The question that I raised is a very important one. Is Natural Selection based on ecology? Yes or No/
What he says is that variation facilitates adaptation to the environment. Does this mean that organisms are able to anticipate environmental changes so they can anticipate changes in advance? An alternative point of view is the ideas that there are some biological processes that are more flexible and efficient that others, so they are more adaptable to the environment.
Organisms are in constant dialog with the environment in terms of evolutionary change. This means that evolution is not based on random chance, but adaption to the ecology.
No, natural selection is not based on ecology. It is based on fitness, which is based on factors that include the environment (“ecology”) but also include several other key factors. There are many basic types of reading that could lead one to understand why “natural selection is based on ecology” is false. One topic to consider would be frequency-based selection, which is likely based entirely on perception of the phenotype by other organisms.
No, it doesn’t mean that. It means that populations can harbor variation that allows them to adapt to changes using existing resources, instead of “waiting” for adaptive responses to occur genetically.
That is a reasonable approximation of Wagner’s ideas but again, he would not limit this to “the environment.” The milieu in which fitness plays out is much more complex than just the local climate.
Those sentence include a false premise (“based on random chance”) and a false conclusion (“adaptation to the ecology”). The constant repetition of these errors only makes them more cringeworthy.
Ecology is bestdefined as the study of: The relationships between all living organisms and their environments. The relationships between parasites and their hosts. Aquatic organisms. Interactions between predator and prey populations.
“The perception of the phenotype by other organisms” includes the relationships between all living organisms and their environments; therefore frequency based selection is based on ecology.
Thank you for confirming my understanding of Wagner’s ideas. You are mistaken is thinking that the environment and ecology is limited to local climate. See above.
Evolution is not just about ecology. Natural selection is about ecology. Evolution is about variation and natural selection.
The danger of climate change is that human pollution is causing it to happen faster and in different ways than it might not happen otherwise. Adaption is change and change is normally disruptive.
We need to show down change and reduce pollution which poisons us and the environment. Too many people do not want to reduce pollution because it is easier and cheaper in the short run not to clean up our messes.
Adaption will happen one way or another, but it might result in extinction.
Living creature3s are not mechanical beings. They interact with their environment i8n a positive manner, not a negative one.
Well, I am pleased to see that you include all of these aspects in your understanding of “ecology.” Because you (in my view) strongly and almost exclusively emphasize climate, and because you inaccurately claim that competition is not relevant to evolution, I inaccurately assumed that you do not include those aspects in your understanding of “ecology.” My mistake. I hope you will accept my apology.
" In positive frequency-dependent selection, the fitness of a phenotype or genotype increases as it becomes more common." From the Wikiperia
This is the same4 old circular thinking. Fitness = Commonality, that is number. Number + Fitness. This truism has nothing to do with natural selection, while ecology has everything to do with natural selection.
Since we seem to be agreed that ecology is the basis of natural selection, let us make that clear very, which is necessary to make the theory of evolution scientific and whole, so theology and evolutionary theory can work together.
You were right I did not understand frequency-dependent selection, so I took another look. A Plain English demonstration pointed out what it seemed trying to say.
The explanation made sense, but it appeared to be farfetched, and the example used appeared to be bogus. I am sure that there a many valid examples of how ecology brings about selection that we don’t need bogus examples with names that don’t make sense.
How very sad that you don’t take the time or the care to understand the science. It’s your loss.
To those who are curious: frequency-dependent selection occurs when the fitness of a phenotype (for example, a certain coloring of an individual animal) depends on how common (or rare) that phenotype is. So, a particular color pattern might be advantageous when it’s rare, but some generations later, lose that advantage by becoming less rare. If you take a few minutes to think about this, you’ll realize it is pretty interesting.
Thank you for your explanation. The other explanation I found was specious for the reasons I cited.
On the other hand I would say that this frequency-dependent selection does not seem to be valid. An adaption is valid if it allows an allele to flourish. It is not valid if it does not. Frequency doe not really matter.
Now it is true that the more frequent a predator or prey of the allele is likely to encounter it would influence its likelihood to adopt counter measures to its defense. Thus additional changes might need to be taken.
Also it follows that the more often a defense is used the more vulnerable it is likely to become, but this is to be understood as the way organisms interact with each other, not some means of selection that can lead to a new species or an extinct species.
The issue is not fitness, which can be quantified, but adaption which is the way that organisms diversify and spread.
That’s false. Frequency-dependent selection is an interesting fact of evolution and population genetics. Taking the time to understand it could make your life fuller. It’s now your choice. I can’t take any more time to address your falsehoods.