Re: Species Selection Redux

From: William Morse (wdmorse_at_twcny.rr.com)
Date: 03/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:07:45 -0500 (EST)

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:d0rc88$1dde$1@darwin.ediacara.org:

>
> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote in message
> news:d0qtar$17uv$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> in article d0on9t$gus$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
>> jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net wrote on 3/9/05 9:51 PM:

>> I presume you are referring to the entity that evolves in DIRECT
>> response to the selection pressure, as opposed to entities that
>> evolve due to indirect correlation with the entity under selection.
 
> Of course. While I agree that ecosystems "evolve", I think that it
> would be incorrect to say that they evolve under natural selection.
> An ecosystem doesn't have a fitness. Of course, an understanding of
> NS is certainly necessary for an understanding of ecosystem evolution.

I tend to agree that ecosystems do not evolve under natural selection,
but not because they don't have a fitness - unless you are limiting the
definition of fitness to reproduction. Ecosystems can grow and die, but
they don't in my view reproduce - so they can't evolve by natural
selection. However ecosystems can vary in their ability to utilize
resources and to survive perturbations, so in that sense they have a
fitness. I echo your sentiment that an understanding of NS is necessary
for an understanding of ecosystem evolution, and I would add that an
understanding of ecosystems is necessary for an understanding of natural
selection. I have just started reading Dawkins' "The Extended
Phenotype" - the local library has a rather limited selection on
evolution :-( - and at least through the first few chapters he seems to
be mostly ignoring interactions at the ecosystem level.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Behaviorism vs. evolutionary psychology
    ... If I knew what those constraints were I would be a clever fellow ... Mutation is the "shaking the bits about" and natural selection ... to evolve. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Is a general purpose mechanism possible?
    ... is becoming that evolution depended more on innate self ... because the environment evolved along with the organisms in it. ... so they all had to evolve to adapt. ... and selection for in my own attempts to evolve something it ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Marcs empty hypothesis
    ... > A dry aper wrote: ... > what we are just because of coincidence without any environmental selection, ... Nobody seriously disputes that hominids had waterside ancestors. ... But they didn't evolve into the large-brained, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: How do body parts evolve?
    ... inherantly that each mutation provides a benefit and is therefore ... retained by the advantage it brings (natural selection). ... a tail evolve when the first mutation produces no advantage? ... cummulative mutations in the area of tail growth over 100 generations ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Behaviorism vs. evolutionary psychology
    ... is: mutation + natural selection. ... laws are primed to evolve. ... What is a specific constraint you have in mind, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)