What happened with the arbitration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.5.226 (talk • contribs).
Folks, I have argued with Marco as much as anyone here. But, for what it is worth, his latest contributions are at least much more clearly written. If there is nevertheless a consensus that what he has added is still wrong, well, okay. But perhaps this would be a good moment to see if anyone can, without any editorializing or bias, and dispassionately, just summarize the key differences between Axel, KimvdLinde, and Marcos's views so we can take stock and see where we are? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Kim proposes that the article should seek to explain natural selection as a mechanism, and explain current understanding of how it can result in evolution and speciation. Given this logic, it is essential that evolution is not part of the definition of natural selection, as this would trap the logic into circularity. This has the benefit of imposing a potentially rigorous structure on the argument. It might get very technical fast.

Some others believe that Darwin’s original use should define the article; Darwin did not clearly separate the mechanism from the consequences, he gave a global vision, and the genetic mechanisms were wholly unknown then. These editors think that tracing the evolution of thought since Darwin would be a good way to structure the article, bringing in current views along the way. This has the benefit of building on common usage and understanding, but has the disadvantage that discussion of evidence and conclusions might have to constantly redefine or re-express the terms used. There is also a danger of "deifying" Darwin, and personalising the issues. Scientists tend to prefer to think that personalities are irrelevant, what is important is the theory, the evidence, and the logic between them. Historical stages are interesting but may or may not help in explaining. If the history is written with a very clear conception of where you are going, then it can make a good narrative structure. Otherwise it might just confuse.

Marcos’ edits are not logically coherent, and I just don’t see a way to fix them. To take the first paragraph:

“Natural selection is the evolutionary force that drives and has driven adaptive evolutionary change throughout the history of life on earth (1). In addition, natural selection is the only force that can prevent organismic adaptations from slowly decaying by accumulating deleterious mutations (2). For these two reasons (3), natural selection is the only evolutionary force that can allow incipient species to diverge adaptively until they can coexist ecologically (4) (see Competitive exclusion principle) and that can keep them different enough once they reach that stage (5). Therefore natural selection plays also a crucial role in the process of speciation” (6)

(1) defines natural selection by its consequence not by any mechanism (2) is this also definition?, inference?, and it is just wrong; e.g. there are molecular mechanisms of gene repair (3) these are not reasons for what follows, non-sequiiturs (4) very misleading; classic views are that speciation occurs mainly in geographically separate populations, not co-existing populations (5) no, not true except with a wholly circular argument (6) "crucial" etc... the style is argument by hyperbole not by logicGleng 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If Kim shares your view of Marcos's edits (I am not questioning your competence, only looking for something like consensus) then all we can do re Marcos is proceed with the ArbCom complaint. As to the two views you raise above, personaly I have no problem with beginning either way and introduce the other point in the body (either begin with KimVLinde's definition, and in the body show ho this emerged out of Darwin's work, as more scientists did more research including research of the sort that wasn't done when Darwin was writing - or begin with Darwin's definition and then explain in the body why scientists no longer use this approach and how new approaches developed). Since I can go either way, I have to leave it to others to decide. However, I do want to emphasize that whichever approach is chosen to begin the article, the other points can be incorporated into the body, even to the extent of making them prominent. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I have great difficulties to figure out what Marcos actually tries to say exactly, but I think this is not clear at all at the moment. It is clear to me that the majority want to start with Darwin and I am apparently objectively wrong, so let hose who want Darwin in the first sentence make the article..... KimvdLinde 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, except to the extent that I would like the rigor and authority of this article to be in striking contrast to creationist arguments, which is why I so dislike argument by rhetoricGleng 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Marco, this intro is deeply flawed - "irrefutable evidence" is sheer hyperbole; these are grandiose claims and essentially vacuous. Make the definition tight and rigorous, state the evidence coolly, draw the conclusions logically and conservatively. There are serious debates here within current evolutionary biology; some for example believe that in periods of stasis natural selection is relatively weak, allowing neutral mutations to proliferate, providing the variation for subsequent speciation when populations become isolated or when there is rapid change, othere think quite differently. It is difficult to argue that any strong force that keeps a species phenotype stable can equally be a force for speciation; founder effects and genetic drift may play a large role in speciation in geographically separated populations etc. - there are serious issues here, you can't just make grandiose declarations that are logically unsound, and expect this article to be regarded as a serious answer to creationism.Gleng 16:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the intro needs work but evolutionary theory has no problem with natural selection playing a role in speciesation. If relative extremes of a trait are favoured compared to the median then it actively works to create new species. Jefffire 17:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Correct, however, natural selection is the mechanisms that leads to change, and specialtion can take place when evolution is given sufficient time. KimvdLinde 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that there was a fundamental problem, only that it's not self evident so needs careful explanation - it's "difficult to argue" implying it's important to argue very carefullyGleng 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support reversion of Macros edits here, BTW. If a user's edits flow widely contrary to the opinions of all expert contributors, other users should first revert those edits, next look for gems of aditional content, and then reinsert. Other users are responcible for maitaining the contributions of scientific experts who contribute, remember those scientists might not event know how to revert! At best, I find Macros edits to be decreasing the readability by making things longer without adding content, but they also often push a POV. JeffBurdges 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Jeff. In the core, Marcos is right, but in a narrow sense. KimvdLinde 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

General response to talk of last week

I was for a conference out of town, and I just was reading the new talk just now. So, where are we? We are at a point that the article is still bad, does not get improved, all specialist leaving the ship. Where are we going from here? KimvdLinde 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And for those interested, I will continue to work on an seperate article in my user space User:KimvdLinde/Modern_usage_of_natural_selection and I invite those who want to contribute to it. KimvdLinde 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kin selection

I see numerous Marcosantezana edits on Kin selection, some of which are clearly POV. However, the pre-Marcos version contains errors according to natures' reviewer. So a wholesale revert seems inappropriate and a more detailed approach may be necessary. JeffBurdges 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Same problem as here. KimvdLinde 23:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENatural_selection_Archive_003_186d.html"