|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Nature | Comment 08 October 2014 quote: Sounds like Evo\Devo to me, being incorporated into a new synthesis theory, just as gene theory was previously incorporated in the "modern synthesis" and the development of SET (standard evolutionary theory).
quote: In other words, the field of evolution is evolving as more information becomes available on the different processes involved, just as all sciences do, and that rather than just mutation and selection the processes involve:
To my mind many of these "add-on" processes involve the interaction of the organisms with their ecology, and this is really recognition that species cannot be talked about properly without including their ecologies. Does this need to be updated?
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. And if so, how? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There's not a lot of discussion on this thread I thought that Laland made an unpersuasive argument. That is to say, I was not persuaded.
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes.
Undoubtedly, this is true. But I have long assumed that this was well known, except among creationists. So I don't see this as enough reason for the proposed change. So you agree with Wray and Hoekstra that current "standard evolutionary theory" thinking includes their "extended evolutionary synthesis" arguments, ... and therefor that my summary process doesn't need changes\alterations\additions:
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. ie -- I don't need to include reference to developmental stages and their interaction with the ecological conditions ...
I thought that Laland made an unpersuasive argument. That is to say, I was not persuaded. 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, but they are not significant enough to combine in a new overall synthesis in the way that genetics was. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My thinking is that that evolutionary theory does need a rethink, ... for the purpose of providing better and more effective focus. The general statement of evolution you provided ... is accurate enough ... but I think it fails to capture the complexity and nuances of evolutionary processes. 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. ... 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. 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. I agree. An evolution in the way different aspects of biology are viewed as part of a whole, a synergistic view. This would of course include evo-devo and ecology in talking about any species, thus broadening the scope from species to species within habitat and interactions with other species in those habitats. Curiously, I must admit that I was a little concerned\unhappy that the last phrase in my pet definition didn't go quite far enough for including interactions and the feedback of ecology. So I thought about expanding it slightly ...
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. Hopefully this is not getting too wordy. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... I am not sure about "iterative" though. ... Just referring to generation by generation, step by step ... mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat ... an endless do-loop. Also the way evolution computer programs work.
... 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 how different habitat\ecologies affect the development process. I read somewhere that once an individual reaches sexual maturity that any delayed development stops. This would be a mechanism for neoteny to develop. This also explains the retained gills in Axolotls Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thanks for your information on ebola\vaccines btw - I must admit to a layman's understanding in that field. Always room to learn eh?
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. What I see is that the "old school" view was that survival and reproduction were solely in the hands of the individuals of a breeding population, reacting to the ecology they inhabited, fighting against nature, red in tooth and claw ... And the "new school" (both the SET and EES advocates in the article) view is that there is an interplay and that it is more of a symbiotic\partnership relationship, where organisms can alter the selective pressures by affecting the habitat to make it more beneficial to them, a feedback\cooperative interaction dance with multiple partners.
Wolves in Yellowstone for example.
As an hypothetical, let's say that there is a developmental gene that causes newborns to have webbed feet if their mothers were in the water a lot. Obviously, this would be selected for. However, if the same phenotype were stimulated by desert conditions, then the trait would be selected against. In the end, each is a mutation that is passed through selection. For example, several varieties of dogs in coastal areas have webbed feet -- The Newfoundland Dog for example, that also has thick double coat, and slight modification to shoulders and lungs for stronger swimming ability. But this is just species against nature in this regard, whereas a more synergistic approach would look at the coastal ecology and see if these dogs affect it to their advantage - food sources etc - or other animals that are displaced (sea otters?) and how that changes the ecosystem. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024