Samuel and Ecolog:
Margaret Mead once said "The most important thing to know is what you don't
know."
For example, I have not looked into the evidence for the history of life on
earth carefully enough to "know," for example, how cyanobacteria evolved the
ability to photosynthesize and to what degree or why the resulting shift in
the proportion of oxygen to other atmospheric gasses about 3.5 or 3.7
billion years ago/BCE. I am not sure whether increased atmospheric
(including aquatic) oxygen was alone responsible for the trend toward
increased complexity or just how sex came to be. It might have been one
single-celled organism piercing the membrane of another and the genes or
their precursors, if any, got mixed up and the resulting progeny (perhaps at
first only by simple division) "decided" that they "liked" this piercing
business, and started a fad that led to greater complexity.
My mental jury is still out on almost everything; I am definitely in the
learning mode, and certainly not in the instructing mode. I know that there
are a lot of people out there who know things I don't know, and know more
than I know. I am a questioner, not an answerer, and always will be so.
So I provisionally accept any proposition as possibly true, and I could care
less about the proposer's "qualifications" or certifications. Communication
is call and response, not bestowing knowledge upon the unwashed. I'm dirty,
and I like it that way. Nobody needs no stinkin' caveats or credentials when
they talk to me.
I have repeatedly proposed the axiom that "organisms do what they can, when
they can, where they can." I have even had the arrogance to suggest that it
might be a "law," and this pisses off the authorities so much that they
refuse to respond.
Nature seems indifferent to individuals, populations, and communities. In
another few billion years the earth will be toast, if it lasts long enough
for the sun to become a red giant, but then maybe a huge asteroid or comet
will blast the earth to pieces, hurling those pieces, like space ships,
across the galaxy and beyond, perhaps striking other planets in some other
solar system. Perhaps the polar regions will become comets, giant delivery
trucks carrying water and encysted cells to other planets, transforming
them, in time, from lifeless rocks into other worlds of life. I just don't
know, but all of these questions might form the basis for intellectual
integration, if only the right membranes (I like to call them membrains) can
be pierced and tested for fitness in the crucibles and fireworks of the
mind.
The sine wave comes to mind--the ups and downs of e v e r y t h i n g. I
know next to nothing about electronics, but when I tall about living things
to an electronics guy I know, he understands what I am talking about more
than most ecologists. What I mean is, that "progress" is not just a "human"
construct, it is a CULTURAL construct consumed with hierarchies that have
produced the "great" civilizations that turned out not to be so civil after
all. Sure, it seems obvious that all organisms that have ever existed
flourished in the presence of conditions that favored them best. But then,
as further progress progressed and those conditions changed, they "had" to
change, to adapt accordingly, or be written off to history, perhaps leaving
traces of their time, perhaps not.
So "progress" may be an illusion borne of observing only the upslope of the
curve, and not seeing the peak of the population or other additive feature,
and ignoring the crash that inevitably follows "success."
Just a thought. I hope others, regardless of perceived "stature" will rush
in to fill my voids, shatter my dreams, and yes, even pierce my membrain.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel C. Pierce" <spie...@cfr.msstate.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: 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 Spencer coined the "fittest" remark and that was a popular
mode of thinking at the time - when people were rather self-congratulatory
about their scientific understandings of the natural world (how clever!).
So, evolution was originally meant as an adaptation to the chance
environment. It may or may not have been 'better' than the previous model,
but it survived through chance, and we assume, advantage. This doesn't
necessarily make it advantageous throughout time.
I'm sure we can all come up with improvements to the human body ;).
Liz
On 06/12/2012, at 2:47 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
Joey and Ecolog
I am the author of question 3, and the point is exactly the one made
by Smokey, with which I fully agree. There do seem to be people who seem
to
be of the opinion that evolution IS progress, however. I posted this
question to a well-known evolutionary biology forum and Richard Dawkins
replied in the affirmative; when I asked for further clarification, there
was no response (except one which agreed with my point; several others
were
outraged, and I ended up having to issue an "apology." David Attenborough,
in one of his excellent TV programs used the term "advance," in discussing
the matter with one of the world's top paleontologists, whom I emailed the
raw question; he responded in the affirmative, that the creatures he was
most famous for studying did "advance." When I responded by asking if he
would then conclude that the genus Homo would then be an example of
"evolutionary advance," the correspondence was terminated.
My straw polling amongst "the public" tilts strongly in favor of
"progress" or "advancement" with time, and while I'm not sure of all the
sources that have contributed to this impression, the Time-Life book
"Human
Evolution," with its famous/infamous "March of Progress" illustration
beginning with a quadruped ape and ending with an upright, apparently
Aryan
male. I know of no studies that have been done on this issue, and
attempting to raise the discussion on respected websites causes more
blowback than the kind of clarity that Smokey's concise statement brings
to
the discussion.
Ecolog is a respected and large listserv. Will there be further
comments, either in support or in refutation of Smokey's explanation, or
is
this subject one of those academic "third rails" that no one dare touch?
Those who fear posting their comments here could send Smokey and me their
comments directly if they want to avoid reprisals (the subject of
reprisals
for posts reared its ugly head several months ago, and believe it or not,
the emails I received were not limited to students; I got several from
professors).
On the other hand, if this subject is considered unimportant, "proper"
actions can be taken, eh?
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Smokey" <
northwestbird...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Jason,
I strongly advise against the third question. Evolution is not
directional,
and the question is worded to suggest that it is. If the point of
the
question is to dispel the idea of evolution being directional, then
it
would be fine.
There are many common misconceptions of organisms "progressing"
through
evolution. The most common is the typical classroom image of human
evolution moving from ape-like toward human-like over time.
Transition
species in the fossil record do not suggest a progressive change
from one
type of body form into another. The transition to terrestrial life
is the
same way; transition species such as Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, and
Ichthyostega did not "march along" until they were well-adapted for
life on
land. Evolution does not craft "improved" species or "advanced"
species. It
simply results in organisms being well-adapted for their environment
at a
given time.
In regards to the fourth question, ecological time refers to
immediate
interactions between organisms and their environment. It does lead
into
evolutionary time and the change in allelic frequencies through
generations. So, ecological interactions can and do have meaningful
impact
on evolutionary trajectories of species.
I think the first two questions will lead into some good discussion.
Best of luck on your discussion panel,
Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM, jason.strickland <
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
I have compiled some of the ideas that were given to me about my
discussion panel. The response was much lower than I expected so
if you
have any ideas, feel free to share those as well. Thank you to all
those
that contributed.
1. Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly enough
to
respond to climate change/sea level rise to be evolutionarily
relevant?
2. What impact will Genetically Modified Organisms have on
the
ecology and evolution of the modified species and other species?
3. Do organisms progress/improve/advance through evolution?
4. Do ecological processes/interactions last long enough to
have any
meaningful impact on the evolutionary trajectory of a species?
Please share your thoughts on these topics or suggest others.
Cheers,
Jason Strickland
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu
From: jason.strickland
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions
Dear group,
I am currently working on forming a discussion panel that will
include two
ecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics that
involve
merging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in front of
150-200
students ranging from undergraduates to post-docs (all in
biology). The
panel will happen on a Saturday morning so it needs to be an
exciting
discussion to hold the audience's interest and cause them to ask
questions.
I am looking for topics/questions that the two fields do not
completely
agree on. The goal is to have the panel disagree on topics to
allow the
students to learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest topics
or
questions that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have
different
viewpoints on, they would be greatly appreciated. I have a few
topics
already, but wanted to ask a larger audience to suggest topics to
determine
if there are certain topics/questions that come up frequently.
Feel free to
email me directly (jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto:
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu>) or respond to this post with
your
suggestions.
Thank you in advance for your help,
Jason Strickland
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu<mailto:
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5436 - Release Date:
12/04/12
Liz Pryde
PhD Candidate (off-campus @ The University of Melbourne)
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
James Cook University, QLD
elizabethpr...@gmail.com
epr...@unimelb.edu.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5438 - Release Date: 12/05/12
-----
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
