Hi Joey, I am not arguing that evolution has led to progress on some axis -
that's an empirical question. I am only arguing that it is not a
misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection to suggest that it is
possible. You've stated conclusively that evolution by natural selection
cannot lead to progress. So, if I could provide empirical evidence that, on
average, current organisms are better adapted to their environments than
organisms were 3,000,000,0000 years ago would you still deny that was progress?
I'm OK with that but it's just a semantic issue then - something that I would
be willing to call progress you wouldn't be willing. On the other hand, if
you're saying that it's not possible that over time time organisms have become
better adapted to their environments then our difference of opinion is more
fundamental. But, keep in mind - this is not a debate about whether evolution
by natural selection HAS resulted in progress, it is about whether it's
reasonable to ask the question, has evolution resulted in progress? Just
because the answer might be no doesn't mean the question doesn't make sense.
And what about the example from Lenski's work - he has absolutely demonstrated
in his population of E. coli that later generations were more fit than earlier
generations. The population that had been around longer was better adapted.
Why would it be possible over 75,000 generations of E.coli but not possible as
a general rule?
The problem I have is not that you believe that evolution by natural selection
has not resulted in better adapted organisms - it's that you believe that
anybody who suggests it's possible, misunderstands evolution by natural
selection. Best, Jeff Houlahan
________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[[email protected]] on behalf of Joey Smokey
[[email protected]]
Sent: December 6, 2012 7:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Ecolog:
I would like to commend Wayne for his devil's advocate approach to
suggesting the third question and starting this discussion. It seems my
original interpretation was correct: the whole purpose of the question was
to dispel the misconceptions around the semantics of evolution.
I find it interesting how several of you use the word "progress" in
different contexts, and I especially like the idea of defining progress
along some sort of axis, such as increasing complexity. This all being
said, I do have some retorts. Firstly, if the argument is to be made that
evolution leads to increasingly complex life forms, it should be noted that
this has happened many times in evolutionary history. Adaptive radiations
and mass extinctions produce a cycle of "simple-to-diverse" organisms over
millenia. However, at the end of every mass extinction, the diversification
of organisms and their niches is eliminated, and complexity of life is
severely reduced. So, given our idea of progress, however you want to
define it, you still cannot use it. If organisms did in fact progress over
whatever axis you'd like to use, then despite mass extinctions they would
continue to become more and more advanced. We are currently in the middle
of an anthropogenic mass extinction, whether or not some folks want to
accept that, and at the end of it, the complexity of life as we know it
will vanish. Fact: prokaryotes have remained simple unicellular organisms
for billions of years for a reason. :)
To the point of evolution of individuals, populations, and communities:
Individuals and communities do not evolve. I think the idea of community
evolution has been sufficiently put the rest already. To use semantics
correctly: natural selection acts on individuals and has consequences on
allelic frequencies in populations. One individual organism cannot evolve,
because its allelic frequency never changes throughout its life. But,
natural selection can cause it to influence the allelic frequency of future
generations in the population, and that -is- evolution. Also, when folks
use the terms of "fittest" and "survival of the fittest", etc., that should
be avoided. The four postulates of natural selection lead to relative
fitness. In other words, one individual can only have a slightly higher
fitness than another. Liz already alluded to this; and I also quite like
her noting that even our own species is by no means "perfect."
Recapping: Evolution is not directional. Evolution is not perfect. And
evolution does not lead to the good of the species (example: infanticide).
Evolution leads to organisms being well-adapted to their environment at a
specific time. Temporal environmental changes (i.e. climate change) lead to
organisms no longer being well-adapted to their environment, and they must
either adapt or face extinction.
Regards,
Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Houlahan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all, admittedly evolution by natural selection has no goal - it just
happens. But, the logical outcome of natural selection is a population
containing fitter organisms. Richard Lenski's experiments have shown
conclusively that the E. coli in his cultures that have evolved for longer
are fitter (using competitive ability as an index of fitness). If we can't
call that 'progress' then we've put some pretty narrow constraints on the
word progress and presumably progress can only be used in human contexts
where there are explicit and clearly defined goals. OK. But that just
means we need to rephrase the question to avoid the use of the word
progress (although it's the same question, I think) - as we move from the
first living organisms to the current group of living organisms, have
living organisms, on average, become better adapted to their environments?
I don't know if this is a testable question but it doesn't seem like an
illogical one. And I have to confess, I see it as semantic hairsplitting
to be unwilling to talk about 'better adapted to their environment' as
progress. Best, Jeff Houlahan.
________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
[email protected]] on behalf of Rachel Bolus [[email protected]]
Sent: December 6, 2012 2:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Hello
I think that the interesting debate generated by the issue of
"evolutionary progress" is exactly why it's a good topic for this panel.
It makes people think carefully about definitions and the processes. I
also think that Chris Edge just hit the nail on the head about our
misuse of the word "progress." "Progress" or "advancement" suggests
teleology, which has been largely rejected by evolutionary biologists.
One of the reasons why we stumble over the question, "Do organisms
advance over time?" is that we confuse complexity with progress. Yes, on
average, organisms become more complex over time, because the process of
evolution is the accumulation of changes in traits of individuals in
populations over time. Although losses are part of this process, gains
are added on top of previous gains, resulting in more complexity
(especially in the multi-celled organisms that more frequently catch our
eye).
Is complexity progress? As humans, our intuition tell us, "yes" because
we like shiny complex things (perception bias, perhaps?). If we are
handed two tablets, one that is a chalkboard and one that is an iPad, we
know which one we think is better. But when the flood comes, which one
is still functional afterwards? Adaptation results in organisms fitting
their environment better, but the more adapted we are to a particular
environment, the less flexible we are to change. In a large time scale,
flexibility should trump complexity. Sometimes more complex things are
better able to adjust to changes in the environment, sometimes they
aren't. In a "stable" environment (if it exists) what organism is best
able to survive and reproduce may be complex or may be simple.
What is "better" is largely subjective- is it complexity, adaptation
(resistant microbes!), size (currently, blue whales!), intelligence
(humans!), ability to produce the most offspring and biomass possible
(fungi!), ability to persist relatively unchanged across epochs
(sponges!)... ?
As an interrelated topic (the previous one is mostly evolutionary, with
ecology included as part of the process of adaptation), it might be fun
to include the changing ideas of forest succession (getting back to the
issue of "Do communities evolve?"). Previously, it was thought that
forest communities progressed towards climax stages, but now we realize
how patchwork, stochastic, and cyclical this process is.
Rachel Bolus
Ph.D. Candidate
Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
University of Massachusetts Amherst
On 12/6/2012 10:03 AM, Chris B. Edge wrote:
Hello all,
I have spent some time thinking about this topic over the last several
years. As a relatively 'green' evolutionary ecologist I rarely enter
these
debates in public forums.
My opinion's are heavily influenced by Jared Diamond's writing on the
topic. In not as eloquent words 'progress' implies that there is a goal
or
target that evolution is moving towards. Of course we can define the goal
or target post hoc, complexity, invasion of terrestrial habitats, etc.
and
conclude that evolution has made progress. However non of these
goals/targets apply to all organisms or habitats, and non of them can be
defined a priori.
'Progress' may capture the essence of the message we want to get across
it
is not a good word to use to describe major evolutionary trajectories
unless the statement it is used in also includes the axis or scale
progress
is to be measured on. Instead major trajectories should be described as
they are, observed trajectories/trends. For example, consider these two
statements; 1) 'evolution has resulted in a trend of increasing
complexity', and 2) 'evolution has made progress towards increasing
complexity'. The two statements convey the same message, but statement 2
implies that complexity is always good. In my opinion statement 1 is much
better.
Regards,
Chris Edge
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Ecolog:
Pryde is right on. But the reality is that evolution is misunderstood
by a
lot of people, and clarity on this subject would go a long way toward
resolving some of the conflict arising therefrom. That will require
clear
statements from evolutionary biologists for starters, and perhaps a lot
of
article-writing and TV production that not only is more careful about
the
semantics used,* but actually getting the ball rolling toward rolling
back
the misconceptions.
But first, you catch the rabbit--and even make the stew. Then serve it
until it is found delicious. (As long as it's not bushmeat.) That is,
get
this matter thoroughly discussed by evolutionary biologists and others
who
understand the merits and deficiencies of the two "sides," then "make it
news."
WT
*advancement, progress . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: Liz Pryde
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
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 <[email protected]> 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" <
[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
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 <
[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]>
-----
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
[email protected]
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5438 - Release Date:
12/05/12
--
Ph.D. Candidate
Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
University of Massachusetts Amherst
219 Morrill Science Center South
Amherst, MA 01003
