Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles#Control of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, which is from a very general public to students in evolutionary biology. Writing for Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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. Misplaced Pages 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). 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 Misplaced Pages policies, especially when in dispute with other contributors ; 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) Template:RFMF

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)

File: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)

Request for Arbitration

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