Are inadvertent environmental catastrophes also examples of natural selection?Eusociality and Natural selection?Empirical evidence for Group Selection?How does Natural Selection shape Genetic Variation?Name/Examples of Traits whose benefit is non-obvious and/or which evolve despite apparent mal-adaptivness?Real-world examples of Darwinian extinctionThe falsifiability of natural selectionIs natural selection a force?Do beneficial viruses exist? If so, what examples are there?Exact terminology of natural selectionWhat is the definition of “Natural Selection”?

Would a primitive species be able to learn English from reading books alone?

If Captain Marvel (MCU) were to have a child with a human male, would the child be human or Kree?

Overlapping circles covering polygon

How to make a list of partial sums using forEach

Review your own paper in Mathematics

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

Anime with legendary swords made from talismans and a man who could change them with a shattered body

Possible Eco thriller, man invents a device to remove rain from glass

Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?

Typing CO_2 easily

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Is there a reason to prefer HFS+ over APFS for disk images in High Sierra and/or Mojave?

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Sound waves in different octaves

Determining multivariate least squares with constraint

What the heck is gets(stdin) on site coderbyte?

Telemetry for feature health

SOQL query causes internal Salesforce error

Language involving irrational number is not a CFL

Why didn’t Eve recognize the little cockroach as a living organism?

Storage of electrolytic capacitors - how long?

Proving an identity involving cross products and coplanar vectors

Giving feedback to someone without sounding prejudiced

Why is the sun approximated as a black body at ~ 5800 K?



Are inadvertent environmental catastrophes also examples of natural selection?


Eusociality and Natural selection?Empirical evidence for Group Selection?How does Natural Selection shape Genetic Variation?Name/Examples of Traits whose benefit is non-obvious and/or which evolve despite apparent mal-adaptivness?Real-world examples of Darwinian extinctionThe falsifiability of natural selectionIs natural selection a force?Do beneficial viruses exist? If so, what examples are there?Exact terminology of natural selectionWhat is the definition of “Natural Selection”?













1












$begingroup$


I just want to understand the concept of natural selection and its relation to evolution.



Evolution by natural selection occurs when we have hereditary trait(s) that causes an effect on reproduction rate of a population, either towards the positive, and thus deemed as beneficial or towards the negative and thus labeled as harmful.



Evolution by natural selection would result in keeping the beneficial trait(s), and wiping out the harmful ones.



The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s). [On the origin of Species, p.78, chapter: natural selection: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed"].



Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in washing out of injurious traits, and only promoting beneficial traits. So natural selection can be the cause of extinction of some genotypes, and ultimately of some species.



In this sense natural selection can be considered as a creative natural tool, like a rubber wiping bad intermediate solutions, and only keeping the correct steps, thereby facilitating reaching into a solution.



Now suppose that we have a population of living subjects with varying heritable traits on an Island, and those had equal fitness over a very long period of time, so they were pretty much adaptive to their environment. Now suppose a volcano erupted or a big comet stroked that island that ended all life in it. Lets suppose that the genotypes of that population is not present outside of that Island. So these genotypes became extinct.



Here this event doesn't have the same functional genre that natural selection had, it actually didn't act in a differential manner promoting those genotypes with better fitness and wiping out those with lower fitness. No it actually was NOT fitness dependent at all, it simply squashed all life forms without regards to whatever feature was brought up by the different genotypes, all were simply extinguished.



Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the work of natural selection also? Or we just label it as inadvertent environmental factor?



If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part of the mechanism for evolution?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
    $endgroup$
    – De Novo
    22 mins ago















1












$begingroup$


I just want to understand the concept of natural selection and its relation to evolution.



Evolution by natural selection occurs when we have hereditary trait(s) that causes an effect on reproduction rate of a population, either towards the positive, and thus deemed as beneficial or towards the negative and thus labeled as harmful.



Evolution by natural selection would result in keeping the beneficial trait(s), and wiping out the harmful ones.



The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s). [On the origin of Species, p.78, chapter: natural selection: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed"].



Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in washing out of injurious traits, and only promoting beneficial traits. So natural selection can be the cause of extinction of some genotypes, and ultimately of some species.



In this sense natural selection can be considered as a creative natural tool, like a rubber wiping bad intermediate solutions, and only keeping the correct steps, thereby facilitating reaching into a solution.



Now suppose that we have a population of living subjects with varying heritable traits on an Island, and those had equal fitness over a very long period of time, so they were pretty much adaptive to their environment. Now suppose a volcano erupted or a big comet stroked that island that ended all life in it. Lets suppose that the genotypes of that population is not present outside of that Island. So these genotypes became extinct.



Here this event doesn't have the same functional genre that natural selection had, it actually didn't act in a differential manner promoting those genotypes with better fitness and wiping out those with lower fitness. No it actually was NOT fitness dependent at all, it simply squashed all life forms without regards to whatever feature was brought up by the different genotypes, all were simply extinguished.



Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the work of natural selection also? Or we just label it as inadvertent environmental factor?



If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part of the mechanism for evolution?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
    $endgroup$
    – De Novo
    22 mins ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


I just want to understand the concept of natural selection and its relation to evolution.



Evolution by natural selection occurs when we have hereditary trait(s) that causes an effect on reproduction rate of a population, either towards the positive, and thus deemed as beneficial or towards the negative and thus labeled as harmful.



Evolution by natural selection would result in keeping the beneficial trait(s), and wiping out the harmful ones.



The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s). [On the origin of Species, p.78, chapter: natural selection: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed"].



Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in washing out of injurious traits, and only promoting beneficial traits. So natural selection can be the cause of extinction of some genotypes, and ultimately of some species.



In this sense natural selection can be considered as a creative natural tool, like a rubber wiping bad intermediate solutions, and only keeping the correct steps, thereby facilitating reaching into a solution.



Now suppose that we have a population of living subjects with varying heritable traits on an Island, and those had equal fitness over a very long period of time, so they were pretty much adaptive to their environment. Now suppose a volcano erupted or a big comet stroked that island that ended all life in it. Lets suppose that the genotypes of that population is not present outside of that Island. So these genotypes became extinct.



Here this event doesn't have the same functional genre that natural selection had, it actually didn't act in a differential manner promoting those genotypes with better fitness and wiping out those with lower fitness. No it actually was NOT fitness dependent at all, it simply squashed all life forms without regards to whatever feature was brought up by the different genotypes, all were simply extinguished.



Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the work of natural selection also? Or we just label it as inadvertent environmental factor?



If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part of the mechanism for evolution?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I just want to understand the concept of natural selection and its relation to evolution.



Evolution by natural selection occurs when we have hereditary trait(s) that causes an effect on reproduction rate of a population, either towards the positive, and thus deemed as beneficial or towards the negative and thus labeled as harmful.



Evolution by natural selection would result in keeping the beneficial trait(s), and wiping out the harmful ones.



The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s). [On the origin of Species, p.78, chapter: natural selection: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed"].



Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in washing out of injurious traits, and only promoting beneficial traits. So natural selection can be the cause of extinction of some genotypes, and ultimately of some species.



In this sense natural selection can be considered as a creative natural tool, like a rubber wiping bad intermediate solutions, and only keeping the correct steps, thereby facilitating reaching into a solution.



Now suppose that we have a population of living subjects with varying heritable traits on an Island, and those had equal fitness over a very long period of time, so they were pretty much adaptive to their environment. Now suppose a volcano erupted or a big comet stroked that island that ended all life in it. Lets suppose that the genotypes of that population is not present outside of that Island. So these genotypes became extinct.



Here this event doesn't have the same functional genre that natural selection had, it actually didn't act in a differential manner promoting those genotypes with better fitness and wiping out those with lower fitness. No it actually was NOT fitness dependent at all, it simply squashed all life forms without regards to whatever feature was brought up by the different genotypes, all were simply extinguished.



Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the work of natural selection also? Or we just label it as inadvertent environmental factor?



If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part of the mechanism for evolution?







evolution natural-selection






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago







Zuhair Al-Johar

















asked 6 hours ago









Zuhair Al-JoharZuhair Al-Johar

1918




1918











  • $begingroup$
    FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
    $endgroup$
    – De Novo
    22 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
    $endgroup$
    – De Novo
    22 mins ago















$begingroup$
FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
$endgroup$
– De Novo
22 mins ago




$begingroup$
FYI, you misunderstand the quote: "On the other hand we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed". This does not suggest that any deleterious variation would result in extinction of a species. It's a restatement of what selection is.
$endgroup$
– De Novo
22 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$


The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a
hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it
would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s).




Citation? I certainly don't think any modern biologist would claim that a single deleterious allele will doom a population.




Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in
washing out of injurious traits,




In real life, there is no infinity far away "ultimate" point to be reached. What's deleterious today might be beneficial if the environment changes. And the environment is always changing.




Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the
work of natural selection also?




I don't see why you would, since survival was not influenced by genetics.




If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part
of the mechanism for evolution?




Well, if it kills every single organism, I don't think we can say that population is evolving any more. But bottlenecks randomly and radically changing allele frequencies are hardly an unknown mechanism for evolution.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
    $endgroup$
    – Zuhair Al-Johar
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
    $endgroup$
    – De Novo
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
    $endgroup$
    – swbarnes2
    3 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$

Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but not the only part



Evolution is described as changes in heritable characteristics over time: you can look at changes in allele frequencies and call that evolution.



Genetic drift, for example, describes genetic changes that are caused by random sampling rather than selection. A natural disaster (if we assume it acts only to kill off some individuals, rather than changing the environment), could hypothetically contribute to genetic drift.



Consider some population of a species of birds on a group of islands. The birds can fly between islands, so they interbreed but not at the same rate (i.e., they are more likely to breed within their island than between islands). Therefore, if we look at allele frequencies, they are not identical. They will be especially likely to drift apart if they aren't especially important to survival (an example in humans could be something like eye color).



One day, all the birds on one of the islands die by some disaster. If we look at allele frequencies across the whole population across all the islands, those frequencies just suddenly changed: any alleles that were more common in the doomed island were just reduced. Evolution just happened (heritable characteristics just changed), with no selection.



These effectively random changes can be quite important evolutionary forces over the long run, especially when population bottlenecks occur, in which case a small population survives rather than is wiped out.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    The catastrophe itself is an example of a change in environment that brings with it a change in selective pressure. The events you describe (a volcano eruption, or a comet strike) would select for existing variation in the population. Heritable traits that are more common in those surviving the event would have been selected for. This represents natural selection.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "375"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82136%2fare-inadvertent-environmental-catastrophes-also-examples-of-natural-selection%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$


      The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a
      hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it
      would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s).




      Citation? I certainly don't think any modern biologist would claim that a single deleterious allele will doom a population.




      Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in
      washing out of injurious traits,




      In real life, there is no infinity far away "ultimate" point to be reached. What's deleterious today might be beneficial if the environment changes. And the environment is always changing.




      Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the
      work of natural selection also?




      I don't see why you would, since survival was not influenced by genetics.




      If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part
      of the mechanism for evolution?




      Well, if it kills every single organism, I don't think we can say that population is evolving any more. But bottlenecks randomly and radically changing allele frequencies are hardly an unknown mechanism for evolution.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
        $endgroup$
        – Zuhair Al-Johar
        5 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
        $endgroup$
        – De Novo
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
        $endgroup$
        – swbarnes2
        3 hours ago















      3












      $begingroup$


      The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a
      hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it
      would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s).




      Citation? I certainly don't think any modern biologist would claim that a single deleterious allele will doom a population.




      Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in
      washing out of injurious traits,




      In real life, there is no infinity far away "ultimate" point to be reached. What's deleterious today might be beneficial if the environment changes. And the environment is always changing.




      Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the
      work of natural selection also?




      I don't see why you would, since survival was not influenced by genetics.




      If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part
      of the mechanism for evolution?




      Well, if it kills every single organism, I don't think we can say that population is evolving any more. But bottlenecks randomly and radically changing allele frequencies are hardly an unknown mechanism for evolution.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
        $endgroup$
        – Zuhair Al-Johar
        5 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
        $endgroup$
        – De Novo
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
        $endgroup$
        – swbarnes2
        3 hours ago













      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a
      hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it
      would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s).




      Citation? I certainly don't think any modern biologist would claim that a single deleterious allele will doom a population.




      Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in
      washing out of injurious traits,




      In real life, there is no infinity far away "ultimate" point to be reached. What's deleterious today might be beneficial if the environment changes. And the environment is always changing.




      Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the
      work of natural selection also?




      I don't see why you would, since survival was not influenced by genetics.




      If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part
      of the mechanism for evolution?




      Well, if it kills every single organism, I don't think we can say that population is evolving any more. But bottlenecks randomly and radically changing allele frequencies are hardly an unknown mechanism for evolution.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$




      The idea according to Darwin is that the slightest harmful effect a
      hereditary trait(s) would bring to a population then with time it
      would result in extinction of the population with that trait(s).




      Citation? I certainly don't think any modern biologist would claim that a single deleterious allele will doom a population.




      Therefore natural selection could be viewed to result ultimately in
      washing out of injurious traits,




      In real life, there is no infinity far away "ultimate" point to be reached. What's deleterious today might be beneficial if the environment changes. And the environment is always changing.




      Now can we label this event of indiscriminative extinction to be the
      work of natural selection also?




      I don't see why you would, since survival was not influenced by genetics.




      If the latter, then are those inadvertent environmental factors part
      of the mechanism for evolution?




      Well, if it kills every single organism, I don't think we can say that population is evolving any more. But bottlenecks randomly and radically changing allele frequencies are hardly an unknown mechanism for evolution.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 5 hours ago









      swbarnes2swbarnes2

      3,640811




      3,640811











      • $begingroup$
        I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
        $endgroup$
        – Zuhair Al-Johar
        5 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
        $endgroup$
        – De Novo
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
        $endgroup$
        – swbarnes2
        3 hours ago
















      • $begingroup$
        I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
        $endgroup$
        – Zuhair Al-Johar
        5 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
        $endgroup$
        – De Novo
        3 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
        $endgroup$
        – swbarnes2
        3 hours ago















      $begingroup$
      I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
      $endgroup$
      – Zuhair Al-Johar
      5 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I've given the citation, according to Darwin, he believed in Malthus rule about geometric growth of populations with arithmetical growth in supply of food that eliminating that abundance. So over time any slight injurious trait would result in extinction of that genotype, due to that struggle for life, since by Malthus law its impossible for all of them to remain extant.
      $endgroup$
      – Zuhair Al-Johar
      5 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
      $endgroup$
      – De Novo
      3 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      +1, I think a key issue here, which you point out, is that there is no inherently "good" or "positive" trait, the value of the trait depends on the environment, which is changing.
      $endgroup$
      – De Novo
      3 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
      $endgroup$
      – swbarnes2
      3 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Simply citing Maltheus does not mean that Darwin really believed that a single deleterious variation would destroy a species. The strength of Origin of Species was all the work Darwin had put into observing variety across a number of different organisms. I don't think he ever said "Well, these barnacles are going to be extinct soon, because I observed this undesirable trait in one of them"
      $endgroup$
      – swbarnes2
      3 hours ago











      1












      $begingroup$

      Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but not the only part



      Evolution is described as changes in heritable characteristics over time: you can look at changes in allele frequencies and call that evolution.



      Genetic drift, for example, describes genetic changes that are caused by random sampling rather than selection. A natural disaster (if we assume it acts only to kill off some individuals, rather than changing the environment), could hypothetically contribute to genetic drift.



      Consider some population of a species of birds on a group of islands. The birds can fly between islands, so they interbreed but not at the same rate (i.e., they are more likely to breed within their island than between islands). Therefore, if we look at allele frequencies, they are not identical. They will be especially likely to drift apart if they aren't especially important to survival (an example in humans could be something like eye color).



      One day, all the birds on one of the islands die by some disaster. If we look at allele frequencies across the whole population across all the islands, those frequencies just suddenly changed: any alleles that were more common in the doomed island were just reduced. Evolution just happened (heritable characteristics just changed), with no selection.



      These effectively random changes can be quite important evolutionary forces over the long run, especially when population bottlenecks occur, in which case a small population survives rather than is wiped out.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but not the only part



        Evolution is described as changes in heritable characteristics over time: you can look at changes in allele frequencies and call that evolution.



        Genetic drift, for example, describes genetic changes that are caused by random sampling rather than selection. A natural disaster (if we assume it acts only to kill off some individuals, rather than changing the environment), could hypothetically contribute to genetic drift.



        Consider some population of a species of birds on a group of islands. The birds can fly between islands, so they interbreed but not at the same rate (i.e., they are more likely to breed within their island than between islands). Therefore, if we look at allele frequencies, they are not identical. They will be especially likely to drift apart if they aren't especially important to survival (an example in humans could be something like eye color).



        One day, all the birds on one of the islands die by some disaster. If we look at allele frequencies across the whole population across all the islands, those frequencies just suddenly changed: any alleles that were more common in the doomed island were just reduced. Evolution just happened (heritable characteristics just changed), with no selection.



        These effectively random changes can be quite important evolutionary forces over the long run, especially when population bottlenecks occur, in which case a small population survives rather than is wiped out.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but not the only part



          Evolution is described as changes in heritable characteristics over time: you can look at changes in allele frequencies and call that evolution.



          Genetic drift, for example, describes genetic changes that are caused by random sampling rather than selection. A natural disaster (if we assume it acts only to kill off some individuals, rather than changing the environment), could hypothetically contribute to genetic drift.



          Consider some population of a species of birds on a group of islands. The birds can fly between islands, so they interbreed but not at the same rate (i.e., they are more likely to breed within their island than between islands). Therefore, if we look at allele frequencies, they are not identical. They will be especially likely to drift apart if they aren't especially important to survival (an example in humans could be something like eye color).



          One day, all the birds on one of the islands die by some disaster. If we look at allele frequencies across the whole population across all the islands, those frequencies just suddenly changed: any alleles that were more common in the doomed island were just reduced. Evolution just happened (heritable characteristics just changed), with no selection.



          These effectively random changes can be quite important evolutionary forces over the long run, especially when population bottlenecks occur, in which case a small population survives rather than is wiped out.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but not the only part



          Evolution is described as changes in heritable characteristics over time: you can look at changes in allele frequencies and call that evolution.



          Genetic drift, for example, describes genetic changes that are caused by random sampling rather than selection. A natural disaster (if we assume it acts only to kill off some individuals, rather than changing the environment), could hypothetically contribute to genetic drift.



          Consider some population of a species of birds on a group of islands. The birds can fly between islands, so they interbreed but not at the same rate (i.e., they are more likely to breed within their island than between islands). Therefore, if we look at allele frequencies, they are not identical. They will be especially likely to drift apart if they aren't especially important to survival (an example in humans could be something like eye color).



          One day, all the birds on one of the islands die by some disaster. If we look at allele frequencies across the whole population across all the islands, those frequencies just suddenly changed: any alleles that were more common in the doomed island were just reduced. Evolution just happened (heritable characteristics just changed), with no selection.



          These effectively random changes can be quite important evolutionary forces over the long run, especially when population bottlenecks occur, in which case a small population survives rather than is wiped out.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          Bryan KrauseBryan Krause

          19.3k23255




          19.3k23255





















              0












              $begingroup$

              The catastrophe itself is an example of a change in environment that brings with it a change in selective pressure. The events you describe (a volcano eruption, or a comet strike) would select for existing variation in the population. Heritable traits that are more common in those surviving the event would have been selected for. This represents natural selection.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                The catastrophe itself is an example of a change in environment that brings with it a change in selective pressure. The events you describe (a volcano eruption, or a comet strike) would select for existing variation in the population. Heritable traits that are more common in those surviving the event would have been selected for. This represents natural selection.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  The catastrophe itself is an example of a change in environment that brings with it a change in selective pressure. The events you describe (a volcano eruption, or a comet strike) would select for existing variation in the population. Heritable traits that are more common in those surviving the event would have been selected for. This represents natural selection.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  The catastrophe itself is an example of a change in environment that brings with it a change in selective pressure. The events you describe (a volcano eruption, or a comet strike) would select for existing variation in the population. Heritable traits that are more common in those surviving the event would have been selected for. This represents natural selection.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 15 mins ago









                  De NovoDe Novo

                  7,29911340




                  7,29911340



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Biology Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82136%2fare-inadvertent-environmental-catastrophes-also-examples-of-natural-selection%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Францішак Багушэвіч Змест Сям'я | Біяграфія | Творчасць | Мова Багушэвіча | Ацэнкі дзейнасці | Цікавыя факты | Спадчына | Выбраная бібліяграфія | Ушанаванне памяці | У філатэліі | Зноскі | Літаратура | Спасылкі | НавігацыяЛяхоўскі У. Рупіўся дзеля Бога і людзей: Жыццёвы шлях Лявона Вітан-Дубейкаўскага // Вольскі і Памідораў з песняй пра немца Адвакат, паэт, народны заступнік Ашмянскі веснікВ Минске появится площадь Богушевича и улица Сырокомли, Белорусская деловая газета, 19 июля 2001 г.Айцец беларускай нацыянальнай ідэі паўстаў у бронзе Сяргей Аляксандравіч Адашкевіч (1918, Мінск). 80-я гады. Бюст «Францішак Багушэвіч».Яўген Мікалаевіч Ціхановіч. «Партрэт Францішка Багушэвіча»Мікола Мікалаевіч Купава. «Партрэт зачынальніка новай беларускай літаратуры Францішка Багушэвіча»Уладзімір Іванавіч Мелехаў. На помніку «Змагарам за родную мову» Барэльеф «Францішак Багушэвіч»Памяць пра Багушэвіча на Віленшчыне Страчаная сталіца. Беларускія шыльды на вуліцах Вільні«Krynica». Ideologia i przywódcy białoruskiego katolicyzmuФранцішак БагушэвічТворы на knihi.comТворы Францішка Багушэвіча на bellib.byСодаль Уладзімір. Францішак Багушэвіч на Лідчыне;Луцкевіч Антон. Жыцьцё і творчасьць Фр. Багушэвіча ў успамінах ягоных сучасьнікаў // Запісы Беларускага Навуковага таварыства. Вільня, 1938. Сшытак 1. С. 16-34.Большая российская1188761710000 0000 5537 633Xn9209310021619551927869394п

                      Беларусь Змест Назва Гісторыя Геаграфія Сімволіка Дзяржаўны лад Палітычныя партыі Міжнароднае становішча і знешняя палітыка Адміністрацыйны падзел Насельніцтва Эканоміка Культура і грамадства Сацыяльная сфера Узброеныя сілы Заўвагі Літаратура Спасылкі НавігацыяHGЯOiТоп-2011 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2013 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2016 г. (па версіі ej.by)Топ-2017 г. (па версіі ej.by)Нацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьШчыльнасць насельніцтва па краінахhttp://naviny.by/rubrics/society/2011/09/16/ic_articles_116_175144/А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Спробы засялення краю неандэртальскім чалавекам.І ў Менску былі мамантыА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіГ. Штыхаў. Балты і славяне ў VI—VIII стст.М. Клімаў. Полацкае княства ў IX—XI стст.Г. Штыхаў, В. Ляўко. Палітычная гісторыя Полацкай зямліГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахГ. Штыхаў. Дзяржаўны лад у землях-княствахБеларускія землі ў складзе Вялікага Княства ЛітоўскагаЛюблінская унія 1569 г."The Early Stages of Independence"Zapomniane prawdy25 гадоў таму было аб'яўлена, што Язэп Пілсудскі — беларус (фота)Наша вадаДакументы ЧАЭС: Забруджванне тэрыторыі Беларусі « ЧАЭС Зона адчужэнняСведения о политических партиях, зарегистрированных в Республике Беларусь // Министерство юстиции Республики БеларусьСтатыстычны бюлетэнь „Полаўзроставая структура насельніцтва Рэспублікі Беларусь на 1 студзеня 2012 года і сярэднегадовая колькасць насельніцтва за 2011 год“Индекс человеческого развития Беларуси — не было бы нижеБеларусь занимает первое место в СНГ по индексу развития с учетом гендерного факцёраНацыянальны статыстычны камітэт Рэспублікі БеларусьКанстытуцыя РБ. Артыкул 17Трансфармацыйныя задачы БеларусіВыйсце з крызісу — далейшае рэфармаванне Беларускі рубель — сусветны лідар па дэвальвацыяхПра змену коштаў у кастрычніку 2011 г.Бядней за беларусаў у СНД толькі таджыкіСярэдні заробак у верасні дасягнуў 2,26 мільёна рублёўЭканомікаГаласуем за ТОП-100 беларускай прозыСучасныя беларускія мастакіАрхитектура Беларуси BELARUS.BYА. Каханоўскі. Культура Беларусі ўсярэдзіне XVII—XVIII ст.Анталогія беларускай народнай песні, гуказапісы спеваўБеларускія Музычныя IнструментыБеларускі рок, які мы страцілі. Топ-10 гуртоў«Мясцовы час» — нязгаслая легенда беларускай рок-музыкіСЯРГЕЙ БУДКІН. МЫ НЯ ЗНАЕМ СВАЁЙ МУЗЫКІМ. А. Каладзінскі. НАРОДНЫ ТЭАТРМагнацкія культурныя цэнтрыПублічная дыскусія «Беларуская новая пьеса: без беларускай мовы ці беларуская?»Беларускія драматургі па-ранейшаму лепш ставяцца за мяжой, чым на радзіме«Працэс незалежнага кіно пайшоў, і дзяржаву турбуе яго непадкантрольнасць»Беларускія філосафы ў пошуках прасторыВсе идём в библиотекуАрхіваванаАб Нацыянальнай праграме даследавання і выкарыстання касмічнай прасторы ў мірных мэтах на 2008—2012 гадыУ космас — разам.У суседнім з Барысаўскім раёне пабудуюць Камандна-вымяральны пунктСвяты і абрады беларусаў«Мірныя бульбашы з малой краіны» — 5 непраўдзівых стэрэатыпаў пра БеларусьМ. Раманюк. Беларускае народнае адзеннеУ Беларусі скарачаецца колькасць злачынстваўЛукашэнка незадаволены мінскімі ўладамі Крадзяжы складаюць у Мінску каля 70% злачынстваў Узровень злачыннасці ў Мінскай вобласці — адзін з самых высокіх у краіне Генпракуратура аналізуе стан са злачыннасцю ў Беларусі па каэфіцыенце злачыннасці У Беларусі стабілізавалася крымінагеннае становішча, лічыць генпракурорЗамежнікі сталі здзяйсняць у Беларусі больш злачынстваўМУС Беларусі турбуе рост рэцыдыўнай злачыннасціЯ з ЖЭСа. Дазволіце вас абкрасці! Рэйтынг усіх службаў і падраздзяленняў ГУУС Мінгарвыканкама вырасАб КДБ РБГісторыя Аператыўна-аналітычнага цэнтра РБГісторыя ДКФРТаможняagentura.ruБеларусьBelarus.by — Афіцыйны сайт Рэспублікі БеларусьСайт урада БеларусіRadzima.org — Збор архітэктурных помнікаў, гісторыя Беларусі«Глобус Беларуси»Гербы и флаги БеларусиАсаблівасці каменнага веку на БеларусіА. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў. Старажытны каменны век (палеаліт). Першапачатковае засяленне тэрыторыіУ. Ксяндзоў. Сярэдні каменны век (мезаліт). Засяленне краю плямёнамі паляўнічых, рыбакоў і збіральнікаўА. Калечыц, М. Чарняўскі. Плямёны на тэрыторыі Беларусі ў новым каменным веку (неаліце)А. Калечыц, У. Ксяндзоў, М. Чарняўскі. Гаспадарчыя заняткі ў каменным векуЭ. Зайкоўскі. Духоўная культура ў каменным векуАсаблівасці бронзавага веку на БеларусіФарміраванне супольнасцей ранняга перыяду бронзавага векуФотографии БеларусиРоля беларускіх зямель ва ўтварэнні і ўмацаванні ВКЛВ. Фадзеева. З гісторыі развіцця беларускай народнай вышыўкіDMOZGran catalanaБольшая российскаяBritannica (анлайн)Швейцарскі гістарычны15325917611952699xDA123282154079143-90000 0001 2171 2080n9112870100577502ge128882171858027501086026362074122714179пппппп

                      ValueError: Expected n_neighbors <= n_samples, but n_samples = 1, n_neighbors = 6 (SMOTE) The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InCan SMOTE be applied over sequence of words (sentences)?ValueError when doing validation with random forestsSMOTE and multi class oversamplingLogic behind SMOTE-NC?ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)SmoteBoost: Should SMOTE be ran individually for each iteration/tree in the boosting?solving multi-class imbalance classification using smote and OSSUsing SMOTE for Synthetic Data generation to improve performance on unbalanced dataproblem of entry format for a simple model in KerasSVM SMOTE fit_resample() function runs forever with no result