In Darwin's "Origin" the theory was one of adaptation, not advancement. Unfortunately Spencer coined the "fittest" remark and that was a popular mode of thinking at the time - when people were rather self-congratulatory about their scientific understandings of the natural world (how clever!). So, evolution was originally meant as an adaptation to the chance environment. It may or may not have been 'better' than the previous model, but it survived through chance, and we assume, advantage. This doesn't necessarily make it advantageous throughout time.
I'm sure we can all come up with improvements to the human body ;). Liz On 06/12/2012, at 2:47 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Joey and Ecolog > > I am the author of question 3, and the point is exactly the one made by > Smokey, with which I fully agree. There do seem to be people who seem to be > of the opinion that evolution IS progress, however. I posted this question to > a well-known evolutionary biology forum and Richard Dawkins replied in the > affirmative; when I asked for further clarification, there was no response > (except one which agreed with my point; several others were outraged, and I > ended up having to issue an "apology." David Attenborough, in one of his > excellent TV programs used the term "advance," in discussing the matter with > one of the world's top paleontologists, whom I emailed the raw question; he > responded in the affirmative, that the creatures he was most famous for > studying did "advance." When I responded by asking if he would then conclude > that the genus Homo would then be an example of "evolutionary advance," the > correspondence was terminated. > > My straw polling amongst "the public" tilts strongly in favor of "progress" > or "advancement" with time, and while I'm not sure of all the sources that > have contributed to this impression, the Time-Life book "Human Evolution," > with its famous/infamous "March of Progress" illustration beginning with a > quadruped ape and ending with an upright, apparently Aryan male. I know of no > studies that have been done on this issue, and attempting to raise the > discussion on respected websites causes more blowback than the kind of > clarity that Smokey's concise statement brings to the discussion. > > Ecolog is a respected and large listserv. Will there be further comments, > either in support or in refutation of Smokey's explanation, or is this > subject one of those academic "third rails" that no one dare touch? Those who > fear posting their comments here could send Smokey and me their comments > directly if they want to avoid reprisals (the subject of reprisals for posts > reared its ugly head several months ago, and believe it or not, the emails I > received were not limited to students; I got several from professors). > > On the other hand, if this subject is considered unimportant, "proper" > actions can be taken, eh? > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Smokey" <northwestbird...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:51 PM > 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 < >> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> 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 >>> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu >>> >>> From: jason.strickland >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM >>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >>> 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 (jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto: >>> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu>) or respond to this post with your >>> suggestions. >>> >>> Thank you in advance for your help, >>> >>> Jason Strickland >>> jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto:jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> >>> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5436 - Release Date: 12/04/12 Liz Pryde PhD Candidate (off-campus @ The University of Melbourne) School of Earth and Environmental Sciences James Cook University, QLD elizabethpr...@gmail.com epr...@unimelb.edu.au
