[ECOLOG-L] .re: responses concerning my bushmeat request... (3)
Clara, 1. It heartens me to know that you have discovered many of us have concern about the ethics involved in our science. I hope that this experience will help all of us stop and think about the implications of our research, and bounce ideas off of others, before moving forward. Often we are so excited by discovery about something we could do, we don't think about if we should do it 2. Depending on on others to monitor the ethics of your own experiment is in itself, unethical. As scientists we hold a position of authority, and it can be difficult to for others to know if it is a true experiment or just play. What would you do if a sample of endangered species showed up on your door? Having a scientist on a legitimate listserve request bushmeat may provide the justification someone less informed than you needs for killing that endangered species. 3. There are no controls as to who can access and read the list serve. We are fortunate to reach people from all across the world and of all different walks of life. Saying that conservation biology is high charged emotionally is a straw man argument. When resources are limited (such as animals which generally fall under the term bushmeat) it behooves the community interested in those resources to make sure they are utilized in the most productive way. Destructive sampling, such as killing and eating, benefits a much smaller portion of the community than passive study. It speaks highly of this community that we seek to protect our limited resources (biodiversity), and highly of you that you consider the feedback of your peers. Date:Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:02:13 -0500 From:Clara B. Jones foucaul...@gmail.com Subject: ...re: responses concerning my bushmeat request... Ecolog-l-ers: 1. ...a few individuals have contacted me with concerns about the ethics of my post requesting bushmeat... 2. ...i was not concerned about the ethical dimension for several reasons...perhaps, the most important is that it didn't seem likely at all that anyone here or there, so to speak, would go to much trouble or expense to answer my call... 3. ...also, most anybody reading our listserv's posts would be operating from a platform of professional ethics*. 4. ...further, i was using no monetary incentive to induce respondents to reply to my query, a topic of concern to many professional organizations... 5. ...i was using bushmeat broadly...and, though, i would not be averse to receiving samples from outside the US...i was thinking not only of domestic folivore or folivorous taxa that i've not sampled [tasted] such as, opposum, but, also, was thinking of tissues from zoo animals, post-preparation museum specimens, tissues culled at animal farms, and, the like... 6. ...my opportunistic project aside, i've studied the topic of defensive mimicry in mammals, and it has occurred to me that organisms may advertise unpalatability via several modalities, not only olfactory, visual, auditory [most common in mammals]... 7. ...John Garcia's work showed that rodents, anyway, may base future food selection and foraging decisions on taste of a food product 8. ...there are many questions that pertain that, in my opinion, would justify rigorous treatment.. 9. ...the area of Conservation Biology is highly charged emotionally, possibly, preventing us from addressing the topic of when and under what circumstances we support the conduct of invasive experimentation with animals in natural conditions...whatever their Red Book status may be...and, related to this, whether we have an ethical right or responsibility to prevent others from doing so [within legal bounds]... 10. ...it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient interest to continue these conversations... 11. ...i appreciate all communication received to date...sincerely, clara *...leading one to trust that the respondent would behave professionally as we all do when we, for example, share a pre-print w a colleague, requesting that it not be quoted... -- Clara Director Mammals and Phenogroups (MaPs) Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell: -828-279-4429 Brief CV: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com/2012/10/clara-b-jones-brief-cv.html Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about populations from sample data are worthless. Ferguson, 1959
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ...re: responses concerning my bushmeat request...
On the lighter side I believe this topic was thoroughly explored through several sociological contexts (i.e. criminal gourmand)back in the early 1990s. If I am remembering correctly, the bushmeat of endangered species tastes exactly like turkey. This research was well documented in the film The Freshman and starred Marlon Brando and Matthew Broderick. Sometimes we really need to laugh more, Bill From: kevina vulinec kvuli...@desu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ...re: responses concerning my bushmeat request... Hello Clara: I was surprised that someone of your scientific stature would actually propose such a project. Of the comments already mentioned, I feel the need to emphasize those that state that you will not be allowed to bring meat into the USA (CFA regulations), you will not be allowed to collect or sample listed species or probably any species outside the US unless you do it illegally, you will not be allowed to sample zoo animals (health concerns for just a start), you will not be allowed to do this project in any countries that are CITES signatories, you are potentially exposing yourself and your family to diseases, and you have not even addressed the laws of the countries you may be looking at for bushmeat samples (you cannot even kill animals in some countries, even for scientific vouchers). I don't think the responses you have gotten are as much emotional as they are practical. You could be contributing to the demise of a species--do you really want to be involved in that? Many primates have already gone extinct strictly from bushmeat hunting (and you mentioned eating spider monkey in an earlier post), you really need to read the literature about what you are proposing. I am sorry to sound so emotional but this, but your project is not science, nor is it scientifically ethical. And check your IACUC regulations. Sincerely, Kevina On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Clara B. Jones foucaul...@gmail.com wrote: Ecolog-l-ers: 1. ...a few individuals have contacted me with concerns about the ethics of my post requesting bushmeat... 2. ...i was not concerned about the ethical dimension for several reasons...perhaps, the most important is that it didn't seem likely at all that anyone here or there, so to speak, would go to much trouble or expense to answer my call... 3. ...also, most anybody reading our listserv's posts would be operating from a platform of professional ethics*. 4. ...further, i was using no monetary incentive to induce respondents to reply to my query, a topic of concern to many professional organizations... 5. ...i was using bushmeat broadly...and, though, i would not be averse to receiving samples from outside the US...i was thinking not only of domestic folivore or folivorous taxa that i've not sampled [tasted] such as, opposum, but, also, was thinking of tissues from zoo animals, post-preparation museum specimens, tissues culled at animal farms, and, the like... 6. ...my opportunistic project aside, i've studied the topic of defensive mimicry in mammals, and it has occurred to me that organisms may advertise unpalatability via several modalities, not only olfactory, visual, auditory [most common in mammals]... 7. ...John Garcia's work showed that rodents, anyway, may base future food selection and foraging decisions on taste of a food product 8. ...there are many questions that pertain that, in my opinion, would justify rigorous treatment.. 9. ...the area of Conservation Biology is highly charged emotionally, possibly, preventing us from addressing the topic of when and under what circumstances we support the conduct of invasive experimentation with animals in natural conditions...whatever their Red Book status may be...and, related to this, whether we have an ethical right or responsibility to prevent others from doing so [within legal bounds]... 10. ...it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient interest to continue these conversations... 11. ...i appreciate all communication received to date...sincerely, clara *...leading one to trust that the respondent would behave professionally as we all do when we, for example, share a pre-print w a colleague, requesting that it not be quoted... -- Clara Director Mammals and Phenogroups (MaPs) Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell: -828-279-4429 Brief CV: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com/2012/10/clara-b-jones-brief-cv.html Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about populations from sample data are worthless. Ferguson, 1959 -- Kevina Vulinec, PhD Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Delaware State University Dover, Delaware 19901-2277 (302) 857-6457 Fax: (302) 857-6455 kvuli...@desu.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Job: NatureServe VP for Conservation Science
NATURESERVE SEEKS A VICE PRESIDENT FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE The VP for Conservation Science is an essential member of NatureServe’s Executive Team. This position guides the strategic development and growth of our science programs, projects, partnerships and fundraising to result in significant and enduring effects in the conservation of species and systems. NatureServe’s mission-focused, collaborative atmosphere, gives you the opportunity to work in an industry that is making a positive impact on some of the world’s most pressing environmental issues. We offer a competitive nonprofit benefits package that includes a 401(k) savings and retirement plan with matching contributions; health and dental insurance; short and long-term disability; annual and sick leave; and life insurance. NatureServe is located in Arlington, Virginia near the Ballston metro station. If you would like to pursue a conservation science career and make a difference in the environment, please click on this link [http://natureserve.iapplicants.com/searchjobs.php] for detailed information about this job, the organization, and how to apply. Anne Frances, Ph.D. Lead Botanist NatureServe – A Network Connecting Science with Conservation 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.natureserve.org
[ECOLOG-L] Science Coordinator - Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
The following position is now open through the USAJobs website; please click on the link below to view/print the full vacancy announcement: R4-13-801899-CI-DEU https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/332923700 Fish Wildlife Biologist GS-0401-12/13 Full-Time Permanent Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Ventures Migratory Bird Program 1 vacancy in the following location(s): Vicksburg, MS Ridgeland, MS Open: 12.05.12 Close: 12.18.12 The LMVJV Office is responsible for coordinating and facilitating the partnership's efforts in all aspects of bird conservation planning, design, implementation, monitoring, research, and evaluation. As Science Coordinator for the LMVJV, the incumbent’s major operational responsibility is guiding and developing the partnership's scientific basis for these efforts. The primary responsibilities of the position are providing products from habitat and population modeling to the LMVJV Management Board and partners, developing scientifically sound and statistically valid monitoring and evaluation protocols, directing the efforts of the LMVJV Technical Committees, and coordinating with multiple state, federal and private partners in the development of research, planning, design, monitoring and evaluation activities in support of bird habitat conservation within both BCR’s of the LMVJV area. Under the leadership of the LMVJV Coordinator, the incumbent will work closely and collaboratively with the Gulf Coastal Plains Ozarks LCC Science Coordinator toward achieving the shared conservation objectives of both partnerships. Specifically, the Science Coordinator develops, coordinates and participates in research, habitat and population modeling efforts that strengthen and refine the biological and scientific basis for bird population and habitat objectives developed for the LMVJV. Leads and provides support for research focused on assessing population response to conservation actions; develops population-based conservation objectives; and coordinates the adaptive refinement of LMVJV objectives and science products. Seeks out partnerships and funding opportunities with state and federal land-managing agencies, universities, non-government conservation organizations and other entities and individuals to garner support and additional resources for the science initiatives of the LMVJV. *Cheryl L. Irvin Phone: (505)248-6613 Email: cheryl_ir...@fws.gov* * * *Agency Information: US Fish and Wildlife Service Georgia 500 Gold Ave SW Albuquerque, NM 87102 * Keith McKnight Coordinator Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 11942 FM 848 Tyler, TX 75707 903-363-8365 www.lmvjv.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ...re: responses concerning my bushmeat request...
Clara B. Jones foucaul...@gmail.com wrote: Ecolog-l-ers: 1. ...a few individuals have contacted me with concerns about the ethics of my post requesting bushmeat... 2. ...i was not concerned about the ethical dimension for several reasons...perhaps, the most important is that it didn't seem likely at all that anyone here or there, so to speak, would go to much trouble or expense to answer my call... You simply asked for samples, it seemed evident that you hoped to receive them. 3. ...also, most anybody reading our listserv's posts would be operating from a platform of professional ethics*. 4. ...further, i was using no monetary incentive to induce respondents to reply to my query, a topic of concern to many professional organizations... Ethical concerns can involve other than money. 5. ...i was using bushmeat broadly...and, though, i would not be averse to receiving samples from outside the US...i was thinking not only of domestic folivore or folivorous taxa that i've not sampled [tasted] such as, opposum, but, also, was thinking of tissues from zoo animals, post-preparation museum specimens, tissues culled at animal farms, and, the like... Regardless of your answer to me in private, it is simply the case that the term bushmeat or bush meat is not applied to game in the U.S. People speak of game. We do not call the habitats occupied by wild animals here bush, and wild game long ago ceased to be a commercial product here. Whenever one hears or sees the term, one is definitely not taken to the high plains of Colorado or the mountains of Wyoming. It is Africa that one thinks of. You certainly did not mention in your appeal that you were asking for samples from animals sacrificed for other purposes. You simply asked for bush meat. I have never heard of a specimen sacrificed for science referred to as bush meat. You have referred to the o'possum repeatedly as a folivore. The only U.S. o'possum is the Virginia O'possum, _Didelphis virginiana_,. It is an omnivore that feeds on a wide variety of small animals, carrion, fruits. Perhaps it does eat leaves, but the things I mentioned are its mainstays. It's dental apparatus is not well suited to a diet of leaves. And I assure you that despite your earlier statement that it is not a preferred food of those who eat wild animals, many a person in the southern U.S. has eaten many a possum. 6. ...my opportunistic project aside, i've studied the topic of defensive mimicry in mammals, and it has occurred to me that organisms may advertise unpalatability via several modalities, not only olfactory, visual, auditory [most common in mammals]... 7. ...John Garcia's work showed that rodents, anyway, may base future food selection and foraging decisions on taste of a food product 8. ...there are many questions that pertain that, in my opinion, would justify rigorous treatment.. 9. ...the area of Conservation Biology is highly charged emotionally, possibly, preventing us from addressing the topic of when and under what circumstances we support the conduct of invasive experimentation with animals in natural conditions...whatever their Red Book status may be...and, related to this, whether we have an ethical right or responsibility to prevent others from doing so [within legal bounds]... 10. ...it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient interest to continue these conversations... 11. ...i appreciate all communication received to date...sincerely, clara *...leading one to trust that the respondent would behave professionally as we all do when we, for example, share a pre-print w a colleague, requesting that it not be quoted... -- Clara Director Mammals and Phenogroups (MaPs) Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell: -828-279-4429 Brief CV: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com/2012/10/clara-b-jones-brief-cv.html Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about populations from sample data are worthless. Ferguson, 1959 -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions: Progress in evolution
In viewing the history of life, there does appear to be a general trend towards increasing complexity. However, if one examines particular lineages, such as parasitic worms, which presumably evolved from free-living forms, the trend is in the opposite direction, towards degeneracy (for temporary lack of a better word). Yet extant species appear to be well-adapted to their environments. The problem with the word progress is that it seems to imply that, over time, adaptations will tend to become better or more perfect. Selection works with the material at hand, and a look at all the jury-rigged, imperfect adaptations that organisms exhibit shows that they work well enough, but are hardly the ideal solution that an engineer would come up with. Tom Culliney USDA-APHIS, PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 U.S.A. (919) 855-7506 (919) 855-7595 (Fax) thomas.w.culli...@aphis.usda.gov -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris B. Edge Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:04 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions 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 This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
[ECOLOG-L] Interested in Getting Boarded in Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery?
Beginning in February 2013, an ABVP Reptile-Amphibian Study Group will be set up. This is open to veterinary students, veterinarians thinking about credentialing to sit the examination, veterinarians writing Case Reports to credential, and to veterinarians credentialed to take the examination to help with studying. If YOU are interested and did not provide your email information to Eric Klaphake at the 2012 ARAV Conference or you did provide that information but do not receive an invitation to join the study group by March 1st 2013, please contact him at dreklaph...@msn.com Eric Klaphake DVM, DACZM, DABVP (Avian), DABVP (Reptile/Amphibian) Cheyenne Mountain Zoo Colorado Springs, CO ABVP Reptile/Amphibian Regent Past-President, Association of Reptilian Amphibian Veterinarians The American Board of Veterinary Practitioners Announces The 2012 New Reptile-Amphibian Diplomates All new RA Diplomates this year are dual-certified Diplomates. Reptile and Amphibian Leigh Clayton, Baltimore, Maryland *(Avian) Ryan DeVoe, Asheboro, North Carolina *(Avian) Eric Klaphake, Colorado Springs, Colorado *(Avian) Douglas Mader, Marathon, Florida *(Canine and Feline) The ARAV congratulates the above new R/A Diplomates!!
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Caveat: I probably don't know what I'm talking about I am in no way an evolutionary biologist, but for as long as I can remember, have been aware that the conventional wisdom is that evolution does not imply progress/advancement. Even Chris's statement below 'evolution has resulted in a trend of increasing complexity' is often dismissed - for example in the Panda's Thumb (or maybe Wonderful Life, don't really remember, probably both). I appreciate the logic in that argument, at least in the sense that structural complexity does not correspond to reproductive fitness. From my layperson's perspective, however, the argument seems to ignore that the capacity for behavioral and physiological responses that do increase reproductive fitness has increased over the last 3.5 billion years. In other words, adaptation usually leads to improved acclimation. I am, of course, aware that speciation often involves some degree of specialization. In a more general sense, though, would these species even exist if their ancestors hadn't developed sufficient complexity to differentiate them from other individuals of the species? In reference to acclimation in individuals, doesn't an organism that is capable of acquired immunity have a better shot at filling the environment with its progeny than an organism that lacks this ability? It is my understanding that some researchers of early human evolution have postulated that stochastic climate stressors were the driving force behind the development of the human brain, as intellect is one of the many ways to flourish under conditions of unpredictable variability. Certainly, plenty of microbe species can survive a much wider range of conditions than humans, but an individual human with the adequate training could travel to pretty much any terrestrial system on the planet, and (if they could find a mate) start a family, because the human individual create conditions conducive for rearing offspring regardless of ambient conditions. I think that this ability of organisms, both as individuals and social groups, to acclimate to novelty is an evolutionary direction, if not a specific goal. I don't want to get enmeshed in semantics, but isn't that progress? From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Chris B. Edge Sent: Thu 12/6/2012 9:03 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions 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
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 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
[ECOLOG-L] Reminder - NEON Mobile Deployment Town Hall: Seeking Input on a Community Resource
Hello, This is a reminder that you are welcome to participate in a unique and exciting opportunity to provide your input on the design of NEON's Mobile Deployment Platform at the upcoming AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. The Town Hall, titled NEON's Mobile Deployment Platform (MDP): Seeking Input on a Community Resource will be held on December 7th, 2012 from 12:30-1:30 in 2005 Moscone West. PIs and Agencies can request the use of the NEON MDP for ecological research and monitoring. The MDP will be comprised of numerous modules (suites of sensors/infrastructures) designed to address specific fields of study including micrometeorology, atmospheric chemistry, ecohydrology, soils, education and outreach. These modules can be used as stand alone or in combination. Our aim is to design an MDP by i) identifying the types of questions that can be addressed with rapidly deployable resources, and ii) what types of measurements/data are needed by the science community to meet future research goals. By participating in the Town Hall you will be afforded a chance to provide direct input into the design and instrumentation of the MDP. We encourage professors, agency scientists and graduate students alike to attend this dynamic discussion. For more information on the MDP you can click HEREhttp://www.neonnotes.org/2012/11/the-neon-mobile-deployment-platform-help-design-a-tool-to-advance-your-research/ Please feel free to share this email with your colleagues and students. Thank you so much and hope to see you there. Best, -Mike - Mike SanClements, PhD Staff Scientist - Fundamental Instrument Unit (FIU) National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Affiliate Faculty - Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research University of Colorado Boulder National Ecological Observatory Network 1685 38th Street, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80301 +1 720.836.2499 (office) msancleme...@neoninc.orgmailto:msancleme...@neoninc.org www.neoninc.org
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
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 [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 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS?
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. U, 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 Suggestions 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 [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
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 jeffh...@unb.ca 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 [ 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
A small addition now I'm home from work: Darwin's definition of evolution was 'transmutation' - he used the two synonymously. So, really the shifting of one state to another, and not to forget the element of CHANCE in the equation. The misinterpretation of evolution as 'progress' coincided with the emergence of pseudosciences, which tried to make sense of the enormity of the world and the variation seen in human beings (late 19th C). This was a time of colonization and using science to support racist policy was very on trend. Of course, this all culminated in the Nazis' Final Solution which, at its inception was based on 'social Darwinism' - the progression of races (Mein Kampf's chapter 11 Nation and Race is a 'good' example of this). So I can understand why this is a contentious issue! Essentially we are placing our own personal values on biological mechanisms. We are using language that personifies a process in nature. It's a bit on the nose, really! On 07/12/2012, at 7:31 AM, Jeff Houlahan jeffh...@unb.ca 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 [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
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate position: Landscape genetics of plants
*Graduate position: Landscape genetics of plants* We are looking to recruit graduate students (Ms or PhD) interested in plant ecological genetics and willing to participate in the development of methods in landscape genetics for the analysis of dispersal among plant populations. *Why study landscape genetics? * The development of methods for the analysis of population genetic differentiation in the context of landscape features has provided insights into ecological processes such as dispersal. Plant species present unique opportunities and challenges for landscape genetic analyses, as the behavior of their associated biotic and abiotic dispersal vectors as well as the distribution of suitable habitat may affect patterns of genetic variation. Understanding how landscape features may facilitate or limit the dispersal of plants is particularly critical as climate change affects the distribution of suitable habitat. *What are we looking for? * An ideal candidate will have experience with laboratory assays and data analyses for genetic markers, GIS analyses, and field ecological methods or some combination of the above; however, these are not strict requirements, and candidates with an interest in the topic and eagerness to learn are encouraged to apply. *Interested? * Please send a copy of your CV, as well as a letter of introduction to cru...@pdx.edu mailto:cru...@pdx.edu that includes a brief statement of your background, research interests and your academic record, including GPA and GRE scores (if available).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
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, 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 [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Joey Smokey [northwestbird...@gmail.com] Sent: December 6, 2012 7:24 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU 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 jeffh...@unb.ca wrote: Hi all, admittedly
