Of course, not everyone agrees with Dawkins ;-) Since natural selection acts across generations (determining which characteristics (denoted by genes) are perpetuated), it cannot act on individuals. That's the difference between genetics-as-we-know-it and the Lamarckian mechanisms that Darwin (unaware of Mendel's work) favored.
Since the species (however fuzzily defined) is the outcome of the mechanism of selection, it is at least in some sense selected. The question, as others have noted, is the details of the mechanisms that produce this result. On Apr 27, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Rick Froman wrote: > Ed Pollak wrote: > > You have one thing completely wrong, Michael. Evolution by natural > selection has nothing to do "increasing species' survival." Natural > selection acts to increase or decrease the frequency of genes. It > does so by acting on the survival and reproduction of individuals > and their close kin. A minority opinion suggests it act on groups > of unrelated kin. But to my knowledge, no one seriously suggests > that natural selection acts on species. Besides, "species" is a > somewhat arbitrary concept, a scientific attempt to use a binomial > system to describe a continuous world. > This notion of natural selection favoring "survival of the species" > is, IMO, one of the most ubiquitous and persistent misconceptions > in the modern history of science. (The best treatment of this > topic I've ever seen is Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene.") > > I guess Darwin titling his classic text, On the Origin of Species, > probably didn’t help clarify this point very much. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
