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.
I hadn't heard about this testing and it is indeed a test that shows that NS does not have to be a tautology.
But the book I'm reading anticipated this line of argumentation. He accepts the fact that some individuals and some traits have a better chance to survive and reproduce and thereby chaning the gene pool.
The guppy experiment is very interesting, but it shows something else: specific selection.
I'll repeat his conclusion here and then explain a bit:
"Special Definition - These are measurable, explanatory, testable, non-tautologous and true for a particular case. Problems: They are false for the general case; they do not unify nature; they are many disjointed conflicting theories masquerading as a single unified theory."
What he means is that in one case it can be shown that trait X is very beneficial, while in another case the same trait can be very unbeneficial.
When applied to the guppies: there were 4 scenario's that were tested and two results. For next generations it can now be predicted what NS will do in their specific situation concerning a single trait.
But the problem is, even in the guppy case, that it only works in a controlled environment.
In one discussion here the question of the stability of the fitness terrain came up. Now it would go to far as to say that it is totally random, but it is never fully static either. That means that nature can select for one type of guppies in one season, but the next there will be predators, two years later there will be a storm and the ocean floor will change it's color or structure and so on and so forth.
But when one tries to combine all these specific examples into a single principle or explain them all by use of a single 'law of nature', then we are lost again and have no other choice, but to define NS in a tautologous form.
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 1073 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 719 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 836 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 777 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 765 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 638 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 835 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 858 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 761 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 779 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 790 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
- 892 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 749 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 822 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
- 885 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 710 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 694 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 819 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 327 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 761 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 795 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 813 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 811 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 797 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 818 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 338 Views


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
- 360 Views


Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 794 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 939 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 699 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 919 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 730 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 762 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 704 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 860 Views