|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2005 : 23:48:08 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dogmatic about the terminology. I merely meant to point out the shift from anthropology and paleontology to genetic research for advances in our understanding of evolution has resulted in some shifting of concepts.
I would still throw out 'survival of the fittest' because some genetic selection, such as male peacock feathers, for example, actually defies that concept. Mate selection has been stereotyped into belief that it always followed a choice of a more survivable trait, but research suggests that is not necessarily the case. Genes can be passed on that aren't necessarily physically more likely to produce more offspring, if mate selection allows more offspring by mere preference.
If greater number of offspring and therefore passing on certain genes were the result of the simple action of survival, then there would be a closer one to one result. But instead, survival entails complex processes and selection pressures are not simple formulas. Thus we get a range of genes that survive, some 'fitter' than others.
I had second thoughts about putting 'natural selection' into the same category of archaic terms and now realize I should have thought that through a little more. |
 |
|
Topic Locked
