Evolving Evolution

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

How?

Short answer: I think therefore I change my behavior which in turn controls my survivabilty which in turn affects evolution. 

Long answer: see post on culture.

 

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Short answer: I think therefore I change my behavior which in turn controls my survivabilty which in turn affects evolution. 

Long answer: see post on culture.

 

Is intelligence inherited genetically?

Does thinking cause a specific, chosen, adaptation? (e.g. if I want humans to evolve wings, what must we do?)

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Is intelligence inherited genetically?

Intelligence is highly genetically inheritable, but, may I dare say, what about consciousness?

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Intelligence is highly genetically inheritable, but, may I dare say, what about consciousness?

No you may not dare to bring up consciousness. 

[Luc Turpin]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

No you may not dare to bring up consciousness. 

understood!

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Does thinking cause a specific, chosen, adaptation? (e.g. if I want humans to evolve wings, what must we do?)

Our control over adaptation would be limited, but not null and void as originally implied by evolution.

Giving extreme examples that cannot occur does not negate the fact that it could be limited but not complete control over adaptation.

The point is that the process is not entirely deterministic as presumed.

Organisms cannot directly choose their adaptation, but, through culture and to some degree, they can influence which traits moves along and which traits stays behind.

So, complete control over adapting to flight by growing wings is not possible, there is still room for influence, and that is the point that I am making here.

That intentionality and volution have some say and sway over the whole damned thing about living.

[Luc Turpin]

If culture may have a limited say or sway on evolution, what about technology?

[swansont]

49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

If culture may have a limited say or sway on evolution, what about technology?

Sure. We warm the planet and that can affect evolution. So do beaver dams, since they also affect the environment.

You seem to be the only one here that sees this as being contrary to the theory.

[Luc Turpin]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure. We warm the planet and that can affect evolution. So do beaver dams, since they also affect the environment.

You seem to be the only one here that sees this as being contrary to the theory.

Many scientists, members of Science Forums and in the general population believe that evolution is all about determinism (that evolution follows a predictable and deterministic path) or is random (just happens that way; like random mutations) and leaves out the part about human agency (that of increasing the degree of control that we have over our own evolutionary trajectory). It’s the sandwich without the meat inside. Determinism on one side and randomness on the other without agency in the middle. Most probably, evolution is about all of the above. Also, this discussion is about control and direction over evolution, which is definitely not a generally accepted concept in the science field of evolution, because science sees evolution as an uncontrollable process. I repeat, thinking beings are not passive bystanders in evolution, but active participants; that’s my point. The nature of evolution has now to contend with conscious agency.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

By including culture in our understanding of evolution, we realise that evolution isn't just about genetic changes through natural selection. Culture adds flexibility and speed to how organisms adapt, and this could lead to a more complex view of evolution, where both genes and culture play key roles.

Aren't we already arrived at a more complex view? - you are describing artificial selection with domesticated species or what is called gene-culture coevolution in humans, which is not a new concept.  Cultural preferences can select for certain traits, from dominant hand preference to food tolerances to mating preferences. The lactase persistence gene was selectively neutral until people shifted from H-G life to pastoralism (herding grazing animals).  Genes for reduced melanin were not adaptive until bands of humans decided to migrate to higher latitudes and needed more cutaneous vitamin D absorption.  Sexual selection has also been important in humans, and linked to breast shape, penile girth, voice pitch, facial hair, etc.  Such preferences can be culturally mediated.  (And some cultures sadly have tried to impose more control, with differential treatment and marital opportunities based on superficial physical traits.)

 

[CharonY]

I tried to figure out what OP sees as a contradiction to "conventional wisdom" but ultimately failed. Part of it is that different mechanisms in evolution keep getting mixed up, but also the introduction of "control" as an element. The latter plays no elevated role when it comes to the conventional wisdom of evolution.

It is helpful to recall what evolution really refers to: the change of the gene pool of a population over time. It does not matter how it changes, whether changes are reverted or not. Even epigenetic elements do not matter for that aspect. Formally we can describe evolution as a change from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which describes the conditions needed for a static gene pool. So in short, conventional wisdom on evolution describes a condition that violates that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

A teleological approach to evolution would therefore suggest a system, that moves the gene pool to a predetermined composition.

Selective pressures shape the gene pool, but they do not predetermine it. Even in a highly artificial conditions it is can be almost impossible to predetermine how the final gene pool would be. Say there is a strong selective pressure for size, while certain genes that favour size will be overrepresented, there are going to be broad variations in the final gene pool. In part because the existing population can change the overall selective pressures (e.g., in a population with large birds, some smaller individuals might find some advantages that didn't exist when the average population was smaller). Even in highly artificial conditions you can only somewhat control the gene pool, if you use highly inbred lines (and thereby inch your system closer to the Hardy-Weinber equilibrium.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Many scientists, members of Science Forums and in the general population believe that evolution is all about determinism (that evolution follows a predictable and deterministic path) or is random (just happens that way; like random mutations) and leaves out the part about human agency (that of increasing the degree of control that we have over our own evolutionary trajectory).

Assertion without evidence, though it would not surprise me to find some spectrum of thought on the importance of various elements of evolution; we don’t know everything. Further, the responses you might get will depend greatly on the language you use, especially when you use ill-defined terms like control.

A far as the general population and belief are concerned: who cares? This is about science, not belief, and not what ill-informed people say.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Many scientists, members of Science Forums and in the general population believe that evolution is all about determinism (that evolution follows a predictable and deterministic path) or is random (just happens that way; like random mutations) and leaves out the part about human agency (that of increasing the degree of control that we have over our own evolutionary trajectory).

This is a false dichotomy and not one considered by the scientists (in the field). You won't find an evolutionary scientist claiming either. What you might hear is that evolution is probabilistic. You can find determinism in small scale on specific elements and they are highlighted because they are unusual, not because they are the rule. Conversely, there can be elements that are mostly random that determine the fate of a group (e.g. drift). Again, it is one of the elements that folks look at in order to understand a particular history.

What it says, though is that your premise is faulty and will unlikely go anywhere when you keep maintaining it.

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I tried to figure out what OP sees as a contradiction to "conventional wisdom" but ultimately failed. Part of it is that different mechanisms in evolution keep getting mixed up, but also the introduction of "control" as an element. The latter plays no elevated role when it comes to the conventional wisdom of evolution.

It is helpful to recall what evolution really refers to: the change of the gene pool of a population over time. It does not matter how it changes, whether changes are reverted or not. Even epigenetic elements do not matter for that aspect. Formally we can describe evolution as a change from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which describes the conditions needed for a static gene pool. So in short, conventional wisdom on evolution describes a condition that violates that Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

A teleological approach to evolution would therefore suggest a system, that moves the gene pool to a predetermined composition.

Selective pressures shape the gene pool, but they do not predetermine it. Even in a highly artificial conditions it is can be almost impossible to predetermine how the final gene pool would be. Say there is a strong selective pressure for size, while certain genes that favour size will be overrepresented, there are going to be broad variations in the final gene pool. In part because the existing population can change the overall selective pressures (e.g., in a population with large birds, some smaller individuals might find some advantages that didn't exist when the average population was smaller). Even in highly artificial conditions you can only somewhat control the gene pool, if you use highly inbred lines (and thereby inch your system closer to the Hardy-Weinber equilibrium.

 

 

If I haven't successfully helped you understand my point of view about the "difference" (not contradiction) between "conventional wisdom" and "contemporary wisdom," then I have failed.

By "conventional wisdom," I mean ideas like random mutations and natural selection. "Contemporary wisdom" includes ideas like epigenetics and the deliberate actions organisms take to survive (like tool use, environmental manipulation, and mating strategies). These actions influence survival and evolution, even if they don’t directly change the gene pool.

You're right that traditional biology focuses on changes in the gene pool, but it shoud also include more than just genetic mutations. For example, and as you know, epigenetics alters gene expression without changing the DNA itself, and these changes can affect survival traits that influence evolution. So, why should epigenetics be left out of the definition of evolution if it impacts survival?

In my view, evolution isn’t just about genetics; it’s also about deliberate actions organisms take to survive. These actions—along with genes, epigenetics, and the environment—work together to shape evolution. The process is more complex than simply changes in the gene pool.

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Many scientists, members of Science Forums and in the general population believe that evolution is all about determinism (that evolution follows a predictable and deterministic path) or is random (just happens that way; like random mutations) and leaves out the part about human agency (that of increasing the degree of control that we have over our own evolutionary trajectory). It’s the sandwich without the meat inside. Determinism on one side and randomness on the other without agency in the middle. Most probably, evolution is about all of the above. Also, this discussion is about control and direction over evolution, which is definitely not a generally accepted concept in the science field of evolution, because science sees evolution as an uncontrollable process. I repeat, thinking beings are not passive bystanders in evolution, but active participants; that’s my point. The nature of evolution has now to contend with conscious agency.

The only people I can think of that believed (or invoked) determinism were victorian vicars, determined to prove 'God'. Some were amateur scientists, some were professional.

As far as I know none are members here.

 

I have an amateur interest in evolution, though I believe I have read widley enough to see that your conceptions on the subject are blinkered and at least a century out of date.

Are you aware of thye work of Hennig, Norell, Novacek, Jablonski, Raup and benton to name but a few from the last 60 years.

The modern theory of evolution has changed out of all recognition from the model you are putting forward here, as new data and experimental methods has become available.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by studiot

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

If I haven't successfully helped you understand my point of view about the "difference" (not contradiction) between "conventional wisdom" and "contemporary wisdom," then I have failed.

It is not helpful to use your own definitions. In evolutionary sciences, conventional wisdom is not limited to natural selection for close to a hundred years.

27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You're right that traditional biology focuses on changes in the gene pool, but it shoud also include more than just genetic mutations. For example, and as you know, epigenetics alters gene expression without changing the DNA itself, and these changes can affect survival traits that influence evolution. So, why should epigenetics be left out of the definition of evolution if it impacts survival?

You are conflating multiple concepts here. I will try to disentangle them from you. The gene pool is the unit on which evolution happens. That is the definition, if you want to talk about something different, you need a different concept, but then we are not talking about evolution.

Survival is not a part of evolution itself. It is one of the factors, but not the main factor. Organisms need to survive to the point of reproduction, after that it does not matter. So for example a factor that increases survival dramatically but results in sterility, will have no impact on the gene pool, and therefore evolution.

As such, factors changing survival, but not changing the gene pool do not impact evolution.

For epigenetics, let's also use more precise definitions. Specifically, in terms of gene expression, epigenetics typically refers to DNA modification. While some modifications are hereditary, they are not stably inherited. As such, they are considered yet another mechanisms that can shape evolution (i.e. the gene pool) but due to their transient nature, they are not considered the element to be measured (i.e. the gene pool). That being said, there are some efforts underway to investigate whether certain modification patterns could be stably inherited, in which point the idea of gene pool might be modified with the addition of these chemical modifications.

Taking a step back: the idea of evolution was never as narrow as OP makes it seem to be. Again, if you focus on the concept of gene pools, there was already early the realization that there are many mechanisms that could shape these pools. Natural selection was one that was considered early on (i.e. the Darwinian concepts) others, such as Lamarckism were also considered, then largely discarded, and then gain integrated in a modified form due to the recognition of epigenetics (if it is not entirely clear, I can elaborate on that).

Biological sciences have never been dogmatic and formulaic and we are cognizant that more mechanisms will be discovered eventually. After all, we still have not really figured out some of the fundamental aspects of life. Heck, even what was considered to be the dogma of molecular biology has been remodeled from when I started studying biology. But nonetheless, the basic concepts still rely on certain definitions, which might or might not fully reflect biological complexity. Either way, they are the best models we got to date. If we want to discuss them, we have to follow those concepts, otherwise there is no basis for discussion.

As such, it makes no sense to expect a meaningful scientific discussion on the topic if you keep focusing on your personal definitions and concepts. Inevitably the discussion will keep trying to introduce you to established concepts, an exercise which is often is tiring for everyone involved.

 

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

The modern theory of evolution has changed out of all recognition from the model you are putting forward here, as new data and experimental methods has become available.

You are correct in details, but I would offer a slightly different perspective for biological sciences. In contrast to (I think) areas of physics (especially theoretical physics), biological models are far more open-ended. They tend to be more qualitative (to the frustrations to many statisticians), and generally only smaller, highly specific elements, have quantitative models (e.g., models for calculation mutation frequencies at specific loci). Conversely, large concepts, such as evolution (or even like a cell) can be defined pretty narrowly, but does not specifically enumerate all relevant parameters. There is a recognition that we do not have a full understanding of biology, which is why discovery is always going to be a core element of biological sciences. If, at one point we have a full understanding of all relevant elements, I fully expect a transformation of biology to something closer to chemistry and/or physics. But this seems so far away that I cannot even see the path.