Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 6 of 20 (738817)
10-16-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
10-11-2014 12:10 PM


Hi RAZD
My thinking is that that evolutionary theory does need a rethink, but not for the purpose of correcting something that is flawed, or even incomplete, but for the purpose of providing better and more effective focus. The general statement of evolution you provided
quote:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
is accurate enough and it does take into consideration all the environmental effects and "add-on" processes. It works well as a general definition but I think it fails to capture the complexity and nuances of evolutionary processes. So in essence I agree with Laland's statement that:
quote:
In essence, this [new] synthesis maintains that important drivers of evolution, ones that cannot be reduced to genes, must be woven into the very fabric of evolutionary theory.
It is a shift in focus, not in definition. I think that in reality this shift is already happening and this proposal for an EES is actually a matter of the academic side - the framework aspect - catching up with what is really happening on the ground.
While not about evolution directly, but as an example of how the focus is shifting in the study of biological systems; I am currently studying plant pathology. Although the definition maybe something like: The study of infectious plant diseases caused by pathogens and environmental conditions, this fails to capture the real nature of disease studies. In order to really understand disease epidemiology we can no longer simply look at the plant - pathogen interaction; it must include a whole range of biotic and abiotic factors. The focus of pathology is shifting to a community or a biome approach rather than simply a pathogen - plant interaction. I see the same type of thing happening in evolution.
Another good example is in molecular biology. The central dogma of molecular biology is that genes make RNA which makes protein. And this is certainly true. But it totally fails to express the complexity and interdependence of molecular processes. This simplistic thinking can lead to erroneous thinking about things like junk-DNA, which we now know is wrong. Even regions like intergenic spacers that are never expressed into gene products of any kind play an important role in gene regulation, as buffers against harmful mutations, etc. Molecular biology can no longer focus on genes and their products alone, but needs to take a whole genome approach to understanding how molecular processes function.
I think that is the kind of thing a revision or extension of the evolutionary synthesis would do for biology. It would shift focus to a much broader perspective and I believe would help develop new insights as to how and why organisms change over time.
However, I do agree with Wray and Hoekstra when they say:
quote:
We invite Laland and colleagues to join us in a more expansive extension, rather than imagining divisions that do not exist. We appreciate their ideas as an important part of what evolutionary theory might become in the future. We, too, want an extended evolutionary synthesis, but for us, these words are lowercase because this is how our field has always advanced.
I don't see that there is division and difficulty in evolutionary biology, rather it seems more like it is time to integrate our current knowledge of evolutionary processes into a more inclusive framework. I see this as a "soft revolution" in evolutionary biology, not a shake-up of the discipline. I see it as a way to help develop and expand our focus and so have a better understanding of evolutionary processes.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2014 12:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2014 11:50 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 7 of 20 (738819)
10-16-2014 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
10-12-2014 11:16 AM


Re: no change required
My opinion is that some of these processes he discusses apply to some species but not to all, and as such they are ancillary additional processes that explain those certain instances,
I am not sure that is true and I think that may be where our focus does need to change. I would say that those "add-on" processes DO apply to all species, just in varying levels of effect - sometimes the effect may be virtually nothing, but it is still part of the overall process.
An example I thought of is that we would say that the earth's moon has virtually no effect on the orbit of Jupiter; we could essentially say that the gravity of the earth's moon does not apply to the orbit of Jupiter. But what would happen if we suddenly took the moon out of the system? A chain of events would occur that would most certainly affect the orbit of Jupiter.
but they are not significant enough to combine in a new overall synthesis in the way that genetics was.
And that is Wray and Hoekstra's argument that genes are the major players, which I still agree with. But these "ancillary processes" I don't consider to be add-ons or secondary processes, but part of the bigger picture, without which genes and their products would not have a context in which to operate. That is what I see an extended synthesis helping to achieve: congealing these ancillary processes into a cohesive and comprehensive framework that provides a better picture of the overall process of evolution.
And as I pointed out, Wray and Hoekstra do call for an extended synthesis, but they are suggesting, as am I, that it is not particularly revolutionary new concepts, but an expansion of the basic framework.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2014 11:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 9 of 20 (738848)
10-16-2014 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
10-16-2014 11:50 AM


Re: extended awareness of biom\ecology interactions
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
I like that, especially the phrase "feedback response," it reflects the point that evolution is not a one-way street, but is a complex interaction where the organism effects their environment, the environment affects the organism, the organism affects other organisms, etc, etc. I am not sure about "iterative" though. I suppose you are trying to express the step-wise nature and the idea that more than one type of evolutionary development can be going on at one time (even contradictory trajectories), but I'm not sure.
This would of course include evo-devo and ecology in talking about any species
I find evo-devo to be one of the most fascinating and promising aspects of evolutionary biology. In theory, two organisms could have identical genes and yet develop vastly different organisms depending on which genes are turned on and when - that is, how those gene products are assembled during development. HOW organisms regulate their genes and how they organize gene products is the key to their phenotype and therefore, their evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. And honestly, it stills seems a bit of a "black box," although we are slowly unraveling it.
Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to spend on that particular aspect.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2014 11:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2014 8:27 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 14 of 20 (739160)
10-21-2014 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
10-17-2014 5:33 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
Darwin himself spoke of the interplay between symbiotes, parasites, inter- and intraspecies cooperation, and environment. That's as old school as it gets.
I had a biology professor who used to say "Biology is the study of plants and their parasites." which I just find very amusing.
Anyway, I don't think Darwin understood how deep those interactions actually go. I don't think we really understood it in general until the '60s. Silent Spring was kind of the turning point in our thinking about ecological and environmental matters as far as interaction and inter-dependency of species. It is not that we didn't know about interactions, symbiotes, parasites, etc. before that, but we began to understand the extent and significance of those interactions.
taq writes:
In my eyes, this is nothing more than discussing the complexity of natural selection. Some scientists want to treat the interaction of environment and genotype as an additional mechanism, but in the end I fail to see how it is any different than other selective pressures.
That's the thing though, selection works on phenotype, not genotype. We are just beginning to unravel the complexities of environment / phenotype interactions, such as methylation, epigenetics and development. It is not so much that these are different than other selective pressures or that they are additional mechanisms, it is just a matter of bringing the whole picture into focus - a "not missing the forest for the trees" sort of thing.
I see this "whole biome approach" taking shape and becoming more and more integrated into our study of organism and their evolution. So an extended synthesis should simply be an attempt to help focus our efforts in evolutionary biology into a more inclusive, extensive understanding of how and why organisms change. I think the WHY issue is at the heart of the need for an EES. Natural selection working on random mutations, while it may be accurate enough, is simply too basic and unsatisfying. I think we can provide better answers for WHY organisms evolve.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 10-17-2014 5:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taq, posted 10-21-2014 5:34 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 16 by zaius137, posted 10-21-2014 11:29 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 17 of 20 (739288)
10-22-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by zaius137
10-21-2014 11:29 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
Is EES divorcing itself from formal reductionism?
Well first of all, there is not currently an EES. What we are discussing is should there BE an EES.
So, should an EES divorce itself from reductionism? Well, I would say yes and no. Whenever you are trying to understand a complex system, obviously you will need to break it down into its constituent parts. But on the other hand, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. However, I would also add that your characterization that the current synthesis is married to the concept of reductionism is not really valid. Perhaps you could clarify.
How does EES affect basic biochemical research defining evolution
That's a good question. Those that suggest that there is no need for an EES would say that it would not affect biochemical research, which is why there is no need for it. My thought is that we are already approaching biochemical research from a non-genecentric approach and an EES would be more about incorporating this into a more formal framework.
I suppose a updated version of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is in order because Haeckel’s fabrication is a bit worn out.
It is worn out. I am tired of hearing creationists bring it up.
Noting that observable changes in genotype are beyond empirical observation, genotype changes can be rejected out of hand.
What does that even mean? Observable changes are beyond empirical observation?
So that leaves phenotype variance as related to the whole biome approach Wait a minute that would be adaptation by natural selection
Yeah, I don't get your point here.
I think if should be at the heart of EES. Just my opinion.
"If" what? If evolution occurs? That evolution does occur is a forgone conclusion. There is no "if." If humans evolved from apes, or if mammals evolved from reptile ancestors, or if birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, is that what you are talking about? Certainly those questions will never be answered to the satisfaction of creationists, but our current knowledge suggests that the "if" question is already answered.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zaius137, posted 10-21-2014 11:29 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 10:19 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024