NS is the process through which evolution acts. The process itself is governed by things like biological fitness. Fitness is determined by the genotype and phenotype of an individual to produce viable offspring. NS requires a selection pressure to “do its job”.
I think what you are having an issue with (based on reading other posts) is that it is impossible for us to know which trait will be beneficial to a given species in the wild before it happens. In order to test something like this we would have to have a static environment which is hard to come by. However some have managed it. Have you ever heard of the guppy experiment? That experiment shows how selection pressure causes natural selection for a certain trait and thus can alter the gene pool (and cause micro-evolution). In this environment you can then hypothesize about what traits will enhance ones fitness given the selection pressure. Thus you have tested NS.
Edit: I wanted to add that NS is not random like most people think it is. The random portion about NS is finding out which individuals, if any, have the "right" combo of genes for a given selection pressure. Thus if a selection pressure is great enough or radical enough some species will not have the "right" genes and go extinct. NS is very specific in selecting the animals in a species with certain traits.
I think what you are having an issue with (based on reading other posts) is that it is impossible for us to know which trait will be beneficial to a given species in the wild before it happens. In order to test something like this we would have to have a static environment which is hard to come by. However some have managed it. Have you ever heard of the guppy experiment? That experiment shows how selection pressure causes natural selection for a certain trait and thus can alter the gene pool (and cause micro-evolution). In this environment you can then hypothesize about what traits will enhance ones fitness given the selection pressure. Thus you have tested NS.
Edit: I wanted to add that NS is not random like most people think it is. The random portion about NS is finding out which individuals, if any, have the "right" combo of genes for a given selection pressure. Thus if a selection pressure is great enough or radical enough some species will not have the "right" genes and go extinct. NS is very specific in selecting the animals in a species with certain traits.
This message last edited by Night Walker on 07/08/2011 at 03:08:17 AM
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 1057 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 700 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 820 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/25d89/25d8901e4ef9e35dd4feebe8c133f5ddba30814d" alt=""
I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 754 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 745 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 621 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 818 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 839 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 734 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 753 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 766 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
- 867 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 723 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 808 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
- 871 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 689 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 678 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 802 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 322 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 742 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 766 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 791 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 790 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 772 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 798 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 327 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e322c/e322c8cefbd738204abe275558f6304b6c376db1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87c35/87c35ab98ae7fb5951a48907ad70867983869bca" alt=""
100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
- 350 Views
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e322c/e322c8cefbd738204abe275558f6304b6c376db1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87c35/87c35ab98ae7fb5951a48907ad70867983869bca" alt=""
Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 776 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 916 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 679 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 899 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 712 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 746 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 690 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 844 Views