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 <landr...@cox.net> 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: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > 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 <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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 >
