On the Nature of Natural Selection

[Techne]

The concept of natural selection on the surface seems to be a rather simple concept to grasp. I have a few questions regarding people's views about the nature of natural selection. I have four basic questions, each with their own subsets of questions:

1) Is natural selection a prescriptive or descriptive term?
2) Is natural selection a mechanism?
3) Is natural selection a cause or a force?
4) Is natural selection a process or an outcome?

Question 1: Prescriptive or Descriptive?​

Do you view natural selection as prescriptive whereby natural selection is a cause or a force or a mechanism that "guides" the interaction or change of traits of biological entities. Natural selection "maintains" the prevalence of beneficial mutations or "limits" or "favours" some variations over other variations or "steers" biological change toward the local maxima in the "fitness landscape". On this view natural selection is an agent (albeit impersonal and blind, as in non-directional) that causally influences biological change by “maintaining” or “favouring” or “producing fitter” biological entities etc.

Do you view natural selection as a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits.

Question 2: Is natural selection a mechanism?​

Professor Coyne, in his article "The Improbability Pump" (www.thenation.com) defends the concept of natural selection from the criticisms of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini by stating that:

But first, since selection is so uncontroversial to Dawkins yet so maligned by F&P, it behooves us to understand what it is. In principle, natural selection is simple. It is neither a "law" nor a "mechanism." It is, instead, a "process"–a process that is inevitable if two common conditions are met.

From this I understand that Coyne is saying natural selection it is NOT a mechanism and that it IS a process. In Coyne's book, Why Evolution Is True page 3, he writes:

In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

From this I understand that Coyne is saying natural selection IS a mechanism.

What are your views on natural selection and whether it is or is not a mechanism.
What exactly you mean by "mechanism"?

Question 3: Is natural selection a cause or a force?​

Professor Dawkins has described natural selection as a "force" and Professor Coyne has described natural selection as a "cause." Do you think natural selection is some sort of cause or force that causes evolutionary change or plays a causal role in evolutionary change?
Are the terms "cause" and "force" used metaphorically?
What exactly do you mean with the term "cause" and "force"?

Do you agree or disagree with other biologists and philosophers that do not see natural selection as some sort of force or cause? Evolutionary biologists such Professor Allen MacNeill form Ithaca, New York and Professor John A. Endler do not think natural selection is a force. Professor William B. Provine at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University does not think natural selection is a force. He writes in his book, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, citing Endler:

As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether". Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

Philosopher of science (biology), Andre Ariew and Philosopher of Biology, Mohan Matthen, argue that natural selection is not a cause. James Lennox in turn argue that Darwin was a teleologist because of the fact that Darwin saw natural selection as some sort of force or cause that influences biological change or evolution. Andre Ariew, citing Lennox, in his article "Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments in Cosmology and Biology" writes:

How is natural selection a teleological "force"? I see remnants of two sorts of teleology operating in Darwin. The key to seeing both is within Darwin's concept of natural selection which can be summed up as follows: as a result of individuals possessing different heritable abilities striving to survive and reproduce in local environments, comes an explanation for changes in trait composition of populations through time. Traits become prevalent in populations because they are useful to organisms in their struggle to survive. Aristotle's functional teleology is preserved through the idea that an item's existence can be explained in terms of its usefulness (Lennox 1993). What makes a trait useful is that it provides certain individuals an advantage over others in their own struggle to survive and reproduce. Secondly, the concept of individual striving to survive and reproduce plays the fundamental role in Darwin's explanation for the origins of organic diversity. The same concept reminds us of Aristotle's formal teleology – the striving for self-preservation.

Are you aware of the different approaches to the concept of teleology and are you opposed to ALL the approaches?

Question 4: Is natural selection a process or an outcome?​

Some biologists see it as a process, some see it as an outcome (see above). What are your views and what do you mean by "process" and "outcome"?


My view is that natural selection is a descriptive term and not a prescriptive term similar to the laws of nature. Natural selection is not a mechanism, a cause or a force or a process. Natural selection is a descriptive term for the outcome of causes.

 

[James R]

Haven't we already done [thread=108763]this topic[/thread]?

 

[Techne]

Bump...

Anyone willing to answer these questions?

 

[origin]

1) Is natural selection a prescriptive or descriptive term?
2) Is natural selection a mechanism?
3) Is natural selection a cause or a force?
4) Is natural selection a process or an outcome?

To a certain extent this comes down to sematics.

1. prescriptive
2. Yes
3. force
4. process

Did I win?

 

[Techne]

Thanks. No, unfortunately you did not win anything, but your answers appear to be consistent at least.

What about the other questions ?
Like:
What exactly you mean by "mechanism"?
Are the terms "cause" and "force" used metaphorically?
What exactly do you mean with the terms "cause" and "force"?

 

[arfa brane]

Evolution is a process, it inputs "environmental factors" and "DNA/RNA" and outputs "genetic changes".

Its like a program that's trying to break a code, of sorts. Successful attempts at code-breaking result in "adaptation"--the code is "fit for a purpose", which purpose is occupation of an environmental niche. Multiple steps of "adaptation" result in different species which are separated by multiple "genetic changes".

So that's a rather oversimplified model in which "cause" and "force" should be apparent.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Bump...

Anyone willing to answer these questions?

If you want to learn more then read this book for free.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

 

[Techne]

If you want to learn more then read this book for free.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Thanks. So what is your view?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Thanks. So what is your view?

I think that with Darwin's observations and scientific evidence that he was correct.

 

[Techne]

That does not really answer any of the questions... but ok.

 

[origin]

Thanks. No, unfortunately you did not win anything, but your answers appear to be consistent at least.

What about the other questions ?
Like:
What exactly you mean by "mechanism"?
Are the terms "cause" and "force" used metaphorically?
What exactly do you mean with the terms "cause" and "force"?

You seem really caught up in semantics.

I am using the term mechanism to describe natural selection because it is like a funnel or a screen if you will. There is a certain amount of variation in a species and the enviroment will screen out the variations that are not conducive to survival and reproduction.

The terms force and cause were your terms, and based on your definitions, I applied them to natural selection. Natural selection is a bit of both but I think it is more of a force than a cause. That is, it seems to me that the variation in the species is the cause and the force is natural selection. Natural selections is a force, process or mechanism that winows out the variations of the species (cause) that are less likely to survive in a specific environment.

 

[Techne]

I am using the term mechanism to describe natural selection because it is like a funnel or a screen if you will. There is a certain amount of variation in a species and the enviroment will screen out the variations that are not conducive to survival and reproduction.

Fair enough.

The terms force and cause were your terms, and based on your definitions, I applied them to natural selection.

Well, to be fair, I did not provide any definitions for "cause" or "force". I am interested in how people understand those terms and how they apply it the concept of natural selection.

Natural selection is a bit of both but I think it is more of a force than a cause. That is, it seems to me that the variation in the species is the cause and the force is natural selection.

Ok, fair enough. I am still interested in how you understand these two concepts (cause and force) and how they differ and how you apply it to the concept of natural selection e.g. literally, metaphorically etc.

Natural selections is a force, process or mechanism that winows out the variations of the species (cause) that are less likely to survive in a specific environment.

Thanks for this. I am just not clear from your above descriptions how natural selection is different from what you call "the environment". I can change the two concepts and to me it says the same thing.

For example:
I am using the term mechanism to describe the environment because it is like a funnel or a screen if you will. There is a certain amount of variation in a species and the environment will screen out the variations that are not conducive to survival and reproduction.

or

The environment is a force, process or mechanism that winnows out the variations of the species (cause) that are less likely to survive in a specific environment.


Now my understanding of natural selection is that it is not prescriptive but descriptive in that it is a descriptive term. I don't think it is a mechanism or a cause or a force. It is just a descriptive term use to when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits

 

[origin]

Ok, fair enough. I am still interested in how you understand these two concepts (cause and force) and how they differ and how you apply it to the concept of natural selection e.g. literally, metaphorically etc.

This is just semantics it seems. I described the difference the best I could. Further discussion on the differences is just an exercise in English which frankly sort of boring.
I have no idea how the affect of natural selection can be termed metaphorical. It is a real affect so it is literal.:shrug:

Thanks for this. I am just not clear from your above descriptions how natural selection is different from what you call "the environment". I can change the two concepts and to me it says the same thing.

For example:
I am using the term mechanism to describe the environment because it is like a funnel or a screen if you will. There is a certain amount of variation in a species and the environment will screen out the variations that are not conducive to survival and reproduction.

or

The environment is a force, process or mechanism that winnows out the variations of the species (cause) that are less likely to survive in a specific environment.

Really? Those words describe completely different concepts.
Natural selection.
Environment

Now my understanding of natural selection is that it is not prescriptive but descriptive in that it is a descriptive term. I don't think it is a mechanism or a cause or a force. It is just a descriptive term use to when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits

OK, That works fine too.

 

[Techne]

This is just semantics it seems. I described the difference the best I could. Further discussion on the differences is just an exercise in English which frankly sort of boring.
I have no idea how the affect of natural selection can be termed metaphorical. It is a real affect so it is literal.:shrug:

Well, I don't think it is semantics if people just describe their understanding of concepts that form part of a conversation. It helps to be clear on what your understanding is and to make sure others know what you are talking about.

Really? Those words describe completely different concepts.
Natural selection.
Environment

Yes of course, they are different, however, like I said, your above description of natural selection and what you call "the environment" seem to imply the same thing.

 

[origin]

Yes of course, they are different, however, like I said, your above description of natural selection and what you call "the environment" seem to imply the same thing.

Sorry if my explanation was confusing, hopefully the definitions I supplied will clear that up.

 

[Techne]

Sorry if my explanation was confusing, hopefully the definitions I supplied will clear that up.

No worries, definitions are important and it not just about semantics.

I still don't quite understand what exactly you mean by "cause" and "force" and how it relates to natural selection. But that is ok, perhaps someone else might try.

 

[wellwisher]

Natural selection is a function of the environment, with environmental parameters determining its own optimized selection. For example, an animal with a heavy thermal coat would be selected high in a cold climate, but low in a hot climate. If the soil pH is high plant selection will be different than if the soil pH is low.

If someone was in charge of controlling the environmental parameters, they could tailor the parameters to give themselves selective advantage. For example, if someone was tall, they might legislate that everything be built supersized, allowing tall to have selective advantage. Then is sort of looks natural to untrained eye.

 

[origin]

No worries, definitions are important and it not just about semantics.

I still don't quite understand what exactly you mean by "cause" and "force" and how it relates to natural selection. But that is ok, perhaps someone else might try.

You seem to be making an essentially intuitively obvious concept way more difficult than it needs to be. But whatever floats your boat... :shrug:

 

[Techne]

You seem to be making an essentially intuitively obvious concept way more difficult than it needs to be. But whatever floats your boat... :shrug:

Sure, on the surface it does appear to be quite a simple concept. The term "cause" and "force" also appear to be quite simple concepts, so too for "mechanism". However, it also appears that when people describe these concepts they have different understandings of these concepts and often are unable to give a coherent and consistent exposition of their understanding. So the concepts themselves now appear to be rather complex given people's different understanding of them.

 

[origin]

Sure, on the surface it does appear to be quite a simple concept. The term "cause" and "force" also appear to be quite simple concepts, so too for "mechanism". However, it also appears that when people describe these concepts they have different understandings of these concepts and often are unable to give a coherent and consistent exposition of their understanding. So the concepts themselves now appear to be rather complex given people's different understanding of them.

Nah. You are trying to make this complex and it just isn't. I dare say anyone who has done even a cursory 30 minute study of natural selection has a very good grasp on what it is. I mean you can make putting your shoes on sound complex if you want, i just don't quite get why you would want to.