First, NS is always specific in nature, meaning there is always a selection pressure. There has never been a case where natural selection doesn’t involve specific selection. It is intrinsic to NS. Take the guppies experiment without predators. The new selection pressure is now sex. Get rid of sex and the selection pressure might be how fast one can convert nutrients, take that away and there will be something else. There is never a static system (which you seem to imply there is) where specific selection is not on-going.
Second, (I use this phrase loosely) we can not know the mind of nature. To expand on that, it is impossible to know what selection pressure will be greatest each season. We can only evaluate specific traits on a per period basis under certain conditions. We can then use those results to make assumptions on the whole and provide evidence for theories. This is the very nature of science. By your line of reasoning all of science is tautology due to the nature of the universe.
Second, (I use this phrase loosely) we can not know the mind of nature. To expand on that, it is impossible to know what selection pressure will be greatest each season. We can only evaluate specific traits on a per period basis under certain conditions. We can then use those results to make assumptions on the whole and provide evidence for theories. This is the very nature of science. By your line of reasoning all of science is tautology due to the nature of the universe.
Natural selection
06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM
- 1122 Views
selection for suitability
06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM
- 764 Views
Thanks for your responce
06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM
- 880 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it:
06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM
- 828 Views
Just a question
06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM
- 821 Views
Yes it can
06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM
- 682 Views
But how?
06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM
- 885 Views
Re: Just a question
06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM
- 905 Views
I'm not sure I understand you
06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM
- 809 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies.
06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM
- 828 Views
Then it is still a tautology
06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM
- 839 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations.
06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM
- 938 Views
Maybe...
07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM
- 788 Views
I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions.
09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM
- 867 Views
we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment
09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM
- 930 Views
As I understand it
06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM
- 753 Views
Better...
06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM
- 739 Views
Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"?
06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM
- 867 Views
yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM*
09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM
- 345 Views
No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway.
09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM
- 799 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that
06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM
- 835 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify...
06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM
- 856 Views
The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
- 868 Views
Re: The questions go deeper
06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM
- 839 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question.
06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM
- 862 Views
How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM
- 357 Views


100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool
*NM*
06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM
- 380 Views


Re: Natural selection
07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM
- 841 Views
Thanks a lot
07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM
- 986 Views
2 things
07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM
- 742 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM
- 958 Views
Re: 2 things
07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM
- 781 Views
My best guess
07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM
- 826 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM
- 753 Views
Re: My best guess
07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM
- 912 Views