Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Little ray of sunshine  |
They are the same thing. If you survive long enough and convince another person to reproduce with you, you have been evolutionarily successful. Natural selection has worked in your favor. I view the term natural selection as encompassing any factor that leads to a genetic line reproducing itself. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Do the next right thing  |
They are not the same thing. What you view the term as does not define what the term is. As a lawyer, I would expect you to understand the importance of accuracy in language and terminology. Selection in general is essentially "did you reproduce successfully?". Natural selection is all about survival. Sexual selection is all about actually obtaining a mate. While people often use natural selection as a synonym for evolutionary success, they are not interchangeable. A good example is the peacock. Male peacocks have large, brightly colored tails. Female peacocks are rather drab and boring. Females select the male for breeding. A large, colorful tail is advantageous for a male to attract a mate, but not so much for survival. Females, not needing to attract a mate have better coloring for blending in, and smaller tails that don't weigh them down and aren't so easy for predators to grab. Natural selection was the primary driver for the evolution of the female coloring, while sexual selection was the primary driver for the tail of the male. Would it make sense to say "gross profit and net profit are the same thing, because if you don't make a profit you go out of business"? | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
I understand the importance of definitions. I think your definition of "natural selection" is not correct. I don't have any opinion as to whether evolutionary biologists use the term "sexual selection" at all or as you do. I think those are your definitions of those terms. Can you point to scientific or technical preferences for the use of the terms as you define them? For example, can you point to definitions of "natural selection" as encompassing only survival factors? That is not my understanding of how the term is used by the science. Natural selection, in my ears, means ALL the factors that lead to successful reproduction and is the more general term. Your peacock example shows that there can be a tension between what is sexually attractive (to adopt your language), and what is optimal for evading predators, but that tension does not mean that your use of the term "natural selection" to mean only survival factors is accurate terminology. I understand the concept you are describing, but argue with your contention that the term you are using is the right way to talk about it. I simply haven't heard anyone but you use the term natural selection in that limited sense. I would say that natural selection favors brightly colored male peacocks because the advantage of those colors in competing for mates outweighs the disadvantage of poor camouflage. I would say natural selection favors bright peacocks. Again, I don't disagree with your idea, but I don't think you are using the right term to describe what may lead to an overall evolutionary advantage. This Wikipedia article, which is quite well footnoted, does not suggest that the term natural selection is used to mean only creatures which have survival advantages, as opposed to sexual attractiveness advantages. Rather, it uses that term in the way I have always understood it, which is the sum total of factors that lead to successful continuation of the species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Please show me that your more limited use of the term has acceptance. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Do the next right thing |
From the very beginning of that Wikipedia article:
Apparently the use has changed since it was something I was studying. I learned there was a clear distinction between the two. I still don't think they are interchangeable. If you want to count sexual selection as a subset of natural selection now, well, who am I to argue with Wikipedia? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024