![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not satisfied with ecological selection. I think the selection page etc over-represent ecological selection as a category, and incorrectly classify sexual selection as a sub-category of natural selection. IMHO, natural selection and sexual selection are thought of as two distinct processes by practitioners within the field, with natural selection occupying the position in the figure in selection that is currently occupied by ecological selection. At least, some references should be added to selection and ecological selection to support the views presented and some historical information should be added to trace the change from Darwin's view to the one presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2005 (UTC)
Some grammatical editing of this article would be helpful -- it is so full of modifying clauses that it becomes difficult to follow. Brigner.15 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this article could use quite a bit of editing. Some suggestions I have in mind are:
1) use more citations, obviously, and no original research.
2) Provide more circumstance for which it occurs. Ecological selection is huge component of natural selection, and I think it needs to be accentuated more in this article. Also I feel that the comparison to sexual selection is somewhat unnecessary, and it leads to more confusion about the issue.
3) Lastly, I feel that the structure of the article is insufficient. A paragraph providing more examples would be beneficial, as well as a history of experts and their studies.
Brigner.15 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not feel that ecological selection is over-represented. Ecological selection is an active and critical mode of natural selection, and is necessary for evolution to occur.
Sexual selection is not a subcategory of natural selection, but more a form of natural selection, and it should be contrasted with ecological selection. I agree that the definition "selection minus sexual selection" is very off-putting, because I believe the two functions are very intertwined and actually rely on each other. This article is very flawed with it's focus on sexual selection as a subset of natural selection, because that definition is simply wrong. Both ecological selection and sexual selection are modes of selection, that work together.
The whole subject is foggy right now, and a lot of primary literature is still very arguable. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, however. Ecological selection is prevalent in a huge amount of research right now, the term definitely exists (I have a list of resources if anyone doubts this). Scientists just use it in varying ways, whether it be encompassing resource use, ecological functions, or as a cause of sexual selection. That's why I believe that the page should be redone, because it currently provides only one argument (ecological selection separated from sexual selection), and there are no sources given. References are desperately needed to support backing arguments, because there are many.
Brigner.15 ( talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not satisfied with ecological selection. I think the selection page etc over-represent ecological selection as a category, and incorrectly classify sexual selection as a sub-category of natural selection. IMHO, natural selection and sexual selection are thought of as two distinct processes by practitioners within the field, with natural selection occupying the position in the figure in selection that is currently occupied by ecological selection. At least, some references should be added to selection and ecological selection to support the views presented and some historical information should be added to trace the change from Darwin's view to the one presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2005 (UTC)
Some grammatical editing of this article would be helpful -- it is so full of modifying clauses that it becomes difficult to follow. Brigner.15 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this article could use quite a bit of editing. Some suggestions I have in mind are:
1) use more citations, obviously, and no original research.
2) Provide more circumstance for which it occurs. Ecological selection is huge component of natural selection, and I think it needs to be accentuated more in this article. Also I feel that the comparison to sexual selection is somewhat unnecessary, and it leads to more confusion about the issue.
3) Lastly, I feel that the structure of the article is insufficient. A paragraph providing more examples would be beneficial, as well as a history of experts and their studies.
Brigner.15 ( talk) 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not feel that ecological selection is over-represented. Ecological selection is an active and critical mode of natural selection, and is necessary for evolution to occur.
Sexual selection is not a subcategory of natural selection, but more a form of natural selection, and it should be contrasted with ecological selection. I agree that the definition "selection minus sexual selection" is very off-putting, because I believe the two functions are very intertwined and actually rely on each other. This article is very flawed with it's focus on sexual selection as a subset of natural selection, because that definition is simply wrong. Both ecological selection and sexual selection are modes of selection, that work together.
The whole subject is foggy right now, and a lot of primary literature is still very arguable. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, however. Ecological selection is prevalent in a huge amount of research right now, the term definitely exists (I have a list of resources if anyone doubts this). Scientists just use it in varying ways, whether it be encompassing resource use, ecological functions, or as a cause of sexual selection. That's why I believe that the page should be redone, because it currently provides only one argument (ecological selection separated from sexual selection), and there are no sources given. References are desperately needed to support backing arguments, because there are many.
Brigner.15 ( talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)