Talk:Natural selection

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

"The of Ancient Scholars on Natural Selection Insights from Al-Masudi's 'The Meadows of' and Other Notable Thinkers"

In his famous book "The Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems," also known as "The Meadows of Gold," Al-Masudi ( 10th century ) discussed various scientific topics, including plants and animals. He talked about evolution and the diversity of life, emphasizing how living organisms adapt to their surroundings. One of the concepts he addressed is natural selection, highlighting the occurrence of genetic changes that have been selected to suit the prevailing conditions.

Furthermore, here is a list of some ancient scientists who discussed ideas related to natural selection:

1. Al-Jahiz: Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani al-Fuqaimi al-Basri, commonly known as Al-Jahiz, was an Arab scholar of the 9th century. He wrote extensively on various subjects, including zoology. In his book "Kitab al-Hayawan" (The Book of Animals), Al-Jahiz observed and described the characteristics of animals, including adaptation to the environment. Check Picture on Wikipedia  : A giraffe from Kitāb al-ḥayawān (Book of the Animals) by the 9th century naturalist Al-Jahiz

2. Ibn Miskawayh: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ya'qub ibn Miskawayh was a Persian scholar from the 10th century. He wrote the book "Tajarib al-Umam" (Experiences of Nations), in which he discussed the adaptation and natural selection of living beings based on their physical traits and behaviors.

3. Ibn Sina (Avicenna): Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abd Allah ibn Sina, commonly known as Ibn Sina, was a Persian polymath of the 10th and 11th centuries. In his medical encyclopedia "The Canon of Medicine," Ibn Sina discussed elements of natural selection and adaptation.

Please note that while these ancient scientists discussed ideas related to natural selection, it is important to acknowledge that Charles Darwin is credited with formulating the theory of natural selection and his work in "On the Origin of Species" (1859) laid the foundation for modern evolutionary biology. Mroaneo (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WanderingMorpheme 02:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Trivial grammatical error

The second paragraph contains "the environment that favours these traits remain fixed.", which should be changed to "the environment that favours these traits remainS fixed.", since "environment" is singular. 80.216.103.164 (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Darwin's theory and earlier writers

Peter J. Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea is a standard textbook on the history of evolution; it concisely covers Darwin meticulously gathering and refining evidence of consilience to meet standards of methodology before making his scientific theory public. He says "Through a combination of bold theorizing and comprehensive evaluation, Darwin came up with a concept of evolution which was unique for the time. There have been many efforts to undermine his originality by claiming that the selection theory had been developed by earlier writers, including Edward Blyth, Patrick Matthew, and William Charles Wells ..... Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it .... Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors." That supplements the detailed commentary by CD in later editions of the book, in clarifying points raised in recent edits. . dave souza, talk 08:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Grammar/typo

"Passed onto" is incorrect grammar as used on this page. Please change to "passed on to". Thanks. 2601:1C0:5F81:2A10:FDA4:5D0:7300:AA6F (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed, and tagged so nobody relies on tools that might try to auto"correct" it. Thanks for reporting it! DMacks (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Natural Selection is a theory

My edit of 13 May 2025 was reverted. I believe my edit is both correct and accurate and would appreciate discussion of the importance of differentiating theory from fact.

The process of evolution is an observable fact.

The theory of Natural Selection is a scientific theory proposed to explain the mechanism of evolution (how it happens). Patrickwooldridge (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this your own opinion? What reliable sources use this terminology? Retimuko (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2004.0081

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/

https://bio.libretexts.org/Sandboxes/Team%3A_Ecology_Wildlife_and_Conservation_(EVC)/2%3A_Diversity_in_Wildlife/2.1%3A_The_Theory_of_Natural_Selection

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/natural-selection-ap/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection Patrickwooldridge (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6428117/

https://www.paleosoc.org/evolution Patrickwooldridge (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a liguistic corruption of evolution as fact and theory. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the question is linguistic. Evolution is an observable fact, whereas Natural Selection is a leading theory to explain the mechanism of evolution.

The difference between fact/evidence and theory/explanation is not semantic.

A principal (and much older) competing theory is teleologic evolution.

And these two theories are not exclusive: both can be useful and applicable theories, like quantum mechanics and relativity. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Patrickwooldridge - natural selection is a process. That process leads to changes in allele frequencies in a population (ie, evolution). The degree to which this process is a drives evolutionary change specific observed and inferred evolutionary change is something that's the the subject of scientific study. Guettarda (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Patrickwooldridge the question for us here, trying to summarize what published experts say, is whether the distinction you make is one that experts make. I don't think they generally do. Natural selection is generally treated by biologists as something known to be correct. As has been discussed over and over, the traditional use of the word "theory" is not relevant. Teleological or design arguments are OTOH generally seen as fringe theories in biology (even if, as in this case, they accept the existence of evolution). Furthermore, even for people who believe in them, they are metaphysical explanations, and not part the observable world of animals and plants which can be studied scientifically (according to the modern understanding of what science is). So they are subjects for philosophical or theological discussion, not biological discussion. While I do not doubt that many biologists leave room in their belief systems for human-like ends/teloi/design in nature, it therefore has limited impact on what they publish about biology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)