trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Fisher Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection holds true in population genetics.
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 4 against

Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection has long been controversial, with modern analyses showing that it is either mathematically inexact, valid only under highly restrictive conditions, or dependent on strict definitions that limit its broad biological application.

Evidence for · 2
2006 · cited by 0
Fisher's 'fundamental theorem of natural selection' is notoriously abstract, and, no less notoriously, many take it to be false. In this paper, I explicate the theorem, examine the role that it played in Fisher's general project for biology, and analyze why it was so very fundamental for Fisher. I defend and Lessard (1997) in the view that the theorem is in fact a true theorem if, as Fisher claimed, 'the terms employed' are 'used strictly as defined' (1930, p. 38). Finally, I explain the role that projects such as Fisher's play in the progress of scientific inquiry.
Evidence against · 4
1989 · cited by 0
Fisher's "Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection" has long caused controversy in population genetics theory. Viewed as a statement about the increase, or rate of increase, of mean fitness over time, it encounters difficulties with cases arising in a multi-locus system for which mean fitness can decrease. An interpretation of the theorem is put forward here which implies that it is correct as a mathematical statement, but of less biological value than was claimed by Fisher.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:for=0+2p:against=3+1p:partial_opposition=2 | v55:sufficiency

More for · 1
1992 · cited by 0
Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of natural selection is one of the most widely cited theories in evolutionary biology. Yet it has been argued that the standard interpretation of the theorem is very different from what Fisher meant to say. What Fisher really meant can be illustrated by looking in a new way at a recent model for the evolution of clutch size. Why Fisher was misunderstood depends, in part, on the contrasting views of evolution promoted by Fisher and Wright.
More against · 3
1994 · cited by 0
The fundamental theorem of natural selection was a valiant attempt by R. A. Fisher to fit a quart into a pint pot The present author reviewing Population Genetics by Ewens, 1969 a (Edwards, 1969). Many authors have maintained that the theorem holds only under very special conditions, while only a few (e.g. Edwards, 1967) have thought that Fisher may have been correct – if only we could understand what he meant! It will be shown here that this latter view is correct Price, 1972. My own reason for not including a planned chapter on the fundamental theorem is… [ that ] in spite of many efforts I am still not satisfied that I am able to provide an account that does the theorem justice The present author in the Epilogue to Foundations of Mathematical Genetics (Edwards, 1977).
2002 · cited by 0
Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, that the rate of change of fitness is given by the additive genetic variance of fitness, has generated much discussion since its appearance in 1930. Fisher tried to capture in the formula the change in population fitness attributable to changes of allele frequencies, when all else is not included. Lessard's formulation comes closest to Fisher's intention, as well as this can be judged. Additional terms can be added to account for other changes. The "theorem" as stated by Fisher is not exact, and therefore not a theorem, but it does encapsulate a great deal of evolutionary meaning in a simple statement. I also discuss the effectiveness of reproductive-value weighting and the theorem in integrated form. Finally, an optimum principle, analogous to least action and Hamilton's principle in physics, is discussed.
2017 · cited by 0
The mutation-selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory. In this paper we re-examine Fisher's Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher's first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation-selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
Everything we examined (6)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. What was Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection and what was it for?peer-reviewedno side taken
  2. Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selectionpeer-reviewedno side taken
  3. An interpretation and proof of the fundamental theorem of natural selectionpeer-reviewedno side taken
  4. THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF NATURAL SELECTIONpeer-reviewedno side taken
  5. PERSPECTIVE: HERE'S TO FISHER, ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE, AND THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF NATURAL SELECTIONpeer-reviewedno side taken
  6. The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutationspeer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt