Joey and Ecolog:

"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."

Well said. Any direct refutations?

This reminds me of one time long ago when my wife was being interviewed on a local radio station that happened to be located in a community where there was an "intelligent design" museum and a lot of folks who question the validity of evolution as a phenomernon. The interview said something about Neanderthals being "inferior" to Cro-Magnons. My wife responded: "They weren't inferior, they were just different." One more reason I got really lucky when she gave in to my boyish entreaties to marry me.

Let's get down to what "the public" believes again. I hope my straw-polling is wrong and most people don't believe that humans are an "advanced" form of ape. (I fear that there are many who don't believe that much, but I don't know whether to call that "progress" in the "understanding" of evolution or not--but that's beside the point.) The (in)famous Time-Life book's (Human Evolution, 1965) drawing of the "march of progress" depicting apparent movement over time of various "primitive" creatures culminating in the fully-erect, white, blond, no-doubt blue-eyed Aryan (male, of course, judging from the haircut and flat chest) appears to convey a clear message of advancement from "primitive" to "improved" forms of ape with Homo sapiens sapiens at the apex. Is there any truth to this picture, this idea amongst the public, that "modern" humans are "better" than more "primitive" forms of ape? (Dare I ask how many scientists believe something of that sort?) How many?

WT



----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Smokey" <northwestbird...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:24 PM
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 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 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
>>


--
Ph.D. Candidate
Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
University of Massachusetts Amherst
219 Morrill Science Center South
Amherst, MA 01003



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2634/5440 - Release Date: 12/06/12

Reply via email to