Ecolog: Lots of good contributions to the subject of evolution.
Phenomena do not change because of words. Words are crude tools for communication through which we hope to be clearly understood. Actually understanding phenomena is another matter.
So in any form of disciplined attempts to understand what "Nature" is up to, words and consistent definitions for them is CRUCIAL to any attempt to communicate that understanding clearly, with a minimum of misunderstanding.
Is "what we have here . . ." "a failure to communicate?"It appears that the answer is "yes" and "no" and a whole range of if's, ands, and buts in between. Any disciplined system of thought and expression seeks to understand the observed phenomena and to describe observations, interpretations, and conclusions as clearly and unambiguously as possible, adding, where necessary, conditional and descriptive statements to qualify terms such that confusion or misinterpretation is minimized and one and all involved find ways to understand phenomena and each other better rather being "right" or "wrong" (egocentric concepts, which are undisciplined). To the extent that people succeed at this job of understanding and being understood could, for example, be called progress. The goal is improvement, another concept that is bandied about concerning evolution. What is important is not who is right or wrong, but that understanding improves or progresses, eh?
So either organisms get better over time, or they don't, no? What do I mean by "better?" I mean that the same organism, like cars and car brands, consistently improve with time, as a result of the advancement of science and technology. This is what I call the Cultural Model, the cultural mode of thinking--the context in which we find ourselves. There seems to be prima facie evidence that "we" have "improved" as a species. A being becoming better and better rather than heading for a "cliff" from which to "crash."
Ummmm, I dunno. Maybe not, as Einstein might say. If we are to communicate, jointly understand, we apparently have to go through a process of making guesses, testing the presumption that they might be wrong--not defending them until Hell freezes over.
So if most people understand what evolutionary biologists and others say about evolution is correct, then "progress," "improvement," "advance," etc., must be defined by both the sender and receiver in exactly the same way. Yea? Nay? What say you all?
Hairsplitting or crucial distinctions? WT----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Houlahan" <jeffh...@unb.ca>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic SuggestionsHi 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 [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Rachel Bolus [r...@bio.umass.edu]
Sent: December 6, 2012 2:15 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 trajectoriesunless the statement it is used in also includes the axis or scale progressis 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 alot of people, and clarity on this subject would go a long way toward resolving some of the conflict arising therefrom. That will require clearstatements from evolutionary biologists for starters, and perhaps a lot ofarticle-writing and TV production that not only is more careful about thesemantics used,* but actually getting the ball rolling toward rolling backthe 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, getthis matter thoroughly discussed by evolutionary biologists and others whounderstand 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 SuggestionsIn 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-congratulatoryabout their scientific understandings of the natural world (how clever!). So, evolution was originally meant as an adaptation to the chanceenvironment. 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 madeby Smokey, with which I fully agree. There do seem to be people who seem tobe 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, therewas 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 theraw 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 thesources that have contributed to this impression, the Time-Life book "HumanEvolution," with its famous/infamous "March of Progress" illustrationbeginning with a quadruped ape and ending with an upright, apparently Aryanmale. I know of no studies that have been done on this issue, and attempting to raise the discussion on respected websites causes moreblowback than the kind of clarity that Smokey's concise statement brings tothe discussion. Ecolog is a respected and large listserv. Will there be furthercomments, either in support or in refutation of Smokey's explanation, or isthis subject one of those academic "third rails" that no one dare touch? Those who fear posting their comments here could send Smokey and me theircomments directly if they want to avoid reprisals (the subject of reprisalsfor 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, thenit 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 thesame way; transition species such as Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, and Ichthyostega did not "march along" until they were well-adapted forlife on land. Evolution does not craft "improved" species or "advanced" species. Itsimply results in organisms being well-adapted for their environmentat 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 throughgenerations. So, ecological interactions can and do have meaningfulimpact 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 youhave any ideas, feel free to share those as well. Thank you to allthose that contributed.1. Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly enoughto 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 tohave 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 twoecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics thatinvolvemerging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in front of150-200 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 thestudents to learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest topicsor questions that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have different viewpoints on, they would be greatly appreciated. I have a few topicsalready, but wanted to ask a larger audience to suggest topics todetermine 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.comVersion: 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5440 - Release Date: 12/06/12
