Evolutionary mechanisms more important than natural selection?

[ecologist88]

Gene flow
Genetic draft,
Genetifc drift
Genetic hitchhiking
Horizontal gene transfer
Co-operation
Endosymbiosis
Symbiogenesis
Symbiosis
Paleopolyploidy (genome dupiclations)
Gene duplication
Group selection
Kin selection
Social selection
Somatic selection
Autoevolution
Molecular drive
Mutation
Niche construction
Saltationism
Self-organization
Epigenetics
Semiotics
Hybridization
Isolating mechanisms (Prezygotic and Postzygotic)
Natural genetic engineering
Orthogenesis
Nomogenesis
Hopeful Monsters
Directed Mutagenesis (directed mutation)
Adaptive mutation
Morphogenetic fields
Transposable element (jumping genes)
Hox genes
Controlling elements (Mcclintock)
Phenotypic plasticity
Genetic assimilation
Quantum Evolution
Process structuralism
Neo-Lamarckism
Panbiogeography

If all or most of the above evolutionary mechanisms / processes exist then why do some scientists still claim natural selection is the prime mechanism in evolution?

 

[McBell]

Super simplified version:

Those who survive pass on their traits.

So it really does not matter which of your list caused a change, if they do not live long enough with the change to pass it on, it does not get passed on.

 

[Quintessence]

Probably because many (most/all?) of the things you just listed are types or mechanisms of natural selection? I mean, they're not artificial selection (i.e., dog breeding, developing new cultivars of plants).

 

[ecologist88]

Those who survive pass on their traits.

Nobody is going to deny that, but natural selection is not creative, it does nothing for evolution. So I still see no reason to claim it has center role in evolution and scientists are yet to even agree on a definition of natural selection.

 

[McBell]

Nobody is going to deny that, but natural selection is not creative, it does nothing for evolution. So I still see no reason to claim it has center role in evolution and scientists are yet to even agree on a definition of natural selection.

So you do not understand how when a change occurs but the one with the change dies before passing it on is central to evolution?

 

[Skwim]

Nobody is going to deny that, but natural selection is not creative, it does nothing for evolution. So I still see no reason to claim it has center role in evolution and scientists are yet to even agree on a definition of natural selection.

You mean that natural selection could be eliminated from the process and evolution would go on just as before.

​

Hmmm. Interesting notion.
​

Makes a guy wonder why biologists still hang onto it.
​

 

[ecologist88]

Makes a guy wonder why biologists still hang onto it.

Here is evolutionary biologist Adam Wikins on natural selection in 2011:

"My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as “incapable” of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of “trivial” importance: the “right” variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes! The two contemporary groups, divided over this point, are not so much talking past each another as ignoring one another"

So yes selection does exist, but theres no evidence it is a major mechanism, and like many scientists in evo-devo claim it is of trivial importance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here is evolutionary biologist Adam Wikins on natural selection in 2011:

"My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as “incapable” of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of “trivial” importance: the “right” variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes! The two contemporary groups, divided over this point, are not so much talking past each another as ignoring one another"

So yes selection does exist, but theres no evidence it is a major mechanism, and like many scientists in evo-devo claim it is of trivial importance.

Where does Wilkins say that there is no evidence that natural selection is a major mechanism? All he says is that there is that there are two camps - one which believes natural selection plays the most essential role, and another which, he simply puts it, that natural selection's part in the process is "overstated".

Here, by the way, is the full article that quote is from:

Evolution: A View from the 21st Century

 

[Skwim]

Here is evolutionary biologist Adam Wikins on natural selection in 2011:

"My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it. In contrast to Victorian scientists who regarded Darwinian natural selection as “incapable” of creating high degrees of biological complexity, the modern sceptics tend to regard it as of “trivial” importance: the “right” variant for the right place and time arises and, presto, the population changes! The two contemporary groups, divided over this point, are not so much talking past each another as ignoring one another"

So yes selection does exist, but theres no evidence it is a major mechanism, and like many scientists in evo-devo claim it is of trivial importance.

But, moving your goal posts back to their original place, you said, "natural selection is not creative, it does nothing for evolution."




And, just as a posting heads-up; shouting (using a large font within a text) is considered annoying, if not rude.

 

[ecologist88]

I have not moved goal posts. Natural selection is not creative, we have many scientific publications pointing this out.

Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “… unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.”

Natural selection, far from increasing variation in species, reduces variation constantly in favour of an optimum type. Natural selection is not evolutionary.

The central story of evolution is all about increasing variation and complexity but natural selection can not do that, that is why I say it does nothing for evolution.

What then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection, so choose which mechanisms from the OP.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have not moved goal posts. Natural selection is not creative, we have many scientific publications pointing this out.

Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “… unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.”

And...?

Natural selection, far from increasing variation in species, reduces variation constantly in favour of an optimum type. Natural selection is not evolutionary.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a second, you've just said a lot of nonsensical things.

First of all: Natural selection does not reduce variation. Variation still exists and continues to exist in direct correlation with the amount of reproduction. Natural selection is when a given mutation increases the likelihood of a particular organism or population of organisms reproducing successfully and thus spreading that mutation into subsequent generations. How can natural selection reduce variation if the end result of natural selection is more successful reproduction? That doesn't make any sense. The gene pool that produces the most variation will have more beneficial mutations to select from, and the more beneficial mutations there are the more they reproduce, and the more they reproduce the more variation there will be.

Secondly: How did you jump from that to "natural selection is not evolutionary"?! That's a bizarre statement to make. What do you propose is produced when a species constantly reproduces with variation, but there is no natural selection?

The central story of evolution is all about increasing variation and complexity but natural selection can not do that, that is why I say it does nothing for evolution.

As already explained above, that is false.

What then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection, so choose which mechanisms from the OP.

Natural selection isn't what produces variation - it's what selects from the variation those that have beneficial mutations. The clue is in the title.

 

[McBell]

I have not moved goal posts.

Yes you have.
You went from:

If all or most of the above evolutionary mechanisms / processes exist then why do some scientists still claim natural selection is the prime mechanism in evolution?

To:

What then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection, so choose which mechanisms from the OP.

You are now asking two completely different questions...

 

[ecologist88]

Natural selection isn't what produces variation

And I never said it was. Natural selection produces nothing, you are in agreement with this yes? So it is not evolutionary.

On the previous page we have an evolutionary biologist Adam Wilkins admitting two camps exist within evolution on this subject, those who accept natural selection and those who reject it. Yet you seem to have missed this. It is not hard to understand.

Natural selection has a long criticism.

Here is evo-devo scientist Conrad Waddington (the inventor of genetic assimilation) on natural selection:

Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inpection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is apparent. This fact in no way reduces the magnitude of Darwin's achievement; only after it was clearly formulated, could biologists realize the enormous power of the principle as a weapon of explanation.

You are now asking two completely different questions...

There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I never said it was.

You said this:


"The central story of evolution is all about increasing variation and complexity but natural selection can not do that, that is why I say it does nothing for evolution.

What then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection, so choose which mechanisms from the OP."


See that? You said "natural selection... does nothing for evolution", then followed it up with "What then is the true source of variation?". This implies that you thought natural selection was proposed as the source of variation.

Natural selection produces nothing, you are in agreement with this yes?

In what sense? Natural selection is a SELECTION process, so it has an end result - but it isn't responsible for CREATING that end result.

So it is not evolutionary.

How did you reach that conclusion? What, to you, DOES count as "evolutionary"?

On the previous page we have an evolutionary biologist Adam Wilkins admitting two camps exist within evolution on this subject, those who accept natural selection and those who reject it.

Wrong, that's not what he said. He simply said that there were those who didn't give it as much prominence as others. He did not say that they either denied it's existence or utterly dismissed it's role in evolution entirely. Again, I posted the full source of that quote and you're welcome to peruse it yourself and find me the quote where he says so.

Yet you seem to have missed this. It is not hard to understand.

I already explained this and provided the source of the quote, which you ignored.

Natural selection has a long criticism.

Which is...?

Here is evo-devo scientist Conrad Waddington (the inventor of genetic assimilation) on natural selection:

Firstly: Why do you think that copy-pasting the words of someone's personal opinion on a given subject is a sufficient argument?

Secondly: This forum has a rule about citing sources of quotes. Could your please provide the source for this quote?

Thirdly: You have utterly ignored the bulk of my argument in favour of picking-out just one sentence to respond to. Please, show some respect for the time and effort I put into responding to your claims by showing that you at least have the decency to read them. Here are the paragraphs you ignored, and I will continue to repost them until they get a response:


First of all: Natural selection does not reduce variation. Variation still exists and continues to exist in direct correlation with the amount of reproduction. Natural selection is when a given mutation increases the likelihood of a particular organism or population of organisms reproducing successfully and thus spreading that mutation into subsequent generations. How can natural selection reduce variation if the end result of natural selection is more successful reproduction? That doesn't make any sense. The gene pool that produces the most variation will have more beneficial mutations to select from, and the more beneficial mutations there are the more they reproduce, and the more they reproduce the more variation there will be.

Secondly: How did you jump from that to "natural selection is not evolutionary"?! That's a bizarre statement to make. What do you propose is produced when a species constantly reproduces with variation, but there is no natural selection?

 

[McBell]

There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

I see you are not interested in honest discussion.

have a nice day anyway.

 

[ecologist88]

"The central story of evolution is all about increasing variation and complexity but natural selection can not do that, that is why I say it does nothing for evolution.

What then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection, so choose which mechanisms from the OP."


See that? You said "natural selection... does nothing for evolution", then followed it up with "What then is the true source of variation?". This implies that you thought natural selection was proposed as the source of variation.

I am not getting your comments here.

I said "what then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection."

You then make the accusation that I thought natural selection is the proposed source for variation. I have made it clear it isn't.

In what sense?

It would be easy if you answer this question and then you will understand, is natural selection creative?

Answer = yes or no.

What, to you, DOES count as "evolutionary"?

The process of developing. Change in complexity etc.

Wrong, that's not what he said. He simply said that there were those who didn't give it as much prominence as others. He did not say that they either denied it's existence or utterly dismissed it's role in evolution entirely.

"On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it."

He simply said that there were those who didn't give it as much prominence as others.

That is what this thread is about.

Which is...?

This site seems to have an overview:

Non-Darwinian evolution - RationalWiki


Regarding your comment:

First of all: Natural selection does not reduce variation. Variation still exists and continues to exist in direct correlation with the amount of reproduction. Natural selection is when a given mutation increases the likelihood of a particular organism or population of organisms reproducing successfully and thus spreading that mutation into subsequent generations. How can natural selection reduce variation if the end result of natural selection is more successful reproduction? That doesn't make any sense. The gene pool that produces the most variation will have more beneficial mutations to select from, and the more beneficial mutations there are the more they reproduce, and the more they reproduce the more variation there will be.

I am not interested in personal opinion. We need to see some scientific papers, links etc to back that up. Nobody is even talking about mutations but you seem to have jumped onto that topic.

Firstly: Why do you think that copy-pasting the words of someone's personal opinion on a given subject is a sufficient argument?

He was a top evo-devo scientist, we have no reason to doubt what he said.

Secondly: This forum has a rule about citing sources of quotes. Could your please provide the source for this quote?

I agree. I will do that from now on.

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 1982, vol. 17, pp. 79-96

The Nature Institute - Dogma and Doubt

 

[Skwim]

I have not moved goal posts. Natural selection is not creative, we have many scientific publications pointing this out.

Goal post as of 11-15-12 11:48 AM

"natural selection is not creative, it does nothing for evolution."​

​

Goal posts at 11-15-12 01:37 PM

"yes [natural] selection does exist,"
​

​

Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “… unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.”

So what? Has anyone said they don't occur?

Natural selection, far from increasing variation in species, reduces variation constantly in favour of an optimum type. Natural selection is not evolutionary.

The central story of evolution is all about increasing variation and complexity but natural selection can not do that, that is why I say it does nothing for evolution.

Reduced to quoting mining and citing a yacht designer turned novelist ("F***woman being one of his works) really doesn't speak well of your grasp of evolution. But what the hey, a guy has to start somewhere I suppose.

 

[Man of Faith]

Because natural selection is observable so they use that to prove their case that what we can't see really did happened.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not getting your comments here.

I said "what then is the true source of variation in evolutionary systems? Hint it is not natural selection."

You then make the accusation that I thought natural selection is the proposed source for variation. I have made it clear it isn't.

You really seem to struggle in reading my comments. I never accused you of proposing that natural selection is the source of variation. I accused you of proposing that natural selection was claimed to be a source of variation. It never has been claimed to be a source of variation, yet you seem to indicate that it has been.

It would be easy if you answer this question and then you will understand, is natural selection creative?

Answer = yes or no.

Since the question is nonsensical, I have no idea how to answer it. Do you mean "does it directly CREATE"? No, it does not. It's not a creation process, it's a selection process.

The process of developing. Change in complexity etc.

And why have you stuck to this definition when evolution does not require a "change in complexity"? How have you come to the conclusion that natural selection does not naturally result in development or change in complexity?

"On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a “creative” and crucial role in evolution, and on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it."

Re-posting the same quote that I have already explained doesn't support what you say it does isn't exactly the best argument.

That is what this thread is about.

No, this thread is about you claiming that natural selection plays a trivial part in evolution, or "isn't evolutionary" based on some nonsensical criteria.

This site seems to have an overview:

Non-Darwinian evolution - RationalWiki

And what about any of these theories leads you to believe "natural selection is not evolutionary"?

Regarding your comment:

I am not interested in personal opinion.

That's not an opinion - that's what natural selection is, and those are the facts as to why your claim that natural selection "reduces variation" is wrong.

We need to see some scientific papers, links etc to back that up. Nobody is even talking about mutations but you seem to have jumped onto that topic.

You really want me to produce scientific papers to back up what natural selection is? Why don't you go and look it up? This is basic biology.

He was a top evo-devo scientist, we have no reason to doubt what he said.

And I'm sure I could easily quote "top evo-devo scientists" that disagree with him. The point is, quoting one person does not make a successful argument, especially when the quotes are taken out of context. On these forums, we use fact, not opinion to support our views.

 

[ecologist88]

Goal post as of 11-15-12 11:48 AM
Skwim

This is a real bad attempt at trolling, it seems you log on this forum to harass people and not actually read their topics or posts, you do not comment on anything but goal posts? All you ever do is talk about goal posts, please look up the definition of goal posts you are misusing that term. Your accusations are unfounded.

Yes I said natural selection is not evolutionary, and yes later I said natural selection does exist. This is not contradiction or moving goal posts.

How is this moving "goal posts" I was making a statement. It is not hard to understand:

Natural selection exists, but it is not evolutionary. We have many scientists saying this for last 150 years. It is not my fault if you do not know this history.

Before 1930, hardly any scientists accepted natural selection as evolutionary, but they did not deny it existed:

The eclipse of Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, this thread is about you claiming that natural selection plays a trivial part in evolution, or "isn't evolutionary"

As documented on this site, there is a long history of scientists proposing alternative mechanisms to natural selection. Considering that many evolutionary mechanisms are saltational that kind of undermines natural selection becuase natural selection only working gradually.

Non-Darwinian evolution - RationalWiki

That's not an opinion - that's what natural selection is

Then define to me what natural selection is. Is it a force, a process, a mechanism, what is it? Define it and perhaps we can get somewhere. Last time I checked I was reading over 50 different definitions of natural selection.

NATURAL SELECTION

As to the extent of the effects of natural selection on the differentiation and the origin of new species and higher systematic categories, the differences of opinion are enormous.

Are you willing to admit there is a debate about the role of natural selection in evolution? The debate exists within science. Some scientists reject it, some accept it as a minor evolutionary mechanism and others promote it dogmatically.

In the OP are mechanisms and processes you have probably never heard of. You would need to provide evidence to why you think natural selection is a major mechanism or process in evolution. But first define what you think it is. And please cite souces.