John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:00 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory
needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as
misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of
biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the
answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth
evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly?
The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex
organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

Thanks for asking. The answer is "no".
;

The question was not mine!
Do you question the motives of scientist who think it is? If so on
what basis

I don't have any idea of their motives. I was just answering the question.

Considering the article is almost two years old, you
merely affirmed the answer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory
needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as
misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the
answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth
evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The
usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

Seriously…how would YOU know?

Laland’s been at this a while. I recall reading stuff by Jablonka in the
late 90s. I have Jablonka and Lamb’s _Evolution in Four Dimensions_ from 2006. Almost 20 years ago published it was. Laland and Brown’s _Sense and Nonsense_ which was a pretty good book giving overviews on various fields
like ev psych, memetics, and gene-culture coevolution was from 2002.

Some of the stuff they push now is interesting, especially niche
construction, but does it warrant rethinking evolution? Maybe the blinkered approach of old school Dawkins. But even his goofball redheaded stepchild memetics is in the mix with this EES polemics it seems.

Gene-culture coevolution may be important in species having culture…humans. Lactase persistence in dairying cultures is a popular notion, but hardly a generalizable sort of thing for non-dairying species. Blessed are the cheesemakers.

From your Nature link:
“The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1,2.”. How broad a scope has social science compared to Hoxology? I guess social science could apply at least tangentially to viral evolution in humans.

“In the decades since, evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the
original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think
about evolution.”

Yeah the uptake of neutral theory seems low to nil given the bullshit Larry Moran often contends with on his blog. So SET adaptationism seems quite allergic to it still.

Developmental bias may have something going for it. Extragenetic
inheritance seems to include as a subset stuff applying to cultural
organisms (like humans) or where behavior is passed via a separate learning channel. Another subset called epigenetics is interesting but oversold. The effects (methylation or chromatin markers) are transient.

I will grant “…also encompasses those structures and altered conditions that organisms leave to their descendants through their niche construction
— from beavers’ dams to worm-processed soils.”

But as far as behavioral driven evolution, say the first lobe-finned fish exploiting prey outside the water for instance, Jean Piaget was already thinking about that stuff long ago, though in terms put forth by James Mark Baldwin and Conrad Waddington. He got a little speculative with the possibilities the discovery of reverse transcription opened up. From his _Behavior and Evolution_: “As for the question of interactions between epigenesis and the genome, where I have endeavoured to stay within the
bounds of a caution dictated by our ignorance, it remains to be seen
whether or not the findings of Temin or others can lend support to the
general orientation of my thesis.”

Or: “Behaviour's role in the formative mechanisms of evolution was
naturally re-interpreted in a more comprehensive fashion once it was
realized that biological causality is never linear or atomistic in form,
but always implies the operation of feedback systems as defined by the cyberneticians. The postulation of this mode of operation not only
conferred a causal or mechanical character on teleology—it also meant that interactions had to be taken into consideration everywhere one-way
causality had formerly been deemed an adequate explanatory model. But for a long time there was one case to which this general rethinking was not applied—namely, the process whereby DNA becomes RNA. For some reason,
nobody questioned the idea that this process was unidirectional and irreversible. We know enough now, however, thanks to the work of Temin and others, to say that it may be reversed on occasion.”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/26/2024 2:57 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:29 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:00 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary
theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed
them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the
future of biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not
know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life
on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from,
exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously
complex organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

Thanks for asking. The answer is "no".
;

The question was not mine!
Do you question the motives of scientist who think it is? If so on
what basis

I don't have any idea of their motives. I was just answering the
question.

Considering the article is almost two years old, you
merely affirmed the answer

The nature opinion piece explaining the issue is from 2014. It has
never amounted to anything because it isn't much of an issue.

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/26/2024 1:00 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory
needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as
misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the
answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth
evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The
usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

If you had read the nature opinion piece you would know that nothing
much is going to change with respect to IDiots and other Biblical
creationists. This just doesn't matter for creationists.

Take their claims that there is more to inheritance than genes. We have
known this since the beginning of the modern synthesis, before we knew
what a gene was.

Genes + environment = phenotype.

Look it up. This has been known to be the case before we had the modern synthesis, before we knew what genes were. The opinion piece only wants
to claim that the phenotypic changes due to environmental causes can aid natural selection. The equation doesn't have to change. The results
will be the same. It has been known for a very long time that the environmental changes could broaden the range of phenotypes that you
could get from any specific genotype. It is no surprise to anyone that
if the phenotype can be bent towards something that allows a genotype to exploit some new resource or have some selective advantage in that
environment that it can act as a temporary boost for that genotype, and
that new mutations or resorting of existing variation with that genotype
can result in the genome being better adapted to that environment. They
aren't changing anything, they are just stating the obvious. The
environment can influence phenotype. If an environmental influence
changes the phenotype in such a way that, that specific genotype has
some selective advantage in that environment, the genotype can be
selected for in that environment. Other genetic variation can make the adaptation even better.

It can be complex. A shift in temperature could cause a phenotypic
change that better adapted the organism to living in a rocky area, so
that genotype could be selected for in a rocky area under those
temperature conditions. Add a few more genetic variants and you may no
longer need the environmental boost to compete in that new environment.
No matter how complex or whether or not the phenotypic change has some advantage in that environment, nothing changes in terms of what we know
about how the environment affects phenotype.

IDiots and other anti-evolution creationists are just out of luck on
this one.

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/27/24 2:42 PM, Burkhard wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:25 AM, Burkhard wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory >>>>> needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as
misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of >>>>> biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the
answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth >>>>> evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? >>>>> The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex
organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory

-of-evolution

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

I'd say your source gives a very good and balanced answer: No. And not >>>> because there is anything wrong with the ideas that these "dissenters" >>>> have, but because none of this is massively new. Most of their ideas >>>> looked extremely familiar to me from high school biology, even though >>>> the vocabulary is new, and that is almost 40 years old. All successful >>>> theories change and adapt over time - they too evolve - and just as with >>>> species, it is not always straightforward to say if speciation has
occurred, or if it is merely a new variant of something familiar.
Ultimately not a very interesting question, more a semantic
convention that is of use mainly for historians of science. As the
paper argues, one could also ask if neutral evolution and the
recognition of drift already lead to something that should get its
own name. As far as
I can see, all the things the "new" synthesis would add are already
done. Maybe not as much as some of its advocates would like, but
that's merely an issue of emphasis and focus. And yes, it would be
nice if we could for some of them include them in the rigorous formal >>>> treatment that we already have for other aspects of the theory, but
the resulting complexity may be just too much to handle with current >>>> computational tools. Mathematical models always idealise
and simplify, in all sciences ("idea gas" etc), that's just life

One might suggest that the basic idea of niche construction is
implicit in Darwin's story of the bear skimming insects off a lake's
surface.

shush!! We don't talk about the whale-bear, ever, it's an ill omen.
Yours most faithfully, Chas Lyell

Did Lyell misunderstand Darwin's bear argument, the same way modern creationists do?

I don't think so - rather, they exchanged several letters about this,
and Lyell warned Darwin that this example was bound to be misunderstood. Darwin agreed in parts, which led to the reformulations it in later
editions, but Darwin was adamant to keep it in some form - only
later to regret it in a follow-up letter to Lyell, where he then
used the term "ill omen"

Going back to the real issue though, I'm not sure it's quite what they
mean with niche construction - at least the way I understand them -
because there is no feedback loop from the effect that the bear has on its environment and subsequent selection pressures. IIRC the example we got in school were beavers: they are adapted for semi-aquatic life, AND create
more semi-aquatic environments through their building activity which then again acts on the beaver and increases the pressure on those less well adapted etc. Or humans. -NS is different in an environment with hospitals than one without

And post-Darwin: In an environment with massive internet access
we get a new form of natural selection by parents convincing each other
that vaccination must be bad for the kiddies.

Sad news recently of at least four babies
(in the Netherlands alone, over feb-mar 2024)
having been naturally selected by whooping cough bacteria.

It's just like beavers: stupidity creates more stupidity,

Jan

--
"The laws of Nature also apply to those who don't believe in them"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-03-28 10:04:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/27/24 2:42 PM, Burkhard wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:25 AM, Burkhard wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

"A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory >>>>>>> needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as >>>>>>> misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of
biology....Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the >>>>>>> answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth >>>>>>> evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? >>>>>>> The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex
organs rests.

"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory

-of-evolution

DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

I'd say your source gives a very good and balanced answer: No. And not >>>>>> because there is anything wrong with the ideas that these "dissenters" >>>>>> have, but because none of this is massively new. Most of their ideas >>>>>> looked extremely familiar to me from high school biology, even though >>>>>> the vocabulary is new, and that is almost 40 years old. All successful >>>>>> theories change and adapt over time - they too evolve - and just as with >>>>>> species, it is not always straightforward to say if speciation has >>>>>> occurred, or if it is merely a new variant of something familiar. >>>>>> Ultimately not a very interesting question, more a semantic
convention that is of use mainly for historians of science. As the >>>>>> paper argues, one could also ask if neutral evolution and the
recognition of drift already lead to something that should get its >>>>>> own name. As far as
I can see, all the things the "new" synthesis would add are already >>>>>> done. Maybe not as much as some of its advocates would like, but
that's merely an issue of emphasis and focus. And yes, it would be >>>>>> nice if we could for some of them include them in the rigorous formal >>>>>> treatment that we already have for other aspects of the theory, but >>>>>> the resulting complexity may be just too much to handle with current >>>>>> computational tools. Mathematical models always idealise
and simplify, in all sciences ("idea gas" etc), that's just life

One might suggest that the basic idea of niche construction is
implicit in Darwin's story of the bear skimming insects off a lake's >>>>> surface.

shush!! We don't talk about the whale-bear, ever, it's an ill omen.
Yours most faithfully, Chas Lyell

Did Lyell misunderstand Darwin's bear argument, the same way modern
creationists do?

I don't think so - rather, they exchanged several letters about this,
and Lyell warned Darwin that this example was bound to be misunderstood.
Darwin agreed in parts, which led to the reformulations it in later
editions, but Darwin was adamant to keep it in some form - only
later to regret it in a follow-up letter to Lyell, where he then
used the term "ill omen"

Going back to the real issue though, I'm not sure it's quite what they
mean with niche construction - at least the way I understand them -
because there is no feedback loop from the effect that the bear has on its >> environment and subsequent selection pressures. IIRC the example we got in >> school were beavers: they are adapted for semi-aquatic life, AND create
more semi-aquatic environments through their building activity which then
again acts on the beaver and increases the pressure on those less well
adapted etc. Or humans. -NS is different in an environment with hospitals
than one without

And post-Darwin: In an environment with massive internet access
we get a new form of natural selection by parents convincing each other
that vaccination must be bad for the kiddies.

Sad news recently of at least four babies
(in the Netherlands alone, over feb-mar 2024)
having been naturally selected by whooping cough bacteria.

It's just like beavers: stupidity creates more stupidity,

Umberto Eco: "Social media gives the right to speak to legions of imbeciles who previously only spoke at the bar after a glass of wine,
without damaging the community. They were immediately silenced, but now
they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the
invasion of imbeciles."

If you follow Quora (as I, against my better judgement, have been
doing) you may get the impression that ignorance and stupidity are characteristic of the USA, but I don't think it is that. There may well
be proportionately as many ignorant and stupid people (including
crackpots of all kinds, such as creationists and religious nutters) in
the UK, France or the Netherlands as in the USA, but they have less
opportunity to shout about their ignorance and stupidity, and they are encouraged less by idiot politicians.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/03/2024 03:28, John Harshman wrote:

Going back to the real issue though, I'm not sure it's quite what they
mean
with niche construction - at least the way I understand them - because
there is no feedback loop from the effect that the bear has on its
environment and subsequent selection pressures. IIRC the example we
got in school were beavers: they are adapted for semi-aquatic life,
AND create more
semi-aquatic environments through their building activity which then
again acts
on the beaver and increases the pressure on those less well adapted
etc. Or humans. -NS is different in an environment with hospitals than
one without

I had viewed the term as less restrictive, such that any alteration of behavior in turn altering the selective environment experienced by the organism would count. Darwin leaves open the question of whether change
in phenotype or of behavior comes first, but he also suggests mutual
feedback between the two. My notion was that it's not the physical environment that counts but the environment as experienced by the
organism. Thus a change of food source could count. That would certainly increase the impact of niche construction on evolution and greatly
increase the number of examples, which would otherwise be fairly few.

Evolution has a number of feedback loops - between species (arms races), between the two sexes of a species (sexual selection), between organisms
and the environment (niche construction), ... It'd be nice to
operationalise our understanding of these processes, but I doubt that
rises to a new theory of evolution.

25 years ago chaos was a hot topic, and Kauffman's research program had
hopes of bringing self-organisation into the centre of evolutionary
theory. That, if successful, would have, I think, been a bigger change.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)