I owe Matthias an apology for the tone of my response (first couple of lines) below. I think I misread his first line, in which he is (I now think) calling his point an "irrelevant nitpick", which I somehow read as his description of my message. As my son says, I made a mistake, not do it again.
--ravi
On May 15, 2009, at 12:00 PM, I wrote:
> On May 15, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Matthias Wasser wrote:
>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:18 AM, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe we are talking about mutations. A mutation of a gene
>>> occurs in an
>>> individual. If that individual does not reproduce -- which is in
>>> fact the
>>> majority case, since most mutations are regressive and decrease the
>>> reproductive success of the carrier -- that mutation is lost.
>>
>> Irrelevant nitpick: most mutations have no effect on fitness
>> whatsoever.
>>
>
> That's an irrelevant nitpick. Substitute neutral and remove
> "majority" if that makes you happy. It leaves my point intact.
>
>
>> I don't believe anybody (except perhaps Dawkins, & al.) is
>> disputing the
>> individual level of selection. But it would seem weird to deny that
>> species
>> is a level of selection in evolution, which is just the change in
>> allele
>> frequencies over time. If changes in the environment lead to
>> humans, wheat,
>> and cattle increasing in prevalence relative to trees, beavers, and
>> star-bellied snitches, this is a meaningful change, even if it does
>> not
>> result in or arise from evolution within those species, ie,
>> individual-level
>> selection.
>
>
> I think you have answered your own objection i.e., mutation occurs
> at the individual. Other kinds and levels of selection, as you
> correctly outline, are feasible, but are not the result of mutations
> (again, as you correctly outline). But note that you write "species
> is a level of selection in evolution". It can be a level of
> selection, but as you note, there is no evolution going on here, in
> the classical sense. Again, the notion of evolution has to be
> extended. Which is entirely possible and a worthy exercise.
>
>
>> This level of selection operates on a different logic -
>> Lamarckian and, ignoring HGT, asexual - and so I think it's useful
>> to treat
>> it as more than simply the aggregate of individual-level selection;
>
>
> Absolutely right.
>
> --ravi
>
>
--ravi
-- Geekery: http://ahren.org/code/ Inanities: http://ravi.tumblr.com/ Opinion: http://0sum.org/