Talk:Natural selection

Talk archives

• Archive 1 (up to Nov '05)
• Archive 2 (up to Feb '06)

I just archived, this page was getting increadibly long. --KimvdLinde 17:17, 10 March 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 ~~~~)

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.

• 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.

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:

• Natural Selection: Introduction doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001750
• Adaptation and Natural Selection: Overview doi:10.1038/npg.els.0001706

--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)

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)~