Talk:Selection (biology)

Article should be merged
with Natural selection ?

I came across this article today and I really don't understand why it exists. It should be deleted - the Natural selection article already covers this topic and it is cited. I see the figure by User:Duncharris that schematically classes Selection above natural vs. artificial selection. However, there is no citation to back the conceptual notion - at best this should be a footnote on the natural selection page and treated separately. I have never encountered it in my studies and reading on evolution. Unless this can be backed up by some external peer-reviewed or expert opinion - I vote this page be merged or removed. Thompsma (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why has this not been merged yet??? Peteruetz (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this has been unopposed since 2009, and nobody has objected to the proposal at the target article, I have now created the redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment on the chart
In the chart, "natural selection" is subdivided into two subcategories: ecological selection and sexual selection. Shouldn't a third subcategory be added: kin selection? EPM 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ecological selection
I'm not satisfied with ecological selection. I think the selection page etc over-represent ecological selection as a category, and incorrectly classify sexual selection as a sub-category of natural selection. IMHO, natural selection and sexual selection are thought of as two distinct processes by practitioners within the field, with natural selection occupying the position in the figure in selection that is currently occupied by ecological selection. At least, some references should be added to selection and ecological selection to support the views presented and some historical information should be added to trace the change from Darwin's view to the one presented here. Pete.Hurd 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not really satisfied with artificial selection! As I've said over on the natural selection page I feel artificial selection is a special case of natural selection i.e. a subset (as long as we are talking about biological entities differentially reproducing). Sober seems to agree...


 * Artificial selection is not selection that takes places outside of nature, but selection that occurs within a particular niche found in nature. The [Waddington] experiment involved the interaction of members of one species with members of another. The fact that one of those species happens to have been Homo sapiens sapiens does not affect the point. Artificial selection is a variety of natural selection; the relation is one of set inclusion, not disjointness.

— Axel147 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree - one could/shoud rather distinguish between interspecific/between-species selection (ecological selection as usually understood + some cases of artificial selection, such as domestication of horses vs non-domestication of zebras) and interspecific/within-species selection (sexual + kin + most artificial selection). The former is more relevant in a macroevolutionary context, while the latter is more of a factor in speciation and adaptation on the species level (although in eusocial hymenopterans, it is of considerable macroevolutionary importance too). The evolutionary significance is that the former pits unconnected gene-pools against each other and the latter occurs within the same gene pool. darwin inintially started with studying artificial selection, and then (in "Origin of Species") expanded his view on interspecific selection, whereas Wallace directly discussed the latter.
 * Of course a clean line cannot be always drawn as evolution is an ongoing process. But most cases of evolution yielding to selective forces can be clearly attributed to one or the other being predominant. For example, the showy plumage of some male birds of paradise could of course not evolve beyond a point where it was detrimental to their survival (in Megaceros, changing climate and thus vegetation actually shifted the balance so that a sexually-selected character became detrimental to their survival). But the initial evolution of an exaggerated sexual trait was in both cases driven by intraspecific selection.
 * Indeed, the article should be somehow fused with Natural selection. Probably best merged into it (be aware that this will involve a fair amount of redirect-checking if in the course of this "selection" becomes a pure disambig page). "Selection" is the general term for any process of choosing and discarding from a set of possibilities. "Natural selection" is when this process occurs in nature. The point above about the "nature vs humans" division being artificial is very correct indeed. Evolutionarily, humans putting out food for their Old German Owl pigeons in their cage is just the same as Angraecum sesquipedale evolving a longer and even longer spur in its flowers, which it could because there was already Xanthopan morgani to "run-away" with: provision of a food resource under conditions where it is accessible to a part of a gene pool, bearing a particular character, that otherwise would have been in dire straits.
 * It does not need intelligence for evolution to work; centuries of a loose "best-fit" trial-and-error just do the job as well as human planning does (arguably better in fact, because it gets to try out more options), and from the evolutionary perspective of the lineages selected upon, it is all the same - they either thrive or fail. And the pigeon fancier's taste of what constitutes a desirable breed is in fact co-evolution between the humans who like a particular sort of pigeon and those strange birds which are thus able to thrive though they'd soon die outside human care. Dysmorodrepanis 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The unit of selection
It seems to me as if no distinction is made between selection on the genetic level or on the level of individuals. I think this is important because Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection seems to be dubious. The reason seems to be that the mean fitness is determined as mean over the set of genes, assuming that a gene may have a fitness of its own.

On the other hand, if we assume that the selection of individuals rules the enrichment of genes in a large population and determines the mean fitness over the set of individuals we may for instance get the theorem of gaussian adaptation leading to quite different properties of evolution.

Kjells 11:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some reference to the Unit of selection article would help. Pete.Hurd 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Se for instance: Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, 1976.

More references may be found on my web site:

http://www.evolution-in-a-nutshell.se Kjells 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from evolutionary pressure
I've suggested evolutionary pressure be merged into this article. This one is quite short itself, and evolutionary pressure is no more than a stub. Any arguments in favour of keeping it separate? If it can be developed more there's always the possibility of splitting it off in future. Richard001 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I believe that the Evolutionary Pressure article deserves to be extended and a seperate entity from the main article on selection.Zisimos (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to be careful on how you word evolutionary processes, as a species does not "adapt" to selective pressures and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Things do not evolve or change due to selective pressure, that is not how natural selection works, that is "Dawkins Evolution" and it is falseDirtclustit (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

disambiguate from selection in computing
(I'm not sure how to link to wikipages with parentheses) discusses "focus" in computing. "Selection" is related to "focus" in subtle ways and should be discussed in Wikipedia. Recommend disambiguation page under "selection" which, for now, can link to focus (computing) page. Rokahn (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Rokahn

Pragmatics...? (overview)
Who put that there? It doesn't make sense with the sentence to me. What do you think of it? 76.70.89.203 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "selection" is not scientific
Scientists should definitely avoid religious and anthropomorphic terms like "selection" (etc.) altogether (e.g., "God has selected the Jews as the foremost people among peoples"). Instead, selective processes in "nature" can be replaced by stabilization processes on all biochemical and populational levels, from genomic stability up to sociological and political stabilities (only some populations will have enough stability through time, depending on fast shifting environments; and some populations are so instable, that they die out). --- OE, Feb 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.209.90 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Selection defined by who?
According to which person?


 * In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes segregating within a population may be subject to selection. Under selection, individuals with advantageous or "adaptive" traits tend to be more successful than their peers reproductively—meaning they contribute more offspring to the succeeding generation than others do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.253.89 (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED - to Selection (biology) as unanimously supported after a full relisting period. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

– Unanimous agreement to the "out of process" discussion at Talk:Selection (disambiguation), as requested there by closer. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Selection → Selection (genetics)
 * Selection (disambiguation) → Selection


 * Thanks. I think the first step is worthy of careful discussion, particularly since the concept of selection in genetics has been at Selection since 2003. It should not be moved without some discussion of whether it is, in fact, the primary topic of the term. The Selection (disambiguation) page lists a total of fifteen senses, but some of these are partial title matches (Selection algorithm, Selection-based search, and Selection effect) which might not actually be referred to just as "Selection", some are otherwise not matching titles (Selected (album), Selective school, The Selection, and Selektion). With respect to those that are exact title matches - Selection (genetic algorithm), Selection (user interface), Selection (relational algebra), Selection (Australian history), Selection (album), and a Metro Inc. store brand - I am not sure that any of these, or all of them put together, are comparable to the natural history sense in terms of long-term historic importance. I am also not sure that Selection (genetic algorithm) is not a subtopic of selection (in the genetic sense) generally. At least some evidence should be presented to determine that a topic of substantial historical importance is not the primary topic for a longstanding title. Cheers! bd2412  T 03:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support per the last move request; "selection" is not restricted to genetics, and selection effects in science are not restricted to evolution. Indeed selection is a key concern in statistics. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article on that would appear to be Selection bias (on the page as Selection effect). Is this commonly referred to as just "selection"? bd2412  T 04:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Selection" means the act of selecting or choosing, and happens in many places, not only genetics. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - are we missing a potentially useful WP:DABCONCEPT article on the concept of selection, then? bd2412  T 12:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest Selection (evolutionary biology). Selection was occurring within biology long before the concept of genetics was developed.  The concept of selection may also be confused with processes utilised by genetic scientists or also with topics such as Selection (genetic algorithm). GregKaye 05:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to "Selection (biology)" per the last move request Red Slash. Khestwol (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Selection (evolutionary biology). Rreagan007 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment. Seems clear there's a consensus to move, but not sure we've got a consensus on which disambiguator ("genetics" or "evolutionary biology") to use. Jenks24 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (evolutionary biology). Selection (biology) is available and as far as I can tell, unambiguous. Red Slash 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think "Selection (biology)" might be better option. Khestwol (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Selection (biology). Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.