Natural Selection (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 13:21 (4567 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt defined Natural Selection as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype.” He has also repeatedly claimed that NS covers the whole process of evolution. My argument is that NS is one stage of evolution, and I subscribe to the following definition: “the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, such as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.” (Wikipedia). Matt insists that this definition is no longer used by professional scientists.

On 13 August I tried to untangle the mess by asking you specific questions. I shan’t repeat these, or your answers where they confirm – sometimes grudgingly – that your own definition is the same as that for adaptation (epigenetics), and that innovations and adaptations must take place before they can be selected.

3) Is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.
You respond by giving me a lecture on recursion, stressing the importance of the filter, describing ocean waves (everything is in flux), and emphasizing that there is NO evolution without natural selection, all of which I agree with. Then at last: “Do I equate the moving pieces as identical? No.” Thank you. NS is not identical with epigenetics, adaptation, random mutations, innovations. It is one of several inseparable elements but is not synonymous with the term evolution and does not cover the entire process.

4) Please provide a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” now reject the conventional definition and adhere to your own, as above…
You have provided various links to show that Darwin’s gradualism has been discredited. What on earth has that got to do with the conventional and so-called “professional” definitions of NS as above, let alone with your insistence that NS covers the whole of evolution?

5) Please explain why [the beta-lactamase experiment] is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.
You reply that your view is a modification, an extension, a displacement, but not a complete replacement of Darwinian theory, and “the basic equations are still valid, but the understanding and subsequent results are not.” Please explain why the experiment is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.

Alternatively, why don’t you just agree that the conventional definition of NS (as above) is still valid, NS is not synonymous with the WHOLE process of evolution, and the beta-lactamase experiment illustrates the conventional definition of NS and not the one you have given us above?