Natural Selection (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 02, 2011, 14:45 (4672 days ago) @ xeno6696

In my post of 01 August at 19.33 I challenged Matt's definition of Natural Selection as "the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure, and responds to that pressure in its genotype", and I also challenged his interpretation of the Barry Hall experiment.
 
Dhw: 1) What name do your "professional scientists" give to the process by which those plants and animals best suited to a particular environment are most likely to survive and breed? -MATT: That falls under Natural Selection; but again, I learned it as an entire process, not the one-off 'filter' that I have struggled with both you and David upon. Either I was taught the wrong thing or I wasn't, but many of my views are echoed by Massimo Pigliucci, and if I have to, at this point I will ship the book to you at my own cost.-That is kind of you, but I'm sure I can get it here, and in any case it might be months before I can read it. Besides, I've always felt that you were an independent thinker, and it seems to me that you should be able to justify your arguments without asking me to read a whole book. I would suggest to you that what you call the "entire process" is actually evolution, which (if I may be so bold as to summarize it) comprises the theory that all living organisms are descended from earlier organisms, and have reached their present forms by way of adaptations and innovations; those organisms best suited to particular environments are the ones that have survived. The latter phase is called Natural Selection. (I'm open to correction, of course.)-Dhw: 2) Do please give me a reference that authenticates your claim that "professional scientists" no longer use the Darwinian definition.-MATT: Here we pause, because after an hour I realize I will need to reread Pigliucci's book to find the exact page and quote... bookmark the thread...-No, please don't bother. Life is too short! I'm afraid I'd have great difficulty anyway taking Pigliucci's/your word for it that "professional scientists" have rejected the Darwinian definition of NS in favour of his/yours, when my own references suggest this is not so. Please just go ahead with the rest of my questions and my critique of your interpretation of the beta-lactanase experiment. I'm sorry to have made you waste an hour.