Talk:Natural selection/Archive 9

This sentence... (phenotypes and genotypes)
"If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation."

This sentence appears in the lead section of the article. I was going to change the word "genotype" for the word "gene" or maybe even the word "allele" because organisms with different genotypes may possess the same favorable allele that makes both of their phenotypes prone to survive. What do you guys think? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How Does Natural Selection Work?
In numerous places, the article says "Natural Selection acts..." or describes it as a process. How exactly does Natural Selection work? It would be helpful to non-biologist readers like me if the article described what exactly Natural Selection does (if indeed it does anything) to select for certain traits in an organism. I understand how how artificial selection works. Horse breeders, for example, mate their mares with fast studs. Genetics being what it is, the offspring may be fast or slow. If it's fast, it may have weak ankles. The breeder sets selection criteria and tests the offspring for their ability to meet those criteria. Most times he gets duds but once in a while he gets a winner. So, is Natural Selection a set of tests based on environment, climate, or whatever, that determines whether or not an individual survives in the real world? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)zbvhs


 * Simply put by a fellow non-biologist (I hope someone else will explain better later); individuals with suitable genes for the environment survive longer and can produce more offspring, this offspring inherits this genetic material and will thus in turn produce more offspring as well, and so on. 'Good' genes are passed on, 'bad' ones die out. Isn't this clear from the article though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is in the word 'selection', which normally refers to a conscious, iterated process, which is quite the opposite of how natural selection works (which makes it so hard to simulate on a computer; see Climbing Mount Improbable). It can be very confusing. The term 'natural preservation' might have been better, though preservation tends to focus more on elimination and less on procreation, which is also very important. Richard001 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't with the word 'selection', it is with the concept each individual has with the word: What is your concept that you are encoding for using the word 'selection'. Who did the 'selectus'? Nobody, then you can't use the word, it is not for me to figure out what your theory is. I can merely point out that given your premises certain words in the English language are not available to you.TongueSpeaker (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The word that's problematic for me is "acts". The implication is that something (supernatural?)called "Natural Selection" actively does something to decide which variants survive and which don't. As I see it Natural Selection is a passive process by which an organism's environment tests variant forms for viability. For extreme variants just being born may be fatal. Variants at the other end of the scale have the same chances for survival as normal forms, which is why traits are so slow accumulating in a population. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Darwin was using the term metaphorically. In breeding, human beings select which traits they do and do not want domesticates to pass on to offspring. Darwin is saying that nature has the same effect. The issue here is the distinction between cause and effect. When you ask your question about selection, you think it is a cause. When humans select, it is easy to unpack this cause by looking at the breeder's thought process and conscious acts. But Darwin is using selection as an effect; he is saying that however different the causes, nature has the same effect as a human breeder. Since Darwin was more concerned with the effects, he was not so concerned with unpacking the cause - but this is also actually central to Darwin's argument: natural selection is for Darwin non-teleological; it has no conscious plan - unlike human breeders. That is why there is no point in figuring out how the cause actually works. It doesn't matter. It can be random, or the aggregate of a host of different factors all interacting in very complex but non-teleological, non-intentional ways in the environment. There is no plan, no consciousness, no uniform mechanism. What is important is the effect. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To point to an analogy that Darwin had read, Adam Smith's Invisible hand produces an effect without any intention or plan of producing the effect. (not to be confused with Charles Addams's disembodied hand) . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Darwinism or modern synthesis not the topic
"...as illustrated in the well-known phrase survival of the fittest - modern evolutionary theory defines fitness in terms of individual reproduction...."

This is revisionist history, we don't want to know what the MS is, we want to know what Darwin said with his background knowledge and he said that Sof is a "...better expression..." than natural selection, which causes problems for evolutionists trying to massage this out of the MS. TongueSpeaker (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. They are two different words describing the same thing. Words are separate from the things they are describing. Talk pages are for discussing issues related to the editing of articles, they are not a forum. Please keep this in mind. --Woland (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask, and it shall be given thee. But who are these "evolutionists" of whom you speak? Could it be that thou art an Creationist, with all the revisionist "history" that entails? Anyway, I've added some clarifications and context. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The ones Darwin referred to in OoS: "...It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at first developed within the marsupial sack...." Darwin coined the term take it up with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.108.106 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On that basis, he also coined the term creationists. Offtopic.. dave souza, talk 07:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious Confusion:- terminology and appropriateness
In the summary of this article it is stated that Natural Selection (a concept of Darwin's) was originated BEFORE any idea of genetics and in reference to artificial selection (breeding). However the body of the article decribes Natural selection in terms of genetics. The summary states: The concept of natural selection was originally developed in the absence of a valid theory of inheritance; at the time of Darwin's writing, nothing was known of modern genetics. Although Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a contemporary of Darwin's, his work would lie in obscurity until the early 20th century. The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis. This clarity is entirely absent from the body of the aryticle which in the main concerns itself with Modern Evolutionary Synthesisand AND NOT Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In my opinion the majority of this article should be cut out and relocated there rather than presented here as a revisionist historical account.

Similarly, the reference to the confusion over the term "fit" is once again defined in a modern perspective. Such an approach is as irrelevant as it is confusing. The discussion is once more with relation to Modern evolutionary Synthesis and not Darwin's theory of natural Selection.

The ONLY thing to determine in this article, which is on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection (sorry if this is getting repetitive but this basic issue seems to have been completely overlooked here at the moment and therefroe in need of constant repetition to try and focus the article where it purports to be) and NOT on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is what it is likely that Darwin meant because .... we are here considering an entry on his theory of Natural Selection and not debating the meaning of the life the universe and eveything! Dawkin's avoidance of the terminology is because he is putting forward HIS theory. Again this is supposed to be an article on a specific theory not a philosophical debate on the validity or otherwise of the theory in the light of current genetic knowledge. References can and should be made and citations provided both internal and external to identified weakness in the theory especially those noted at the time to allow the reader to properly research the subject of evolution if that is their desire. This is an encyclopaedia and not a Dummies Guide to the Universe.

The key issue is what did Darwin mean? This can and should be deduced from the body of his work, his beliefs and the mores of the times and his closest colleagues and acquaintances. And that as far as wiki or any other encyclopaedia goes is an end to it. The question of ultimate veracity is a matter for other theses which themselves may or may not be suitable as encyclopaedic entries.

In brief I believe that this article needs a substantial rewrite to do justice both to Wiki and to the man.

If there is no objection I will simply cut out the sections concerned and paste them into the entry on Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Even if only the summary of this article remains that may well be sufficient.

In my opinion at the moment this article detracts from wiki as a reference as it duplicates and merges information already published in the correct locations and creates a short story loosely based upon Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. It is therefroe not a correctly defined encyclopaedic entry. An alternative to a reqwite might be to change the title to something like "Therories of Evolution" and simply create a new entry for darwin's theory containing only procipally the summary of this article. In any event I am flagging the article to reflect this and would be grateful for your comments.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having previously arrived at the same conclusions myself I was delighted to see them expressed here. On Earth the prevailing mechanism for natural selection indeed appears to be genetic, but where should that fact enter in an article on natural selection as a mechanism in its own right?


 * On another life-bearing planet, variation within a species might be of some other origin than genetic. The essence of natural selection is not the underlying mechanism of variation but rather the role of variation, however caused, in providing a range of individuals of varying degrees of adaptation to varying circumstancs.  On such a planet natural selection could well proceed precisely as envisaged by Darwin, via some other mechanism of variation than genetics.  Had Darwin instead of dying been transported to that planet and his life extended a hundred years, he and his alien colleagues could perfectly well have uncovered the machinery of variation on that planet, which would then in Darwin's mind complete his theory by explaining the origin of variation.  This development would not contradict the theory he developed on Earth but be completely consistent with it, despite the fact that variation on Earth is of genetic origin.


 * It seems to me that the theory of natural selection is more readily grasped by an eight-year-old when the theory is not encumbered with genetics. That natural selection does not logically depend on genetics makes this all the more true.  Of course no child will contradict the adult who says that variation is necessarily of genetic origin, but then one is asking the child to accept two theories when one is sufficient, and moreover more faithful to Darwin's original reasoning.


 * Ideally the article would develop natural selection from the point of view of variation within species, a phenomenon clearly visible even to a six-year-old! At some point in the article it would talk about the origin of variation, but not before the mechanism of natural selection had been explained.


 * Although one can argue for this separation on the purist ground that Darwin didn't know about genetics, I don't see the need for that argument. It's true, but a better argument in my view is that natural selection is a simple concept that depends only on variation within species, not on how that variation comes about.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Simulating natural selection
An interesting aspect not discussed in this article is a topic of Climbing Mount Improbable - how it is quite easy to simulate artificial selection on a computer (e.g. biomorphs) but exceedingly difficult to simulate natural selection. Richard001 (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why another Dawkins advertisement? That isn't even true anyway. Natural selection is simulated by computers all the time. In fact, natural selection happens when we don't even expect it to.

"When Guy Hoelzer runs computer simulations of organisms living in the modeling equivalent of a featureless plain, he sees them break into different species — even though there’s no reason for natural selection to take place. "



Savagedjeff (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins approves of this article
sorry, I'm not really contributing here, so go ahead and delete if you want, but I thought this might be of interest. Somwhere, in one of these 4 clips, he talks about this article. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6697390753170958006&q=richard+dawkins&ei=9HMOSKryMIaIjQLU07msBA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.170 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea I watched this video too, and well thats why I'm here. Well I thought it was really fun to hear. Good job wikipedia contributors!

It is this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0gwV8etx4sI&feature=related

He mentioned that he tried to alter the article, removing a book reference that shouldn't have been there but it got cosntantly added back. :D

- SwedishPsycho
 * Out of interest, does anyone know which book reference it was? Shinobu (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not here, so it must have been done anonymously. Richard001 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Dawkins is mentioned in this article at all. Almost seems like an advertisement for him and his book. It adds nothing to the article other than saying that Richard Dawkins has an opinion on it. Also, do we really need to bring up memes on the topic of natural selection?

67.249.240.96 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural selection in the wild
I think we should have an article 'natural selection in the wild', and the biologist John Endler may be able to write on for us (his book of the same name should give a good example of what the article would be like). Just a heads-up and invitation for input - since it would be a sub-article of this one, it would then be important to create a clear relationship between them, perhaps using summary style (though this would require some restructuring of the article as it stands). Richard001 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought natural selection only occurred in the wild (as distinct from artificial selection, which only occurs in the domestic realm). What would be the gist of the article? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Zbvhs Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have natural selection in a bottle. aka, you create a context, anf let natural selection do its work, as opposed to artificial selection in which man is the actually decider who is selected and who is not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: articifical selection
Could someone with editing permissions please consider adding a link to artificial selection in the 'see also' section? I think it's a really important contrasting yet related idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.98.196 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Artificial selection is put in context and linked in the second paragraph of the introduction. --Ettrig (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect definition
The article starts with the following sentence:


 * Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes

This is not natural selection but evolution by means of natural selection. natural selection is a process, and it results in evolution. Needs to be fixed if the article is to maintain it good article status. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at Reworking
My basic criterion for any wikipedia topic is: could a bright 14 year old with no prior knowledge make sense of the article? To this end, I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of the article in an attempt to make them clear to someone who knows little of biology, while keeping the essential ideas intact. The first sentence is surely the trickiest, and I invite your comments and edits.

The rest of the article is a mess. There is a lot of information, but it lacks a coherent structure or argument, proceeding from basic principles to more detailed critiques. For example, the very first section is a discussion of the genotype/phenotype distinction, which, while important, is not the central idea (the principles of natural selection can be explained without this, so genotype/phenotype can come later.) I also believe that examples are very badly needed; the current article says almost nothing about the evidence that leads us to believe that natural selection is occurring. This makes it abstract, unconvincing, and hard for the newcomer to grasp. Natural selection, as one of the key ideas behind evolution, is an important topic that deserves a top-quality article. I invite all editors to take a stab at major rearrangement. I know I will.

Remember, the article has to do a good job explaining natural selection to a reader who knows nothing at all about biology, genetics, or evolution -- if they knew what these things were, they would probably already know what natural selection is. We can certainly work up to the nuances, but we have to start very simple.

--Jonathan Stray (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, the intro describes Evolution by means of Natural selection, not natural selection itself. Natural selection is a mechanism, and doesn't care about the result. Evolution is the change in gene frequencies, resulting from NS or gene flow or drift. The article was a long battle bewteen people at the time, maybe it is now time to actually start working on it and make it good. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In theory I agree with some of the points you make, however by simplification you have also lost a lot of information and what you've really done is mostly just cut large sections out instead of trying to simplify the concepts therein. This is after all one of the functions of the wikilinks interspersed throughout. I much prefer the more complicated version (even if it could be simplified to some extent). I believe a reader should be challenged when encountering something they don't know much about. --Woland (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A good article build up from simple to more complex. That is not a problem. But we first have to fix the scope of the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you check the diffs you will see that I didn't delete very much at all from the intro, mostly just reformatted. Certainly there was nothing in the old intro that is not still present elsewhere in the article. I have also now reworked the sections and I took a stab at a new "General Principles" description, something which was entirely lacking in the previous version. Again, I think we have to assume that the reader has no genetics or biology knowledge coming into this, which means that the modern genetic basis is a bad place to start -- remember that Darwin did it without any genetics at all. If the untrained reader cannot get the basic intuition behind NS in the first two paragraphs, I think we have failed.


 * Also, responding to your criticism Kim, I have taken pains to note that NS is not evolution, merely one of several mechanisms -- though I think it's fair to say it's a pretty key mechanism, yes? --Jonathan Stray (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition challenge
Ok, years ago, when I made this article a good article, we kind of skirted some issues. At the time, we had an editor who insisted that everything had to be as Darwin was using it. We progressed since he started this excellent idea. Anyway, there are a few issues with the article, and I am regularly tempted to delist it as a good article because of the issues with it. Here is the Gordian knot to solve: Very abstract, NS is a mechanism in which a natural agent favours those types of biological units that are better capable in making copies of themselves than others, independent from whether those traits do have a heritable component. have fun. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Evolution is a change in gene frequency.
 * 2) Natural selection is not the same as evolution.
 * 3) Natural selection is a process that acts on which biological unit is fittest.
 * 4) For NS to occur, a trait does not have to be heritable.
 * 5) NS acts on the phenotypes, favourable traits.
 * 6) Natural selection can act in any biological unit, individuals, cells, genes, species, etc.


 * Kim, other than noting the units were better capable how did you measure their favorability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.159.77 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 August 2009


 * Hi Kim, I think I agree with all of the points above. Where do you see the Gordian knot?  I think traditionally the real challenge has been to define "fitness" without getting circular, and also to be clear that individuals do not "adapt" but rather "are adapted for."  I am not sure but I have a hunch that these problems can be solved at least in part by explaining something about ecology (what a niche is, how ecosystems tend towards osme kind of local homeostasis but, because of a variety of reasons, are in fact dynamic). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that all of these points are in the article currently, Kim. 1 and 2 are in the intro, 3 is in the "fitness" sub-section, 4 and 5 are in "Nomenclature and usage", and 6 is in "Types of selection". So all of this is addressed in the introduction and the first section. I agree that the introductory sentence talks exclusively about natural selection of heritable traits in a population of organisms and that this is far from the whole story, however I would think that this "classic" definition and is the most important idea to get across quickly because of its connection with evolution. Again, I am assuming that the target audience knows nothing of biology, evolution, or genetics -- I like to imagine a retired grandparent checking wikipedia when trying to decide whether to vote to support the teaching of evolution in their local school system. Perhaps the "Natural Selection and Evolution" section is the place to gather your points explicitly. It could surely use a rewrite. --Jonathan Stray (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Misconception:

The term “missing link” was coined by creationists in order to undermine evolution. The term generally points out missing transitional species or intermediary life forms. This, however, is a false generalization as all life forms according to natural selection, are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. The term is inaccurate in its depiction of evolution as a chain when in fact it is more like numerous branches continuously growing, evolving.

Another misconception of natural selection is the assumption that one modern species can “turn into” another modern species. For example, a horse cannot turn into a dolphin and a chimpanzee will not evolve into a human. These are modern species with no relevance to each other except that we all have common ancestors. The span of evolutionary development is millions of years. Therefore we can only witness gradual changes in traits within our lifetimes. The domestication of dogs is a prime example of how humans over just a thousand years or so have managed to combine dog breeds to make their own categories. Not enough maybe to generate a new species but breeds have their unique characteristics.

The general misconception of natural selection arises due to conflict between religious notions of human existence. The evolution fact is a part of our everyday lives. We constantly take flu shots and vaccines for evolving viruses and we use various pesticides for constantly changing weeds. Astonishingly enough, chimps have around 98% identical genetic make up to humans, a clear indication of our common ancestor.

Overall, the discovery of Ida is a triumph of human intellect. The fact that we as a species can find evidence of our primitive ancestors is fascinating. Natural Selection is just as true a science as nuclear physics. It is not a theory but a fact backed by thousands of available fossil records. Science is a perspective based on facts and constant revisiting of those facts. The beauty of science is that it is not absolute, but like us, it is continuously evolving. Trying to understand the origins of our species is the first step towards our wisdom. The struggle between truth and belief may not have been resolved. And constant demonization of science may not have subsided. What is evident, however, is that as time goes on, our knowledge is accumulating. To hinder its process would be criminal to our intellectual progress as a species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akchishti (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Darwin defined natural selection only once
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate ...." How did Darwin measure the variations usefulness other than noting they were preserved? See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for the concept of a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.108.106 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2009
 * See the article which covers this point suitably briefly, and see also the important notice at the top of this talk page. . dave souza, talk 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peppered Moth
Isn't the peppered moth criticized, and a bad example but an example of bad science, as explained in Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale? Faro0485 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Creationists claim it is a bad example, but when you look at the real story, it is not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See peppered moth evolution as an excellent example of evolution in action, and a telling example of bad journalism, poor quality investigative writing in Of Moths and Men: An Evolutionary Tale, and disgraceful lies by intelligent design creationists. . . dave souza, talk 07:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...."
 * Present revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection  Sept 2009 "...Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

Neither of these revisions cite any pages in Darwin's OoS, who wrote these paragraphs ? The 2008 one had "Genes", which Darwin and Aristotle didn't know about so whatever this author was talking about it had nothing to do with Darwin and Aristotle. Why was genes removed in the 2009 revision, it is like imagine somebody removes the word "Newton" in a revision of the gravity article. Any theory must explain genes as a cybernetic abstraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.112.194.120 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 September 2009
 * The article describes what "natural selection" means now (with some history), so the lead does not need to use original terminology. Natural selection works regardless of the underlying processes, so it is reasonable that genes are not mentioned in the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article described Evolution by one specific way. It almost completely fails to actually deal with natural selection. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who decided what the concept is with Natural Selection today? What is a natural selection. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for my notes on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.112.130.91 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural selection affects humans
An interesting paper detailing the effects of natural selection on contemporary human populations can be found at 10.1073/pnas.0906199106. I can't work out where in the maze of evolutionary articles it would be most appropriate to add this information. 69.172.70.187 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dare to say this is not bound to living organisms
Any self-replicating mechanism may inherit the traits of natural selection and in extension evolution if it adheres to the simple and basic principle of self-replicating a population which will be inevitably in competition with itself or/and the environment. This may sound like original research - though granted a brilliant one I might say - but it is really not. The latest book of Richard Dawkins gives a great hint to it, even though it doesn't actually spell it: Since living organisms are in a certain frame of thought DNA replicators, it can be derived that all living organisms are self-replicating DNA propagators. This has nothing to do with the actual traits of life and it can clearly theoretically be attributed to anything that is self-replicating, forming groups, competing with each other or the environment. i.e. create a sufficiently competent self-replicating robot that has the characteristic of being slightly modified by chance, and it will clearly be following natural selection rules. --94.71.94.131 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, several papers are found by a single google search on 'robots' and 'natural selection'. This should be included. --94.71.94.131 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Georgia Purdom
"Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a Ph.D. in molecular genetics Ohio State University; RS)" ..... "Did T-Rex Taste Like Chicken?" . . . . dave souza, talk 00:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusion between stabilizing selection and negative selection
The paragraph on Stabilizing selection is incorrect. The wikipedia page on Stabilizing selection has the correct definition; here it is confused with negative selection = purifying selection not equal to stabilizing selection. Natisto (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four causes article: is modern science teleological or does it at least attempt the opposite?
There is discussion at Four causes relevant to this article. It is being claimed that "Most modern theories of evolution are unabashedly teleological", and it is being argued that the article should remove references to modern science not being teleological and say the opposite. Comments please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not getting the argument. Evolution is NOT teleological. Teloelogical causes are only needed if you want top introduce a higher power in the story. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Misusing of refs
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 12 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From Jagged 85's edits, the information that needs to be checked is the following text that is currently in the Pre-Darwinian theories section:
 * The struggle for existence was later described by Al-Jahiz, who argued that environmental factors influence animals to develop new characteristics to ensure survival. Abu Rayhan Biruni described the idea of artificial selection and argued that nature works in much the same way. Similar ideas were later expressed by Nasir al-Din Tusi and Ibn Khaldun.
 * The above was added by the problem user and has been slightly edited.
 * Such classical arguments were reintroduced in the 18th century by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and others, including Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin.
 * The above sentence was in the original.
 * While these forerunners had an influence on Darwinism, they later had little influence on the trajectory of evolutionary thought after Charles Darwin.
 * The above sentence was originally: "However, these forerunners had little influence on the trajectory of evolutionary thought after Charles Darwin." – that is, the original did not claim that the forerunners "had an influence on Darwinism".
 * I have seen the discussion of this editor's work, and there is wide consensus that enormous misrepresentations of sources have occurred, so this text needs to be confirmed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tobby, this article is inaccurate in so many ways, it was good it was delisted as a GA. Unfortunately, it is sheer impossible to fix this article because of turf-wars, otherwise I would take a stab at it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to say that I have finally found a good source on al-Jahiz's views on 'evolution' and I will be removing most of the claims about his views, on this and other pages. The source in question is a French PhD thesis, supervised by Ch. Pellat (one of the leading authorities on al-Jahiz):
 * I'll probably be doing the same soon for similar claims about people such as Miskawayh and Ibn Khaldun, all of whom are (or are reporting the views of) neoplatonists, who plainly cannot be evolutionists.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult opening sentence
In the opening paragraph of the article, the second sentence is rather hard to follow:

"This selection in interaction with the production of variation, the possible genetic fixation process and possibly, in several cases, with little epigenetic process determine the evolution of the species."

I would edit this, but I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Could someone familiar with the article please revisit this sentence? Thanks. - David McCabe (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I came in here to make that very point.163.156.240.17 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More examples of natural selection
There seems to be only one main example of natural selection at this point in time. Perhaps more can be added? Or is there a main article on them? A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 06:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be more, I agree.Liquidpappe (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam Smith?
I see the assertion that Darwin was influenced by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" has been in the article for some time. Is there any evidence that he was influenced by him?

He's not mentioned in Origin or any of the Darwin biographies, unlike Malthus. There is one footnote about Smith in Descent of Man but that is about morals not markets. Googling gets quite a few wishes that he has, but that is rather different. Chris55 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Positive selection mentioned but not defined
The article refers to positive selection without defining it. There are many names for different types of selection, including positive, negative, directional, disruptive, purifying, balancing, natural, and stabilizing. Some but not all of these have separate Wikipedia pages devoted to them, and the pages do not all link to this page. This article does not have a concise and comprehensive definition of these terms.Tedtoal (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Natural Selection and loss of abilities
I think the article should talk about issues like why lack of the need of an ability causes a species to lose that ability. For example, birds that no longer need to fly, and loss of physical strength by humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicanpapi82 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That phenomenon is rather an effect of genetic drift. When a feature has no "purpose" (i.e. no selective value) it changes randomly, and almost all directions are to the worse. --Ettrig (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with economics. Building wings (in this example) is costly. If you do not need wings to survive and reproduce natural selection will get rid of them. 62.12.14.25 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

differential reproduction?
Should this not be differential reproductive success? What else is differential reproduction supposed to mean? --FreezBee (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * by differential the Epicureans mean an imperceptibly small increase in attributes that weren't previously there as the creatures engage in a natural competitive selection process(Patrick Matthew) to dominate an ecological niche. This though is unfalsifiable and begs the question, because we would be told the same story if the other creature won the battle. Note that natural competitive selection process (which is meaningful) was contracted by Darwin to natural selection, which is a http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence . The narrative begs the question because it assumes that there was an increase in attributes, instead nothing is adapted to anything, humans,rocks,cats etc. only express their attributes. This competitive natural selection process(Matthew's) is actually a reformulation of ancient mythology of God's slaying sea monsters and then dominating the sea space etc. There is nothing new under the sun, under the rubric of Evolution we merely have tribal wizard Gandalf telling us the same fierce battle story via http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.253.89 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD for informed context in lede?
The second of two recent edits, and its immediate deletion, may variously indicate an apparent lack of AGF, an incomplete understanding of the wider subject, or a non-neutral consensual POV that is opposed to its inclusion because of the recentness of evo-devo genesis, typified by its 'Evolutionary biology' infobox. The latter mention is really only a matter of balancing WEIGHT and history of the subject more neutrally. The edit summary deleting this other-science and more historical context-content, noted "good stuff but is unsourced and fails WP:LEAD"; I will note, that it is sourced on the page, but so unweighted/buried within it that a proper understanding of the subject is not really possible for the reader. It might well not go in the lede, but re-recognition of it and its proper weighting may provide and avenue to re-attain the article's GA status.

Its import most immediately occurs in #Pre-Darwinian theories: ''However, the theory of uniformitarianism in geology promoted the idea that simple, weak forces could act continuously over long periods of time to produce radical changes in the Earth's landscape. The success of this theory raised awareness of the vast scale of geological time and made plausible the idea that tiny, virtually imperceptible changes in successive generations could produce consequences on the scale of differences between species.'' This seems quite notable, because it changed the context of the argument. Just below that, Lamarck is noted as an 'evolutionist' but is best termed a naturalist as were other notables of the time, including James Hutton, Cuvier, and Whewell, all of whom did much early work, but are not on this page. It seems, with the acceptance of deep time, the evo-devo view has lost some deep roots.

Geology/paleontology importance is evident every time the word 'environment' is used, some 20 times; these uses are legitimately both paleo and current, but in this overly evo-devo view, most mentions are written in the present tense, while most examples are geol/paleo. Take two early uses in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass. or In this way the natural environment of an organism "selects" for traits..., they are still true when 'acted' and 'selected.

Another notable example of this missing paleo/historic context occurs in the Modern evolutionary synthesis link, particularly its summary, which off page, "bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between palaeontologists....All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists..." this seems similarly notable, but missing here. I could go on, but won't, it is too off-topic, technical and esoteric; I only got here on a dog-leg from elsewhere. I will however leave you with a relevant reference of my view for your use; it seems to help the necessary re-balancing that the current article's evo-devo POV seems to have forgotten. From this, originally found at paleontologyby the way, I have crafted the following workable prose for use in biology; this is biology. Use it as you may somewhere near, but before Darwin's work. Biology is one of the historical sciences, (originally termed 'palaeotiological sciences' by Whewell) along with paleontology, geology, astronomy, cosmology describing the natural world, and archaeology, anthropology, philology and history describing the human side. Reference Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was clear in that I was asserting (perhaps mistakenly) that the new material in the lead was unsourced and did not comply with WP:LEAD since the lead is a summary of the article, and should not introduce new material. I'm sorry but your comments above are a little long for me to quickly determine whether you are saying those points are not applicable. You did say the information is already sourced, but where?
 * Your original edit changed the lead from "It is a key mechanism of evolution" to:
 * It is a key mechanism for evolution of life on Earth and its outcomes over time. Nonetheless natural selection always operates subject to other events and selections made outside biology, causing either long-term gradual changes or less-frequent rapid changes of those conditions on the planet itself. In Geology and Paleontology, these processes of change are broadly and respectively termed uniformitarianism and catastrophism, with the former providing gradual impetus for evolutionary development and the latter mandating immediate acceptance of it, at times in a cataclysm; these force changes on existing life and natural selection adapts to them.
 * If no one else comments, perhaps you should make your edit again (which I would not change) as that will determine what others think. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are much appreciated, both as some acceptance of the assertions made, but also in an effort to move the article along. I indicated all bases within my experience and immediate thoughts that covered the adverse comments, but without questioning the validity of the lack of sourcing raised. I also realized and considered that there was an underlying likelihood of admin-necessity, strictly playing by what's on a page, vs. what should be on the page in broader and more neutral context, if some slack was allowed. My comments reflected the notable slack available, behind and for such a view. Indeed, others' comments would be appreciated to improve article quality more collaboratively at this stage. Otherwise, I'll assume the discussion has taken a favorable turn and proceed on my own as time permits. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

re the introduction
If you want to use the Biston betularia case in the intro, suitable refs can be found in Polymorphism (biology). Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While this helpfully provides the easy opportunity to remove the fact-tag, another question implicit in the comment is whether this specific polymorphism example is the best one for the lead. Personally, that choice unduly weighs the evo-devo recentism already inherent and commented on above. Another example of naturally occurring polymorphism, one unencumbered by the current Holocene vs Anthropocene and related discussions, would be a better choice for overall quality improvement. Other examples are available and ref'd at the same link.CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

... and general quality improvement
The term 'evo-devo recentism', which I have used to characterize contextual and quality concerns starting in the BRD section above, likely should be described better to state my perspective of the current article. So I will try to explain it this way to see where consensus lies: Put simply, a historical description of natural selection as a topic is a neutral presentation context for it. Put another way and including other relevant largely-missing content; in the beginning we were given light and Adam's rib, over time man found other views and supporting data along the way, but it was still a very long time before micro-, geneto- techno-, cromo-, DNA, et. al. came along. The Biston betularia case and other such recent findings or 'discoveries' are valid and must be included, but how to include them and where in the topic to do so, becomes important in this historic presentation and in rating overall article quality. This is because these findings are specifically recent ones aided by modern science and technological evolution; these were not available to earlier pioneers. When were the modern synthesis, and (we might add) recognizing enlightening/disturbing impacts of a Silent Spring?--mid-20th century.

If such a historic context for description can be agreed, this seems likely to also assist cleaning it up; if not multiple issues will arise repeatedly when new science melds with older. Currently, instances of such evo-devo recentism are salted throughout the article (e.g. the tense used with the term, noted above). If these are concatenated and introduced historically in a specific section, it would better characterize the subject, its understanding over time and more legitimately highlight their significance and implications, which some seem want to do. I will add a word of caution concerning natural selection however; until biology is defined other-than being a historical science and looking back, its use in looking in the other direction becomes future-predictive and should rightly fall to another page. Comments please, regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
To the Anon with the dynamic IP address, before you start another edit war to change the WP:ENGVAR of an article, what is your evidence that "article uses british english"? The article is predominantly American English. If you look back to January of 2010, it was predominantly American English. If you look back to December of 2001, it was already predominantly American English. —Stephen (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to Khan Academy
The external link to Khan Academy was removed. It should stay because it contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. This introductory video will help many to understand this phenomenon. --Ettrig (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions reverted
By way of explanation as to why I considered certain recent additions as "not helpful", let me just note a few things that I had problems with:


 * "either the phenotype (observable characteristics) or physiological (biological) aspects"

It isn't clear to me why "phenotype" and "physiological" are singled out and distinguished.


 * "natural selection is explained by the ideology of the "survival of the fittest""

It isn't clear to me how the "ideology" of survival of fittest is different from natural selection, and how it explains it.


 * "was put forward by Charles Robert Darwin who when comparing fossil of extinct species with related modern species"

I don't think that Darwin relied exclusively on comparing fossils of extinct species.


 * "he also noted that as time progressed fossil remains of a specific era all had considerable homogenous (similar) traits"

This seems to be confused, at best, if not flat-out wrong.

TomS TDotO (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction with other article
This article claims that Aristotle supported the conception of natural selection: "while related ideas were later refined by Aristotle." But this is conflicts with the article History of evolutionary thought, where it says: "He explicitly rejected the view of Empedocles that living creatures might have originated by chance." --128.131.213.131 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle certainly did not agree with the idea of Nature producing anything by chance. The citation ([25] - Aristotle's Physics Book II parts 4 and 8) doesn't appear to contain much about evolution/change, but rather an argument against Nature acting by chance. However, there's a bit about steps occurring: "Further, where a series has a completion, all the preceding steps are for the sake of that." which certainly seems evolutionary. Thoughts? Dewert (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That sentence is certainly not how evolution is understood in modern science, although a lot of people seem to misunderstand this. The ancestors of humans did not exist so that humans could come into being. Aristotle sees direction or "final cause" in all cause and effect, or in other words his understanding of nature is teleological. I do not know of any place where Aristotle makes any major comments that could be described as a percursor of the theory of evolution, but I did recently hear that he somewhere mentions the possibility of a new species coming about because of hybridization in the wild. I have not yet double checked it myself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that though Aristotle seemingly scoffs at Empedocles' "by chance" theory, his own explanation varied little. The only difference was that it was teleological as Andrew Lancaster says. To quote:


 * "Thus if a house, e.g. had been a thing made by nature, it would have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature were made also by art, they would come to be in the same way as by nature. Each step then in the series is for the sake of the next; and generally art partly completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and partly imitates her. If, therefore, artificial products are for the sake of an end, so clearly also are natural products."


 * He argues a purpose, but he doesn't totally refute the mechanisms, merely that calling nature "chance" is mistaken. While it is, honestly, a rambling and confusing discourse, we could easily compare what he was saying with principles of modern evolution. "Seed" with genetics ("In natural products the sequence is invariable, if there is no impediment."), "mistakes" as mutation (the part where he discusses Empedocles' man-faced ox), and his "end purpose" as purifying selection, balancing selection, stabilizing selection, convergent evolution, and even biomimicry.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But just saying that there are natural sequences does not mean Aristotle believed that there was one which we now call Natural Selection? Perhaps I am missing something, but where does Aristotle suggest anything about natural selection?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about natural selection in the modern sense. Even the sentence in the article itself never implies thus. We are simply listing a related idea. Furthermore, Aristotle is closer to the modern theory in his assertion that the acquisition of new traits is not by chance alone, as Empedocles asserted, but for a specific purpose.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   07:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is not the Aristotle passage being linked to anyway, so your argument is not relevant to the reversion. But I still don't see any connection. Aristotle is saying traits match needs because the cosmos aims at this. Empedocles, who was earlier, argued in the same way as modern science, that it is not because of a cosmic aims at all but because the types of things which survive are the types of things which suit circumstances ("everything turned out as it would have if it were on purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way"). In other words, despite his importance as a biologist, when it comes to the theory of natural selection Aristotle was a step back, not a step forward.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Was there a specific passage pointed out? Anyway examine these parts from the source:
 * "A difficulty presents itself: why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a man's crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his 'man-faced ox-progeny' did.


 * "Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature."


 * You can see that he isn't arguing for anything like a divine purpose or sentient deliberation, merely that things are predisposed to develop into something they normally would. He supposes it comes from the "seed" (it's worthwhile to note that genetics is an unknown science during his time). His comparison to the likelihood of rain in summer is particularly revealing. As such a 'man-faced ox-progeny' would be very very unlikely to occur at all (examine his later remark on an "olive-headed vine-progeny"), due to oxen being predisposed to develop into normal oxen due to their "seed". But he acknowledges that they are still possible:


 * "Now mistakes come to pass even in the operations of art: the grammarian makes a mistake in writing and the doctor pours out the wrong dose. Hence clearly mistakes are possible in the operations of nature also. If then in art there are cases in which what is rightly produced serves a purpose, and if where mistakes occur there was a purpose in what was attempted, only it was not attained, so must it be also in natural products, and monstrosities will be failures in the purposive effort. Thus in the original combinations the 'ox-progeny' if they failed to reach a determinate end must have arisen through the corruption of some principle corresponding to what is now the seed."


 * Sounds remarkably like mutation, doesn't it? His theory is basically just a variant of Empedocles'. While Empedocles' assertion was that nature was completely chaotic with various configurations arising spontaneously and being whittled down by survival (hence a man-faced ox would be expected every now and then) with no further changes occurring once a successful configuration has been chosen. Aristotle argued that there was a limiting factor to the kind of changes that are possible and that it was ongoing, but he was himself limited by what was then known at that time. Even Darwin acknowledged that Aristotle's views were very similar to the principles of natural selection (though he criticized Aristotle's remark on teeth). You can see the different early views on the mechanisms of evolution compared to each other in our article on Orthogenesis. Aristotle's teleology was an early incorrect view, as were Empedocles', etc. but that was the whole point of the paragraph. These were the earliest people who tackled such questions and thought about the different mechanisms that led to progressive changes in living things. It's expected that all of them are a step back.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   17:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First concerning your question about whether a specific source passage is being questioned, I am surprised at your confusion. You re-instated a reference which is specifically and only sourced to Aristotle's Physics, Book II. If you did not notice that then you should not have re-instated it?
 * Secondly, concerning your first quote Aristotle is clearly reciting an argument of Empedocles and then saying that "it is impossible that this should be the true view". He says that it can not be true that the characteristics of animals came about by anything without a specific end or aim (telos). He does not in this passage say that the aims of nature are the aims of a god in any normal sense, but he does say there are aims in nature. (He talks about go in other places.) Anyway he is disagreeing with the possibility of natural selection.
 * Third, that Aristotle made many important contributions to biology is certain, but knowing about mutations is not the same as knowing about natural selection. Aristotle sees mutations as mistakes and failures to achieve an aim. In the modern theory of natural selection there is no such thing as a mistake and there is no aim, and it is only then that you have a theory of natural selection. Aristotle's way of considering mutations is the opposite of a theory of natural selection.
 * The theory of natural selection was older than Aristotle, and he criticized it and made it sound impious, putting back this particular part of biology thousands of years. Aristotle can therefore be mentioned as someone who had a role in the history of this theory, but certainly not as someone who "refined" the ideas of Empedocles. "Refined" is the word in the text you have put into the article. (Maybe you did not look closely at the language you re-instated?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "...that is not the Aristotle passage being linked to anyway" <- that was what you said. Yet the passages I quoted are all from Physics, Book II. So I'm completely bewildered by what passages were allegedly not from the source.
 * Yes. That was the point. Take not of how he words his criticism of Empedocles' assertion. The problem is that he uses the word "nature", which can mean anything from instinct to physical limitations. But examine it closely and his "Purpose" is attributed to the seed. Isn't that genetics/heredity? "Reaching the same goals" can also be interpreted as convergent evolution, balancing selection, and all the other natural selection mechanisms already mentioned earlier, all of them agree or are different forms of natural selection. To quote:
 * "Moreover, among the seeds anything must have come to be at random. But the person who asserts this entirely does away with 'nature' and what exists 'by nature'. For those things are natural which, by a continuous movement originated from an internal principle, arrive at some completion: the same completion is not reached from every principle; nor any chance completion, but always the tendency in each is towards the same end, if there is no impediment."
 * See, that's the rub, we are not really talking about the modern theory of natural selection. Even Empedocles' and Darwin's versions were quite naive when compared to what we know now. Aristotle's works on Empedocles' theory, while clearly mistaken in his teleological assumptions, are close enough to be considered as one of the past works which specifically dealt with ways in which stronger organisms survive.
 * An important thing to note here is that Natural Selection is a nonrandom process, a fact mentioned in the lead of the article. Mutation is random, natural selection is not. If anything, we should be questioning Empedocles' views, not Aristotle's. The History of evolutionary thought is correct in that he rejected Empedocles' theory of species progressing by chance alone, but it doesn't necessarily mean his views were incompatible with natural selection. That said, perhaps explaining where Aristotle went wrong instead of removing him outright might be a better option.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   07:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning the reference, maybe then I am confused. I have been reading your remarks without checking your citations. You originally justified your reversion by another quotation, presumably also Physics II, and then you started justfying it with other quotations.
 * I disagree with your understanding what "natural selection" (the subject of our article) implies. The critical defining point is whether it is accepted that characteristics which look designed, can come about by a process which does not have aims at all, simply because characteristics which survive, survive. You can not "partly" believe this. Aristotle clearly did not believe this.
 * For the record I do not think we can confidently say Empedocles was primitive. There is very little record of what he really said.
 * I think you misunderstand Aristotle because you are reading the English translation anachronistically. When he calls things random he has a special meaning, which is the subject of a lot of explanation in his texts, and secondary discussion in modern times. In the context here, he would certainly call natural selection, as in modern biology, "random" because there are no conscious ends or aims involved. Aristotle explicitly argued that nature has mind and reason and intentions and aims. His concept of what is random can only be understood in that context.
 * Consequently, what Aristotle refers to as ends in nature are absolutely not anything like the tendencies of DNA to give particular results. The ends of nature are really ends, intentions, deliberate goals, things which nature deliberately plans and tries to achieve. They are not just tendencies of nature to work in certain way, and trying to describe nature that way is exactly what Aristotle was opposed to.
 * Until now, we have discussed this as two individuals reading Aristotle which is fun, but not necessarily relevant to how we should write Wikipedia. I put it to you that your personal reading of Aristotle on this matter is not the normal one. It is easy to source modern secondary sources who agree with me about Empedocles and Aristotle. Do you have any modern secondary source which agrees with your position?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I was, of course, only basing all my arguments on that particular source. As for other sources, see "Aristotle on the Mechanism of Inheritance" (Henry, 2006. Journal of the History of Biology 39:425–455) which discusses the genetic implications when Aristotle was talking about the "ends" and "seeds" (as opposed to the general interpretation that he was talking about something akin to a divine natural purpose as later Christian teleologists have interpreted it). Henry also discusses its compatibility with Darwinian natural selection in page 451, the way they agree and the way they wildly diverge.

To quote: "The crucial line in the argument is Physics 198b34: ‘‘Yet, it is impossible for things to be this way.’’ What way? Most commentators take Aristotle to be referring to Empedocles’ idea that contemporary species were forged through a combination of chance and natural selection. However, Aristotle goes on to explain, ‘‘For these and all the things that exist by nature come to be in a given way either always or for the most part, while not one of the results of luck or spontaneity do.’’ This suggests that Aristotle is concerned with normal patterns of development for members of already existing species (e.g. the normal development of human teeth). His point is that the kind of explanations that Empedocles likes to give, which mostly appeal to chance,cannot explain the remarkable constancy of biological development. Compare Generation and Corruption 2.6."

Also see the closing paragraphs.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but this still does not mention "natural selection". As mentioned before, the idea that inheritance does not work by chance might be consistent with Aristotle, but it does not mean he had any theory of natural selection. For him the "selection" in nature is not a metaphor, as it is when we say "natural selection", but the results of real thought in nature itself. For him mutations are literally mistakes, and avoided because all mistakes are avoided deliberately. When he says in his Greek that chance can not explain biological development he makes it very clear that by this he means that biological development, according to him, proves that there is a higher intelligence in nature. And I still say that this position is the opposite of the theory of "natural selection". Seeing a difference between mutation and normal development is not enough to say that you are seeing natural selection. One critical question is whether you see mutations and normal development as mistakes versus successes by a higher intelligence, or just the results of various un-thinking chemical reactions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "biological development" mean exactly? As the latter source says, when he says "development", he doesn't mean evolution, he means the development of an embryo to an adult. covered in the last paragraph of the latter source pointed out. The species themselves possess chartacteristics to fit the environment/niches they occupy, hence "mistakes" when development takes the form to something which can not anymore survive in its environment.


 * Again, this isn't creationism at all (or even intelligent design). As mentioned above, it's really balancing selection, the kind of natural selection that kills the "mistakes" and maintains populations more or less as is as long as the needs remain the same (starkly clear when he compares it to a "doctor doctoring himself"). Convergence can also fit his arguments, the kind that results in organisms that are more or less the same if they operate on the same niches. The "agent of deliberation" (and the passage I originally quoted "It is plain then that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a purpose."), as he words it, is not an intelligent supernatural force, but actually simply ecological requirements acting on the population.


 * P.S. Incidentally, Aristotle considers the environment itself to be unchanging. And since he considers biology to be secondary to physics, it also implies that species do not change (given that their environments do not require them to). Hence his classification of organisms which later Christian theologians adopted to fit Christian doctrines as the Scala Naturae. Yet all these do not preclude natural selection, balancing selection is still a form of natural selection, and he never explicitly says that organisms can not change (his admission of the existence of "mistakes" is clear enough). All he really claims is that the cosmos is unchanging (literally with no beginning or no end). --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   16:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source which agrees with you that Aristotle believed in a type of natural selection? It does not seem that you do, and that this is original research. It is certainly not a normal mainstream interpretation. Concerning the rest of what you say I think we are getting too far off topic, but you are wrong. Aristotle literally refers to god, and he clearly and literally refers to nature having mind or intelligence (nous), and so on, so "intelligent supernatural" would be a pretty good way of exactly what Aristotle says (noetic being something like intelligent, and super-natural something like meta-physical). It is not a metaphor for him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm guessing you didn't read the above source, did you? Otherwise you wouldn't be asking that question. It's hardly original research and hardly new. I don't want to quote every single paragraph here. Please follow the links, googling will also give you a lot of sources for the above. As for nature being god, how can you even say that? In Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses the "Unmoved Mover", but it's not a god. It's simply the pinnacle of existence, it exists but plays no part in the construction, design, or the maintenance of the cosmos, which itself is eternal. Our article on Teleological argument discusses this more clearly. Aristotle's version was natural teleology, it did not require a creator or a designer. If you require more external sources, see the following:

From Aristotle: the desire to understand (Jonathan Lear, 1988: p.41) (emphasis mine):


 * "Nor is Aristotle committed to the idea of a conscious design in nature. Indeed, he explicitly denies that nature is the expression of some divine purpose or divine craftsman. We tend to think that if there really is some purpose in nature there must be some agent whose purpose it is. That is why it is so common to hear that purpose is just a projection of mind onto (mindless) nature. Aristotle would disagree. Aristotle believes in the basic reality of form, and he everywhere sees natural processes as directed toward the realization of that form. It would, however be a mistake to conclude that his primary conception of purposefulness is mindless. Whether ot not a teleological development is mindless or mindful depends upon what is meant by 'mind'. If mind is simply equated with consciousness, the the growth of natural organism is certainly mindless. In realizing a developed form, a natural process achieves its goal even though no mind has directed or created the process..."

From Aristotle's theory of actuality (Z. Bechler, 1995: p.204) (emphasis mine):


 * "...The fact that Aristotle was familiar with and in fact engaged in answering Empedocles' Darwinian-like explanation shows that he knew of the possibility of a more complex consideration: Resultant regularity arising from a true coincidence which became a regularity by some natural selection plus inheritance mechanism. Ross agrees that Aristotle confronted what amounts to a Darwinian-Lamarckian scheme (Ross, 1923: 80), and Balme says that "there is room to doubt whether Aristotle in fact believed that species do not change. He accepts the possibility of new species arising from fertile hybrids" (DGA 746a30), and in short "There is nothing in Aristotle's theory to prevent an 'evolution of species'" (Balme, 1972: 97) ... Balme in effect accepts that Aristotle's teleology is simply regularity, since "Aristotle defines a teleological sequence not in terms of conative behaviour but as a sequence that reaches or terminates at an end (peraidei DPA 641b25;cf. Phys 194a29, 199a8-11, b15-17)" (Balme, 1972:99). Partly for this reason, but also for the reason noted on p. 115-116 it seems that Aristotle's ontology is the natural home of a theory of fully (either potential or actual) continuous evolution of species.

Aristotle's ontology (Preus & Anton, 1992:pp. 300-301) has a description of Empedocles' theory which is actually farther away from natural selection and how Aristotle's "criticism" is actually simply a criticism of Empedocles reliance on pure chance and how he added to it by describing ways for organism to inherit characteristics, and how it all relates to Darwinian natural selection. Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle's Science of Nature (Leunissen, 2010: pp. 35) also discusses how Empedocles' theory (the "survival of the fit", not fittest, as it was basically a theory of a lottery of animal parts done at the creation) really is very different from Darwinian natural selection and how Aristotle's treatment of it brings the idea closer to Darwin's theory (emphasis mine).


 * "For Aristotle, it is the materialist accounts of the "fitness" of complete living beings that is most problematic. For Empedocles, animals that are "composed in a fitting way" and that therefore survive seem to be animals that are quite literally combinations of matching parts (i.e., of ox faces combined with ox bodies, etc.). Aristotle, on the other hand understands the well-adaptedness of each particular kind of animal primarily in terms of its being able to perform all its necessary vital and essential functions within its own specific natural environment. The regularity of animal species exhibiting this kind of fitness cannot be fully accounted for by reference to spontaneity or even to formal natures using what happens to be available for something good. The regular presence of functioning living beings requires, according to Aristotle, the assumption of a stronger form of teleology, i.e. of formal natures acting always or for the most part for the sake of realizing a preexisting potential for form (while thereby regulating various necessary interactions of material-efficient causes), where this form is eternal in species in virtue of being continuously transmitted from father to offspring."

There is a lot more, but I'm already quoting too much. Now I guess it's your turn. Please provide sources which explicitly says that Aristotle specifically rejected natural selection as impossible and believed in a divine purpose. And please, not something from a creationist site.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   12:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the old arguments about whether Aristotle's theory is somehow consistent with evolution, and whether his clear references to god (theos) were really meant to imply something other than a god, are what you are still focusing on with all these quotes as far as I can see. But I do not see one quote in this collection which justifies the little bit of text you are defending in our Wikipedia article? Nowhere is Aristotle described as refining Empedocles' theory of natural selection, nor is he clearly described as having such a theory himself at all. And actually that is a bit remarkable because you can find quotes that will say almost anything about Aristotle. If a quote is hiding somewhere in there, then my apologies, but can you perhaps write a shorter post which just points to that relevant point? On the other hand I still do not think that such an idea is mainstream consensus, and I see no reason to be putting a passing reference to an interesting but not widely held theory into this particular article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Er... do note how the disputed sentence is worded "while related ideas were later refined by Aristotle.", it does not say that Aristotle refined Empedocles' views. It simply says Aristotle developed related ideas. You can switch "refined" with "developed" if you want.


 * And again, please follow the links (they're even linked directly to the pages). I think my mistake is catering to having to explicitly quote entire paragraphs so you can examine them. I can not summarize entire books for you, the quotes are already as long as I could get them, and they're even snipped. If you want a fuller treatment of where Aristotle felt Empedocles' theory (which again, can hardly be considered natural selection) was wrong and where he adapted his own ideas to it, the last two links may especially be relevant to you.


 * And again, please provide a link as to what is the "mainstream consensus". "Mainstream" itself suggests you are actually implying that popular [mis]conceptions are more reliable than scholarly treatment of the subject. Something a bit more concrete and in-depth please. Especially given the accusations of OR, I'm justified in demanding the same, no?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   15:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If we stick to the text in question which you are defending from proposed removal, we do not yet have to discuss whether anything is mainstream, because it is not yet clear there is any source for the text at all unless we allow synthesis. So just to keep it simple, is there any source anywhere which actually says in a straightforward way that Aristotle had a theory of natural selection, (which by the way is not the same as evolution, nor is it the same as knowing that mutations exist)? Once we determine that, then we can discuss what weight that source should get, and how it should be worded, but at the moment there does not appear to be any.
 * If on the other hand you claim that this passing comment about Aristotle is not even meant to imply that Aristotle had a theory of natural selection strictly speaking, but only that he refined some related ideas, then of course this would make the whole point misleading and irrelevant and at the very least quite vaguely written. This article is about natural selection. Perhaps every important biologist in history refined ideas which in retrospect could be seen as related to natural selection in some way, but why list them all here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS, you raise the question of whether Empedocles had a theory of natural selection, but whether to delete this is another question I have not touched on. I believe this aspect of Empedocles is something described as a type of natural selection theory or something very similar to one, in every modern secondary source I have seen about it? (I agree not all commentators would call it one in a strict sense.) So I suggest we keep mention of Empedocles although obviously a citation is currently lacking, and the passage should be improved. Do others agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting extremely circular.
 * First of all, you were the one continually mistaking evolution for natural selection from your very first post, at no point did I confuse the two. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, and mutation is one of the factors natural selection acts upon.
 * Secondly, you keep demanding more sources and yet not read them. You couldn't have, having replied this quickly. Given your previous accusations of me having taken the passages elsewhere from the source being discussed (Physics 2), I don't think you're really examining everything I've given. Here's more anyway:,, , , ,  ,  ,.
 * Thirdly, Empedocles' theory was not I repeat, not, closer to Darwinian natural selection. The only thing it had in common with Darwinian natural selection was that species with the right combination of parts lived, everything else died, but this was a one time event - at the big creation lottery - and was more like mashing together Lego parts than the progressive refinement or self-regulation that Darwin and Aristotle described. That was what Aristotle was objecting to. But of course, we should keep Empedocles. *facepalm* Because we are not talking about natural selection, but its precursors. How difficult is that concept to grasp really? It's like removing Hippocrates from our article on Medicine because he ascribes to Humorism. Our only criteria is that it resembles natural selection. Natural selection in the true sense, really started with Darwin. Everything else before that was only similar but not the same. This was already repeatedly mentioned and sourced exhaustively above, which you obviously have not bothered to read at all.
 * "Perhaps every important biologist in history refined ideas which in retrospect could be seen as related to natural selection in some way, but why list them all here?" < LOL, now who's the one doing original research? If you know of others, please add them. The section would not be called "Historical development" if we were only allowed to talk about natural selection in its modern sense.
 * And lastly, you have completely ignored my request for your sources. Do remember that you are the one challenging an existing version of the article.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are asking me for sources for ideas I have presented on a talk page, but which are not being proposed for inclusion in the article. Unfortunately that seems a distraction which I do not currently have time for, I'm sorry. I have however looked at least quickly at your references, but there is no mention of anything which directly says anything like the words which you want in the article, or at least the way I read them. If there is, and I am wrong, well why not just pull out the words which say it?
 * I am suspecting there is another problem in our discussion which is that the words which are in the text could mean many different things. You are moving towards a more nuanced position on this talk page, wherein Aristotle is a precursor of the theory of natural selection. That sounds much more reasonable but it is not what those words are currently saying. Can I suggest that you try re-wording them as a next step?
 * I have never said I am against mentioning Aristotle, but the current wording is wrong or just too vague about what it is trying to say. Would you agree with these points?
 * Empedocles is often discussed as someone more directly in the line that leads to natural selection.
 * Aristotle is more complex because he is obviously an influence on all biology including Darwin, but he is also very obviously the main source for the creationist complaints about Darwin, and is frequently cited as such.
 * Modern natural selection is teleological and mechanistic, which is exactly what Darwin was worried most about in Empedocles. The same types of argument he used concerning this ones found in Plato and Xenophon and throughout Aristotle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on my above explanation I think we should turn away from the sourcing question, and instead focus on improving the wording. It seems to me this might lead to better discussion. I also think that this section is already quite long. So it seems a natural time to start a new section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The pre Darwin bit
Here is the current controversial paragraph. Let's take our time to develop something better:-

I do not know if other editors wish to review other parts of this section, but I thought I might as well include it all above. Focus of discussion so far has been concerning the brief comments about the ancient greek bit, currently mentioning Empedocles, Lucretius and Aristotle. I think these might be important discussion points:-
 * Empedocles seems to be a definite keeper. Every source I look at sees his as an interesting pre-cursor to natural selection (but not evolution). OTOH, I can see that if we claim too much for Empedocles, this will be controversial. One source puts it nicely perhaps saying that Empedocles knew the answer to what causes evolution, but did not know the question. (The need for a theory of evolution apparently only became apparent in the generations before Darwin?)
 * Lucretius is sometimes discussed as a pre-cursor to a theory of evolution, but not quite so clearly concerning natural selection itself. In other words he seems to have accepted that the ancestors of humans might have inhuman, but I do not know that he said anything about natural selection. Comments?
 * Aristotle is the most controversial one. Comments needed on this.
 * Aristotle is widely held to have been an influence on Darwin. It is easy to find citations saying that his concepts helped develop the background thinking which allowed a theory of evolution develop.
 * But on the other hand it is also easy to find citations regarding the influence of his teleological approach to biology as the inspiration for most objections to Darwin. Whether this is based on mis-readings of Aristotle seems to involve a lot of debate. But one famous passage is actually one where Aristotle uses Empedocles as an example of why nature must be understood teleologically. (The debate is apparently concerning whether Aristotle's teleology needs to be understood as non-metaphorical "selection" as opposed to "natural selection".)
 * I can not find any citation which says in any simple way that Aristotle had anything like a theory of natural selection himself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Where the confusion is coming from is that in his preface to later editions of The Origin of Species (which article discusses this briefly but clearly with good sources) Darwin listed Aristotle as one of the historical precursors to his work. However the text that Darwin cites is actually Aristotle's summary of Empedocles's ideas, which Aristotle summarized for the purpose of refuting them. Aristotle did speculate briefly that in some cases new species might occasionally arise through a process of hybridization but for the most part he was a fixist who considered species to have essential unchanging characteristics. I believe history of evolutionary thought summarizes these figures ideas correctly. I think the historical portions of this article currently suffers from two essential problems. One is that the section on pre-Darwin figures is a little misleading and needs to be cleaned up. The other is that it is impossible (and confusing) to talk about the modern evolutionary synthesis without at least alluding to the eclipse of Darwinism, the period during the late 19th and early 20th century, when most biologists believed that other evolutionary mechanisms Lamarckism, orthogenesis, saltationism, etc. were more important than natural selection. Without that context the modern evolutionary synthesis, and its precursor the foundation of the discipline of population genetics, which are in large part the vindication of Darwin and Wallace's ideas, make little sense. This weekend, if nobody beats me to it, I will make a few edits that will make the history section of this article more consistent with history of biology, history of evolutionary thought, Modern evolutionary synthesis, The eclipse of Darwinism, etc. Other editors will then no doubt improve them :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rusty, well I agree with you. There is a discussion of reasons why Aristotle is wrongly thought of as a pre-cursor of Darwin in the source I mentioned above, and included the misinterpretation of the preface you mentioned.
 * OTOH if you see the discussion above there is always a minority position out there which tries very hard to see Aristotle's teleology as compatible with modern science's world view. It can certainly be sourced that there are scholars who think Aristotle's biology is compatible with evolution somehow. Such scholars are always reading between the lines a lot. This type of thing deserves to be debated on talk pages of some articles such as teleology. But I do not think any of this type of subtle speculation, which is about Aristotle's teleology generally, based on no concrete statement of Aristotle, can be used to say that Aristotle specifically had a concrete positive thought about natural selection specifically. So what, if anything, needs to be in this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at fixing it so that what was being said did not contradict the cited source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the sentence to be more accurate and added some sources. The previous wording again implies that someone or something designed the organisms, something Aristotle clearly does not believe as already mentioned above regarding his own ideas of gods - the unmoved movers - and his ideas of an eternal cosmos. Though they can affect other beings indirectly by just being, unmoved movers are themselves completely oblivious of everything else, perfect and able to only contemplate their own selves (hence "unmoved"). They can not think of anything else, can not impose their will on anything (material or immaterial), and can not "design" anything. His "purpose" was an internal drive towards a goal (order/perfection, not unlike Darwinian teleology of the "survival of the fittest") by the organisms themselves.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   05:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the exact way you state that here on the talk page, but as long as we make this article take no side in this old argument then I think wording tweaks are appropriate. I'd say just exactly how Aristotle understands the original causes to be thinking and causing things is a subject which he pretty much leaves open, and it is mostly discussed by later commentators. But he does say they have nous, which would be incompatible with them being insensitive, and he makes statements such as the one where he describes some animals as being intended for humans, which would be inconsistent with the idea that his teleology is just one where each thing has its own end but no link to greater ends in a bigger scheme of things. Aristotle clearly does think there is a full cosmic scheme of inter-linked ends, not just isolated ends which happen to come into being for each thing (which he would describe as describing things as coming into being by chance).
 * One small concern I have with the wording now is that it accepts Aristotle's criticism of Empedocles as using chance to explain things. This is not wrong, but it is not going to be obvious to modern readers what this means. Aristotle criticized all mechanistic explanations in this way, so for him, all explanations which explain things as the necessary results of physical interactions, as opposed to mind, are explanation based on chance. So Newtonian physics is based on chance. Another way of saying he criticized explanations based on chance is that he criticized explanations based on necessity, but these two things sound very different to the modern ear. Remember, he thought there were other types of causes than just the normal physical ones of today (matter in motion).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to back this up, look at that Physics passage in Aristotle about Empedocles. Aristotle calls it a wrong explanation of how good things can come about by chance, but he gives another example of such an explanation which he apparently considers more acceptable - this is where water necessarily condenses and becomes rain, which helps grain grow, which is a good thing coming to be by chance and by necessity. He says that this is how Empedocles explains the species. Today, most people do not say rain is caused by chance because they do not even consider the possibility that it rain must have happened to achieve some good purpose. The modern theory of evolution is exactly like this, i.e. an attempt to explain speciation based on necessity, or as we say today "laws of nature". Or, to use describe it like Aristotle (and Bacon who first attached the term law of nature to this type of explanation) this type of explanation by chance/necessity tries to describe all things as results of such things as hot and cold. So Aristotle's extended discussion makes it clear that what he accuses Empedocles of is what modern biology also does. He was quite familiar with that way of thinking, and in the longer discussion he mentions that earlier philosophers like Democritus and Empedocles did not treat chance or fortune as a real cause. Aristotle on the other hand explicitly, in this very passage, compared nature to a craftsman, and he specifically says it has aims and can make mistakes, and that it would be absurd to say that the craftsman (or nature) does not deliberate just because we can not see that deliberation. Because he insists that science needs to include the concepts of chance and fortune amongst the causes of things. He knew very well that this was controversial, and he says so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You speak as if nous itself was a solid concept universally understood by anyone instead of the garbled explanations that it really is. Even how it should exactly be translated is problematic, much less how it actually works with his other concepts of the soul. As far as I can understand it, nous has two kinds - nous poietikos, the divine nous, which thinks all that is thinkable; and nous pathêtikos, the individual nous which thinks within the limits of what is thinkable as defined by nous poietikos and therefore actualizes the potential thoughts. There is no requirement for nous poietikos to be actively shaping nous pathêtikos. It merely defines what can be (mover), and in doing so affecting what is (moved). Furthermore, I don't think Aristotle actually explicitly said that the nous poietikos has to be the sole property of the unmoved movers merely because it is divine, he [confusingly] also hints that it might be an innate property of everything with a soul. And of course they are linked to a greater end, hence his Scala Naturae as it was adapted by Christianity, but each link's final cause is basically to remain part of the great chain of being. And with such a hierarchy, you must have a pinnacle. Hence the unmoved movers. The top of the ladder which can affect all those on the lower rungs but itself can not be affected except by itself. Otherwise you'd get a turtles all the way down kind of problem in which the gods themselves have gods and so on and so forth. But I digress, that is way off topic.


 * Anyway, oof. I can now see why I can't seem to make my position clear in the previous section. You are actually interpreting that passage the wrong way around! Probably because of the way it has been translated. Compare with other translations of the sentence:


 * Aristotle by Christopher John Shields: "It is odd for some to suppose that things do not come to be for the sake of something unless they see an agent deliberating."
 * Our own article on teleology: "It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating."


 * You can see that he is actually saying that deliberation is not a requirement for having a cause. Even those which do not seem to possess the capability to choose can still have a purpose. You can confirm this with the rest of the text. His rain example was an example of necessity. His example of teeth was to contrast it against the rain example - teeth, unlike rain, was supposed to be the result of a cause. Nature, as Aristotle defined it, is not the same as how we colloquially define nature now (synonymous with environment). Aristotle's nature (cf. human nature) is an innate property differentiated from intelligence in that it does not deliberate but nevertheless occur for the sake of an end. He repeatedly clearly distinguishes one from the other. And he never compares nature to a craftsman, he compares it to a doctor doctoring himself and to art (a point he makes painfully clear with "Art does not deliberate.")


 * And a doctor doctoring himself is exactly how dave souza describes it below. Aristotle's species were unchanging, but the way they remained unchanged was because of the excision of the mistakes, the monstrosities. And again, regulation is a form of natural selection, the only thing that spoils that agreement is that Aristotle viewed all deviation as harmful and thus never makes the conceptual leap that deviations might pave the way for improvement, prefering instead to have static species with predestined niches in the cosmos.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning nous, the technical terms you use to describe your understanding come from commentaries hundreds of years later. Nous was a fairly normal Greek word. Whatever the details of Aristotle's theories of the cosmic nous, nous was first something that people also have, and so we at least know that it is similar to that. It is a type of perception and a type of understanding. For Aristotle it is that part of our thinking which is not rational and not sense bound, but which helps us see what is true. See NE VI. People aiming to demystify the Greek like Hobbes just used the word "understanding" to translate it. Very hard to see this as something which has no idea of what is going on.
 * Back to the subject, yes Aristotle says that Empedocles tries to explain the origin of species like we can explain rain. Aristotle did not like it. What Empedocles described is often considered a pre-cursor to the idea of natural selection. Aristotle is not often discussed this way, even if there are subtle arguments about how compatible he might have been, and how much he helped set the framework of later biology. This article is only about natural selection.
 * There is some confusion coming from my use of the word nature as a word for the whole of it. I accept that each nature, in the sense you describe them, does not have to have its own deliberation, but the point of Aristotle is that nature as a whole, perhaps cosmos is the better word, has ends in it, and it shows signs of deliberation. All the natures fit together, and do not work individually and only occasionally do they work "by chance" or (the same thing) "by necessity". This is why Aristotle disagrees with Empedocles and would disagree with Darwin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nous has variously been translated as common sense, instinct, mind, intellect, and the capacity to think, in addition to reason and understanding. You can be all those without having to be aware of others by being self-aware. See Aristotelian view of God.


 * And how is that intelligent (or even external) design? If Aristotle meant cosmos, he would have used cosmos. Nature is φύσις and quite distinct from it. Furthermore, his cosmos again has no beginning and no end and thus does not have a designer or a first cause. How natures mesh together has always been as it is. The unmoved movers, for lack of a better term, merely inspire, they do not design.


 * But yes, again the final cause, the striving towards organization is Aristotle's primary difference with Darwin and Empedocles. But natural selection is not simply about the change of one species to another, it is also the maintenance/balancing/regulation of existing populations and adaptations that fit the specific ecological niche.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   01:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and that is not consistent with the concept of natural selection. Natural selection does not require any assumptions about a well-fitted cosmic order at all, except the normal laws of nature such as responsible for heating and cooling. For the rest I think we might be going too OT, but I continue to think that your interpretation of Aristotle (and already before him) needs tweaking, and I honestly do not see your sources saying quite the same things as you. Just as one example, in Greek phusis can be "a nature" (e.g. human nature) but it can also be "nature" referring to it as a whole, the same as in English. I do not say Aristotle is a modern intelligent design proponent, but he and the other Socratics are one of their most important ultimate sources, and not by any simple mistake. Both Xenophon and Plato put such arguments into the mouth of Socrates.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather rushed, but no source is given for the odd claim that Al Jahiz and co. influenced Erasmus Darwin and subsequently Darwinism. This was inferred by the paragraph which called them "Such classical theories", so I've split it into two paragraphs, the second beginning with the more supportable (though still unsourced) assertion that "The classical arguments were reintroduced in the 18th century by Pierre Louis Maupertuis...". Sorry rather rushed now so don't have time to check out secondary sources. However, these are arguments about descent with modification, shouldn't we be discussing the concept that natural selection acted to keep species stable and remove excessive deviations from the fixed boundaries of each species? . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)