Re: Reproductive Selection

John Harshman wrote:
Treus wrote:


Treus wrote:

John Harshman wrote:


<snip>

Why, even if you were correct about all this, would that make evolution
without natural selection?


<snip>

The evolution of R(S1,x) to R(S2,x) where R(S1,S2)<R(S1,S1) requires
S1 to evolve contrary its advange under reproductive selection (which
acts on the post-mating capacity to generate offspring). What other
form of natural selection could govern such a development?

Your pseudo-math is unclear. What is this species x for?

The expression R(S1,x) is an abbreviated way of saying "the
reproductive selection advantage that accrues to a member of
population S1 from its ability to interact with a specific mate from
population x (meaning any given population)." It is a more useful and
precise way of expressing reproductive compatibility.

We have covered this before. I'll summarize.

1. Selection acts on individuals; "reproductive selection" is an
artificial abstraction.

Calling it an "artificial abstraction" doesn't make it go away. Its
effects are very real.

If some characteristic is disadvantageous under
reproductive selection alone, that says nothing about whether it's
advantageous to the individual.

Of course.

2. I have shown you a simple way in which reproductive incompatibility
can arise without any disadvantage in reproductive selection. Remember
the 2-locus model?

Incompatibility can arise as a byproduct of natural selection acting for
other purposes, and it can arise as a consequence of drift.

Mere incompatibility is not the question. What needs explaining are
the functionally new features of the RC of the new population without
the influence of natural selection.

How does a significantly novel, and backward incompatible, post-mating
capacity to generate offspring arise against (or even neutral to) the
tendency of the selection pressure acting to preserve the post-mating
capacity to generate offspring?

In other words, how do the novel features of R(S2,x), meaning the
reproductive compatibility particular to S2, originate when the
relevant differences between S1 and S2 can't be accounted for by
genetic drift alone?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... want to know why "natural selection... ... *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were ... There is no evidence that natural selection is teleologic - I agree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity? ... Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved ... nobody claims that Natural Selection and Random Mutation (I ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, ... That mutation is teleologically foretold? ...
    (talk.origins)