Hi all, I think the fact that I feel compelled to respond to Joey's comments 
illustrate how questions 3 and 4 might be worth including  in the discussion.  
One common view of evolution is that it is not progressive but , of course, 
it's impossible to make that claim unless you define what axis evolution 
doesn't 'progress' along.  I think we could make the claim that organisms, on 
average, have evolved to be more complex than they were shortly after life 
began.  So, on the complexity axis, I would claim that life has progressed.  
Joey's example of the move to terrestrial ecosystems, I think, is evidence 
against his argument that there was no progression.  Early terrestrial 
organisms would not have been able to exploit the wide variety of terrestrial 
niches that were available.  Now almost every terrestrial habitat is being 
exploited.  I would say that implies that living organisms have progressed on 
the 'exploiting terrestrial environments' axis.  In fact, I would assert that 
the theory of natural selection implies that species are not only well-adapted 
to their environments but continuously better-adapted to their environments 
over time.  One logical conclusion, if environments were perfectly stable over 
time, is that species would be much better adapted to their environment  as 
time progressed.  Lenski's experiments with E. coli show exactly that kind of 
progression.  The question is, "Are environments stable enough over 
evolutionary time to make the claim that there has been progression along some 
axes or is evolution more like a random walk because environments are 
constantly changing?"  I don't know the answer to that question.  
I think one reason we discourage the idea of progression is a concern that it 
implies some kind of 'creator' behind the scenes prodding us ever forward but 
that is not at all what I'm suggesting.  I'm saying that a process that works 
in a way that selects the fittest individuals over time surely has the 
potential to result in 'progress' along some axes, no?  Whether that potential 
is realised is an empirical question but to state conclusively that evolution 
does not cause progress seems, to me, to be an extreme position.
As for the fourth question, I agree with Joey right up to "...do have 
meaningful impact on evolutionary trajectories of species."  This is an 
empirical question.  There are many processes that can drive evolutionary 
trajectories (genetic drift, abiotic conditions, biological interactions etc.) 
and the question of where interactions stand in relative importance is, I 
think, an important one.
These all seem like worthy questions to me.  Best, Jeff H.



________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
[[email protected]] on behalf of Joey Smokey 
[[email protected]]
Sent: December 4, 2012 5:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

Jason,

I strongly advise against the third question. Evolution is not directional,
and the question is worded to suggest that it is. If the point of the
question is to dispel the idea of evolution being directional, then it
would be fine.

There are many common misconceptions of organisms "progressing" through
evolution. The most common is the typical classroom image of human
evolution moving from ape-like toward human-like over time. Transition
species in the fossil record do not suggest a progressive change from one
type of body form into another. The transition to terrestrial life is the
same way; transition species such as Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, and
Ichthyostega did not "march along" until they were well-adapted for life on
land. Evolution does not craft "improved" species or "advanced" species. It
simply results in organisms being well-adapted for their environment at a
given time.

In regards to the fourth question, ecological time refers to immediate
interactions between organisms and their environment. It does lead into
evolutionary time and the change in allelic frequencies through
generations. So, ecological interactions can and do have meaningful impact
on evolutionary trajectories of species.

I think the first two questions will lead into some good discussion.

Best of luck on your discussion panel,

Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM, jason.strickland <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear group,
>
> I have compiled some of the ideas that were given to me about my
> discussion panel. The response was much lower than I expected so if you
> have any ideas, feel free to share those as well. Thank you to all those
> that contributed.
>
>
> 1.       Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly enough to
> respond to climate change/sea level rise to be evolutionarily relevant?
>
> 2.       What impact will Genetically Modified Organisms have on the
> ecology and evolution of the modified species and other species?
>
> 3.       Do organisms progress/improve/advance through evolution?
>
> 4.       Do ecological processes/interactions last long enough to have any
> meaningful impact on the evolutionary trajectory of a species?
>
> Please share your thoughts on these topics or suggest others.
>
> Cheers,
> Jason Strickland
> [email protected]
>
> From: jason.strickland
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
>
> Dear group,
>
> I am currently working on forming a discussion panel that will include two
> ecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics that involve
> merging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in front of 150-200
> students ranging from undergraduates to post-docs (all in biology). The
> panel will happen on a Saturday morning so it needs to be an exciting
> discussion to hold the audience's interest and cause them to ask questions.
>
> I am looking for topics/questions that the two fields do not completely
> agree on. The goal is to have the panel disagree on topics to allow the
> students to learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest topics or
> questions that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have different
> viewpoints on, they would be greatly appreciated. I have a few topics
> already, but wanted to ask a larger audience to suggest topics to determine
> if there are certain topics/questions that come up frequently. Feel free to
> email me directly ([email protected]<mailto:
> [email protected]>) or respond to this post with your
> suggestions.
>
> Thank you in advance for your help,
>
> Jason Strickland
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>

Reply via email to