Question

Looking for input and other opinions with the following statement. 'environmental factors influence the rate of natural selection." I am to make a claim on whether I agree or not and why. I agree with the statement. This is because all literature states that with natural selection it's basically the best man/woman wins. I feel that with that statement it directly refers to the environment if food is scarce then the best hunter the best runner is going to get the food first if the weather is changing and it's time to move on or hibernate then the one with the best intuitions will move on or assume hibernation and wont be left to the cold as well as if they are the prey to something else as everything is the best one to keep alert and observant to their surrounding would be the one to survive longer. Although I think that the only downfall to that would be if something happened and the appearance was to change and made them less desirable in that manner but then would in turn help themselves to camouflage to hide better.

Answer 1

I agree completely.

Environmental factors control evolution through surivial of the fittest, or natural selection. This is not nearly as much the case with humans as wild animals, or early on humans, but it does still come into play. For example, lactose intolerance was erradicated in areas where milk was a primary source of nutrients during a famine. The famine was environmental, causing natural selection to elimate lactose intolerant people in the area.

A more basic example is fur color of certain animals. They were selected by their environment to survive and pass on their genetics, causing the species to evolve.