Perhaps there are valid points on both sides of this argument: James J. Roper, Ph.D. wrote:
> Natural selection is not a judge. It is only differential > representation of genes in subsequent generations, in which more > successful genes become more common from one generation to the next. > Sure, natural selection can be occurring while extinction is taking > place, but the extinction is NOT the result of natural selection. It seems to me a bit arbitrary to accept that natural selection is taking place when a certain fraction of individuals are selectively culled from a population, yet when that fraction reaches 100% that something different is necessarily going on. To be sure, the RESPONSE of a population to natural selection when mortality is 100% will be a moot point (unless one is considering selection of higher scale entities, dare I say groups?), but to deny that the same processes are at work seems like a bid for special treatment. Wirt Atmar writes: >In my continuing bid to become the group's curmudgeon, let me say that >natural selection can quite easily select for extinction. I might argue a semantic point here. While you make a valid argument that past natural selection can lead to evolutionary dead ends and extinction, I don't think it is accurate to say natural selection is selecting "for" extinction itself. Rather, natural selection "for" certain traits (other than extinction-proneness) may ultimately lead to extinction. A minor point perhaps, but an important distinction. Hope this is a helpful contribution to an interesting discussion. Norris -- ************************************************************ Norris Z. Muth Department of Ecology and Evolution State University of New York at Stony Brook 650 Life Sciences Building Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/~nmuth http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/pigliuccilab/ ************************************************************
