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”?

Determining multivariate least squares with constraint

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

Animation: customize bounce interpolation

Typing CO_2 easily

How were servants to the Kaiser of Imperial Germany treated and where may I find more information on them

SOQL query causes internal Salesforce error

Why would five hundred and five be same as one?

Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos breaking the Tesseract and claiming the stone?

When and why was runway 07/25 at Kai Tak removed?

Why is the principal energy of an electron lower for excited electrons in a higher energy state?

How do you justify more code being written by following clean code practices?

Personal or impersonal in a technical resume

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?

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?

Why the "ls" command is showing the permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

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

Check if object is null and return null

Do I have to take mana from my deck or hand when tapping a dual land?

Sound waves in different octaves

How to I force windows to use a specific version of SQLCMD?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?



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
    30 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
    30 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
    30 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
    30 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
30 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
30 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
    4 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
        4 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
        4 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
        4 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
        4 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
      4 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
      4 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 24 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

                      名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                      Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                      Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar