Home > Positioning > Subjects > Darwinism > The Mechanism

The Mechanism

Natural selection

Natural selection operates when three conditions hold simultaneously: individuals within a population vary, that variation is heritable, and some variants leave more offspring than others in a given environment. Over generations, traits that contribute to reproductive success become more prevalent. The cumulative effect of many small differences across many generations produces adaptation without foresight, design, or direction.

Richard Lewontin formalised the conditions in 1970: phenotypic variation, differential fitness, and heritability of fitness. The formalisation makes clear that natural selection is not a force acting on organisms but a statistical consequence of the three conditions holding together. The formalisation describes the conditions under which selection operates in biological populations.

Fitness in the technical sense is relative reproductive success in a given environment, not strength, speed, or virtue. A trait that is fit in one environment may be unfit in another. Fitness is always context-dependent.

The mechanism has no aim. Outcomes are statistical consequences of differential survival and reproduction, not results of a process working toward something. The appearance of design in biological organisms — the lens of an eye, the structure of a wing — is the accumulated product of selection over very many generations, not evidence of a designing agent. Darwin’s central insight was that this kind of accumulated fit could arise without anyone intending it.

Sexual selection

Sexual selection is Darwin’s second mechanism, introduced in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). Where natural selection concerns survival and reproduction generally, sexual selection concerns competition for mates and mate choice specifically. Darwin distinguished two components: intrasexual competition (typically males competing with other males for access to females) and intersexual choice (typically females choosing among males).

The peacock’s tail was Darwin’s paradigm case — a trait that is costly to survival but favoured by mate choice. Ronald Fisher developed the theoretical account in The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), showing how a preference for a trait and the trait itself can become genetically correlated in a feedback loop — “runaway” sexual selection — producing traits far more elaborate than natural selection alone would sustain.

Sexual selection was historically underweighted in popular and even professional accounts of Darwinism. Several architects of the Modern Synthesis — Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr — questioned its importance or subsumed it under natural selection. Its revival as a major research programme dates from the 1970s, particularly Robert Trivers’s work on parental investment (1972), which provided the theoretical framework for predicting which sex competes and which chooses. The female-choice literature that followed has reshaped how mate selection is understood across the animal kingdom.

Common misunderstandings

“Survival of the fittest.” The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer in Principles of Biology (1864), not by Darwin. Darwin adopted it in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species (1869), and later expressed ambivalence about having done so. As a shorthand it misleads: “fittest” suggests the strongest or most capable, where the technical meaning is differential reproductive success — a quiet, context-dependent, population-level quantity, not a measure of individual superiority.

Selection as goal-directed. The language of adaptation invites teleological reading — organisms evolve “in order to” survive, traits exist “for” a purpose. The mechanism itself contains no goals and no foresight. Traits that increase reproductive success in a given environment tend to persist; traits that do not tend to disappear. The apparent purposiveness of biological design is a product of cumulative selection, not evidence of directedness in the process.

The unit of selection. Where selection acts — on genes, organisms, groups, or some combination — is a long-running question in evolutionary biology. Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) articulated a gene-centric view: organisms are vehicles for gene replication, and selection is best understood at the genetic level. Mayr maintained that the organism is the target of selection. David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober have defended multi-level selection, arguing that group-level selection can operate under specifiable conditions. The question is not settled. How to characterise the relationship between levels remains contested.

Sources

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray.
Lewontin, R. C. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 1–18.
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University Press.
Futuyma, D. J. (2013). Evolution (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates.

See also: Darwin · Spencer · Trivers · Common descent · After the Synthesis