This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article makes the claim that "Selection can only act directly on phenotypic differences." It should be noted that this is a contentious issue, with Neo-Darwinians like G. C. Williams and Richard Dawkins arguing that selection is always and only of genes. I don't have a dog in the fight, but i think the article should be edited to acknowledge the fact that there is a reasonable debate currently taking place over the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Er, no, you've misunderstood; Dawkins would not dispute that selection can only act directly on phenotypic differences. JackAidley (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
SELECTION COEFFICIENT: "For example, the lactose-tolerant allele spread from very low frequencies to high frequencies in less than 9000 years since farming with an estimated selection coefficient of 0.09-0.19 for a Scandinavian population. Though this selection coefficient might seem like a very small number (9 to 19 humans were favored in the Scandinavian population)." This makes no sense. Given the definition, this should say that the selection coefficient of the lactose-INtolerant gene is .09-.19, and that this means that people without the gene left 9% to 19% fewer descendants (per generation?).
Also, this and other definitions of selection coefficient state it can range from 0 to 1, yet its definition clearly implies that some genes, including the lactose-tolerance gene being discussed, have negative selection coefficients. Why this discrepancy? Can the lactose-tolerance gene not be said to have a selection coefficient? Philgoetz (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)