This parody of evo devo makes it sound a lot like ID

_{News
December 19, 2017

Cell biology, Evolution, Evolutionary biology

1}_{Categories
Cell biology
Evolution
Evolutionary biology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“This is how we go from single cells to people.” Hmmm.

See also: From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned”

Comments

evo devo despacito? :) Trypanosoma brucei is transmitted between mammalian hosts by the tsetse fly. In the mammal, they are exclusively extracellular, continuously replicating within the bloodstream. During this stage, the mitochondrion lacks a functional electron transport chain (ETC). Successful transition to the fly, requires activation of the ETC and ATP synthesis via oxidative phosphorylation. This life cycle leads to a major problem: in the bloodstream, the mitochondrial genes are not under selection and are subject to genetic drift that endangers their integrity. Exacerbating this, T. brucei undergoes repeated population bottlenecks as they evade the host immune system that would create additional forces of genetic drift. These parasites possess several unique genetic features, including RNA editing of mitochondrial transcripts. RNA editing creates open reading frames by the guided insertion and deletion of U-residues within the mRNA. A major question in the field has been why this metabolically expensive system of RNA editing would evolve and persist. Here, we show that many of the edited mRNAs can alter the choice of start codon and the open reading frame by alternative editing of the 5’ end. Analyses of mutational bias indicate that six of the mitochondrial genes may be dual-coding and that RNA editing allows access to both reading frames. We hypothesize that dual-coding genes can protect genetic information by essentially hiding a non-selected gene within one that remains under selection. Thus, the complex RNA editing system found in the mitochondria of trypanosomes provides a unique molecular strategy to combat genetic drift in non-selective conditions. E. Kirby, Laura & Koslowsky, Donna. (2017). Mitochondrial dual-coding genes in Trypanosome brucei. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 11. e0005989. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005989. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005989&type=printableDionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) Ehsani, Sepehr. (2017). Relativism as a means to alleviate biology from genomic reductionism: But is the remedy effective?: Denis Noble: Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity. Cambridge University Press, December 2016, 302pp, £17.99 HB. Metascience. . 10.1007/s11016-017-0255-1. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11016-017-0255-1.pdfDionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) Over the last several hundred years of scientific progress, we have arrived at a deep understanding of the non-living world. We have not yet achieved an analogous, deep understanding of the living world. The origins of life is our best chance at discovering scientific laws governing life, because it marks the point of departure from the predictable physical and chemical world to the novel, history-dependent living world. This theme issue aims to explore ways to build a deeper understanding of the nature of biology, by modelling the origins of life on a sufficiently abstract level, starting from prebiotic conditions on Earth and possibly on other planets and bridging quantitative frameworks approaching universal aspects of life. The aim of the editors is to stimulate new directions for solving the origins of life. The present introduction represents the point of view of the editors on some of the most promising future directions. This article is part of the themed issue 'Reconceptualizing the origins of life'. © 2017 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Walker, Sara & Packard, N & D. Cody, G. (2017). Re-conceptualizing the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences. 375. 20160337. 10.1098/rsta.2016.0337.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) This paper briefly describes process metaphysics, and argues that it is better suited for describing life than the more standard thing, or substance, metaphysics. It then explores the implications of process metaphysics for conceptualising evolution. After explaining what it is for an organism to be a process, the paper takes up the Hull/Ghiselin thesis of species as individuals and explores the conditions under which a species or lineage could constitute an individual process. It is argued that only sexual species satisfy these conditions, and that within sexual species the degree of organisation varies. This, in turn, has important implications for the species’ evolvability. One important moral is that evolution will work differently in different biological domains. Dupré, John. (2017). The Metaphysics of Evolution. Interface focus: a theme supplement of Journal of the Royal Society interface. 7. . 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0148. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Dupre/publication/317956232_The_Metaphysics_of_Evolution/links/5996babba6fdcc35c6c84cff/The-Metaphysics-of-Evolution.pdfDionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) Stochasticity is harnessed by organisms to generate functionality. Randomness does not, therefore, necessarily imply lack of function or 'blind chance' at higher levels. In this respect, biology must resemble physics in generating order from disorder. This fact is contrary to Schrödinger's idea of biology generating phenotypic order from molecular-level order, which inspired the central dogma of molecular biology. The order originates at higher levels, which constrain the components at lower levels. We now know that this includes the genome, which is controlled by patterns of transcription factors and various epigenetic and reorganization mechanisms. These processes can occur in response to environmental stress, so that the genome becomes 'a highly sensitive organ of the cell' (McClintock). Organisms have evolved to be able to cope with many variations at the molecular level. Organisms also make use of physical processes in evolution and development when it is possible to arrive at functional development without the necessity to store all information in DNA sequences. This view of development and evolution differs radically from that of neo-Darwinism with its emphasis on blind chance as the origin of variation. Blind chance is necessary, but the origin of functional variation is not at the molecular level. These observations derive from and reinforce the principle of biological relativity, which holds that there is no privileged level of causation. They also have important implications for medical science. Noble, Denis. (2017). Evolution viewed from physics, physiology and medicine. Interface Focus. 7. 20160159. 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0159.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? The question whether evolution is blind is usually presented as a choice between no goals at all (‘the blind watchmaker’) and long-term goals which would be external to the organism, for example in the form of special creation or intelligent design. The arguments either way do not address the question whether there are short-term goals within rather than external to organisms. Organisms and their interacting populations have evolved mechanisms by which they can harness blind stochasticity and so generate rapid functional responses to environmental challenges. They can achieve this by re-organising their genomes and/or their regulatory networks. Epigenetic as well as DNA changes are involved. Evolution may have no foresight, but it is at least partially directed by organisms themselves and by the populations of which they form part. Similar arguments support partial direction in the evolution of behavior. Noble, Ray & Noble, Denis. (2017). Was the Watchmaker Blind? Or Was She One-Eyed?. Biology. 6. 47. 10.3390/biology6040047. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/6/4/47/pdfDionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @103: Interesting comment. Thanks.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) High-level debates in evolutionary biology often treat the Modern Synthesis as a framework of population genetics, or as an intellectual lineage with a changing distribution of beliefs. Unfortunately, these flexible notions, used to negotiate decades of innovations, are now thoroughly detached from their historical roots in the original Modern Synthesis (OMS), a falsifiable scientific theory. The OMS held that evolution can be adequately understood as a process of smooth adaptive change by shifting the frequencies of small-effect alleles at many loci simultaneously, without the direct involvement of new mutations. This shifting gene frequencies theory was designed to support a Darwinian view in which the course of evolution is governed by selection, and to exclude a mutation-driven view in which the timing and character of evolutionary change may reflect the timing and character of events of mutation. The OMS is not the foundation of current thinking, but a special case of a broader conception that includes (among other things) a mutation-driven view introduced by biochemists in the 1960s, and now widely invoked. This innovation is evident in mathematical models relating the rate of evolution directly to the rate of mutation, which emerged in 1969, and now represent a major branch of theory with many applications. In evo-devo, mutationist thinking is reflected by a concern for the "arrival of the fittest". Though evolutionary biology is not governed by any master theory, and incorporates views excluded from the OMS, the recognition of these changes has been hindered by woolly conceptions of theories, and by historical accounts, common in the evolutionary literature, that misrepresent the disputes that defined the OMS. Reviewers: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene Koonin and J. Peter Gogarten. Stoltzfus, Arlin. (2017). Why we don’t want another “Synthesis”. Biology Direct. 12. 23. 10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320178983_Why_we_don%27t_want_another_Synthesis/fulltext/59d303780f7e9b4fd7fca0ca/320178983_Why_we_don%27t_want_another_Synthesis.pdfDionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) Contemporary evolutionary biology comprises a plural landscape of multiple co-existent conceptual frameworks and strenuous voices that disagree on the nature and scope of evolutionary theory. Since the mid-eighties, some of these conceptual frameworks have denounced the ontologies of the Modern Synthesis and of the updated Standard Theory of Evolution as unfinished or even flawed. In this paper, we analyze and compare two of those conceptual frameworks, namely Niles Eldredge’s Hierarchy Theory of Evolution (with its extended ontology of evolutionary entities) and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (with its proposal of an extended ontology of evolutionary processes), in an attempt to map some epistemic bridges (e.g. compatible views of causation; niche construction) and some conceptual rifts (e.g. extra-genetic inheritance; different perspectives on macroevolution; contrasting standpoints held in the “externalism–internalism” debate) that exist between them. This paper seeks to encourage theoretical, philosophical and historiographical discussions about pluralism or the possible unification of contemporary evolutionary biology. Fábregas-Tejeda, Alejandro & Vergara-Silva, Francisco. (2017). Hierarchy Theory of Evolution and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Some Epistemic Bridges, Some Conceptual Rifts. Evolutionary Biology. 1-13. 10.1007/s11692-017-9438-3.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

DiEb at #98: Thank you for your comments. I have read your linked post at TSZ, and I have of course no objections to it: I have not really tried the R simulation, but I am sure that your numbers are correct. OK, as you say, is it a big deal? I would say not, but any error deserves correction. I am more interested in your "pet-peeve" about the definition of search. I can agree that the word can be confusing. Speaking from my "empirical" perspective, I think we can definitely avoid it at all. For my purposes, the only important concept is to define some system where probabilistic events happen (in our case, some biological system on our planet, where RV happens in already existing organisms), and where, in a specified time window, some new specific configuration arises in the existing genomes. Of course, the new configuration has some level of functional information in itself, which can be measured (usually indirectly) in reference to some well defined function (usually the function biologically observed). In this context, we can say that a "search" in the probabilistic system "generated" that amount of functional information. Of course, it is not really a search, just some sequence of random events that brings about, in something that could be well described as a random walk, the observed result. In this sense, we can try to evaluate: a) The set of all possible configurations that can arise in the system (the search space). b) The subset of the specific configurations that can implement the observed function (the target space). c) The functional information linked to the observed function (-log2 (b/a)) d) The probabilistic resources of the system (the total number of different configurations that can be reached in the system in the defined time span). e) Comparing c) and d) we can derive the probability of the observed event in the system by RV alone. Of course, many of these steps require approximations, as in all empirical science. Can you agree with this kind of definition of "search" (or any other way we can agree to call it)? By the way, this is more or less what I have tried to do in my OP about the limits of RV: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ And, of course, I have tried to factor in the possible role of NS in this other OP: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/gpuccio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

ET @99, Interesting. ET, we know the final score of this game, even before it's over. Please, let's be magnanimous in victory. Let's show compassion to the defeated side.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

ET @97, Spot on! Again.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

ET @96, Spot on! Thanks.Dionisio_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

DiEB @ 55:
Now, you seem to be ignorant about Jeffrey Shallit.
I have had some discussions with Jeffrey and he seems to be ignorant. Jeff said that it is foolish to say that information requires a mind because computer programs can produce information and they don't have minds. I stepped in and told him that the mind is that of the programmer. He refused to understand cuz he says that if that programmer is dead then my point is moot. :roll:ET_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

@gpucchio: Thank you for your comments!
I think that the discussion about ID has shifted mainly to biological and empirical problems.
I suppose that this is the best think what can happen for ID: the maths was always quite problematic. I wanted to present a pet-peeve of mine - the definition of "search". I looked through the textbook "Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics", but I could find no place where this frequently used term was actually defined. Then I got side-tracked - here is the result: Prof. Marks gets lucky at Cracker Barrel I will revisit my initial project soon...DiEb_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

And in typical denialist ignorance biologist John Harshman says::
Pretty standard explanation of evo-devo. Is there supposed to be some comfort for creationists in it?
The fact that your position has nothing that can account for it gives every anti-blind watchmaker evolutionist comfort. The fact that only intelligent agencies can produce codes and regulatory networks gives us comfort.ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

One thing is clear- evolutionists don't have a coherent, scientific explanation for developmental biology. It goes against everything we know to say that blind and mindless processes can produce what is observed in developmental biology.ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

evo devo meeting http://www.evodevopanam.org/uploads/4/0/3/2/40325263/2017panamsedbprogramshort_updated_8.19.17b.pdf http://www.evodevopanam.org/uploads/4/0/3/2/40325263/2017panamsedbprogramabstracts_updated_8.18.17b.pdf http://www.evodevopanam.org/2nd-biennial-meeting.htmlDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

According to the fundamental evo-devo formulation given @93, most papers referenced in this thread fail to answer this important question: where's the beef? :)Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Is this the fundamental evo-devo formulation? Dev(d) = Dev(a)+ Delta(a,d) Dev(a) is the entire* spatiotemporal development of a biological system 'a' that is ancestor to a given biological system 'd'. Dev(d) is the entire* spatiotemporal development of a biological system 'd' that is descendent from a given biological system 'a'. Delta(a,d) is the entire* set of all the spatiotemporal changes required in Dev(a) in order to get Dev(d) (*) the whole enchilada :) PS. Please, correct any errors you may notice. Thanks.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Integration of anatomy ontologies and Evo-Devo using structured Markov chains suggests a new framework for modeling discrete phenotypic traits Sergei Tarasov doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/188672 Modeling discrete phenotypic traits for either ancestral character state reconstruction or morphology-based phylogenetic inference suffers from ambiguities of character coding, homology assessment, dependencies, and selection of adequate models. These drawbacks occur because trait evolution is driven by the two key processes - hierarchical and hidden - which are not accommodated simultaneously by the available phylogenetic methods. The hierarchical process refers to the dependencies between anatomical body parts, while the hidden process refers to the evolution of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) underlying trait development. Herein, I demonstrate that these processes can be efficiently modeled using structured Markov chains equipped with hidden states, which resolves the majority of the problems associated with discrete traits. Integration of structured Markov chains with anatomy ontologies adequately incorporates the hierarchical dependencies, while use of the hidden states accommodates hidden GRN evolution and mutation rate heterogeneity. This model is insensitive to alternative coding approaches which is shown by solving the Maddison's tail color problem. Additionally, this model provides new insight into character concept and homology assessment. The practical considerations for implementing this model in phylogenetic inference and comparative methods are discussed.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Heuristic, based on known alternative causes for aspects of an entity, system or process. Calibrated against reliable signs. An algorithm. Aspect is a very carefully chosen term, different aspects may have different explanations as to credible cause. Any significant aspect by design is decisive. First default, natural mechanical necessity per low contingency, reliably repeatable outcome under similar circumstances. Failing such, second being chance, for high contingency. With in addition high functional specificity, design per inference on reliable sign. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Dionisio. "Does “good reasoning” include “open mindedness” / “unbiased thinking” too?" I would definitely say so. And love for truth, which is a quality of the heart.gpuccio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Here's a recent article that fails the most fundamental question: Where's the beef? What evolutionary developmental biology (evo devo) brings to evolutionary biology by professor Armin P Moczek http://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/what-evo-devo-brings-to-evolutionary-biology/Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

gpuccio @87: "Design is not the logic alternative to contingency and necessity. It is an empirical explanation of observed facts, based on other observed facts and good reasoning." Agree. No logical theorem. Empirical. Does "good reasoning" include "open mindedness" / "unbiased thinking" too? :)Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

DiEB and Dionisio: Just to be more clear, one of the points where my approach is somewhat different from what is (probably) Dembski's approach is in the intepretation of the explanatory filter. I apologize in advance if I understand badly Dembski's thought (which is certainly possible). However, in the discussions here, I have many times found the statement (from both sides) that the explanatory filter should be considered as a logical theorem. IOWs, to put it simply, if some objective configuration of matter cannot be explained by contingency, and it cannot be explained by necessity laws, then it follows by logic that it is designed. I have never interpreted the explanatory filter that way. My approach is completely empirical. IOWs, my apporach is: a) If some objective configuration of matter cannot be explained by contingency (because the bits linked to some well defined function are beyond any reasonable threshold of what contingency can empirically find) and b) At the same time if cannot be explained by any known necessity laws then c) We say that it exhibits complex functionally specified information. This part is an empirical definition. Then: d) We observe that complex functionally specified information is never found in the observable world, except for human artifacts and biological objects. e) In particular, human artifacts are products of design (the configuration of matter originates, directly or indirectly, in conscious representations). That is the only reasonable explanation of the ability of humans to generate something that is never observed otherwise (with the exception of biological objects, whose origin is the thing we are discussing) f) Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for FSCI in biological objects is design (the functional configurations originated in conscious representations). g) Of course, we have the duty to verify if the only non design explanation which has ever been proposed (RV+NS) is an empirical exception to these observations. h) Any realistic analysis of what RV + NS can do will easily falsify the idea that it is a reasonable explanation for what we observe. See here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/ and here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/ I apologize for the brevity of this summary (and for any possible imprecision). I am available to discuss each single point, as I have done in the past. My point here is very simple: my reasoning is not a mathematical theorem. Design is not the logic alternative to contingency and necessity. It is an empirical explanation of observed facts, based on other observed facts and good reasoning.gpuccio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Svensson, Erik. (2017). On Reciprocal Causation in the Evolutionary Process. Evolutionary Biology. . 10.1007/s11692-017-9431-x. Recent calls for a revision of standard evolutionary theory (SET) are based partly on arguments about the reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation means that cause–effect relationships are bi-directional, as a cause could later become an effect and vice versa. Such dynamic cause-effect relationships raise questions about the distinction between proximate and ultimate causes, as originally formulated by Ernst Mayr. They have also motivated some biologists and philosophers to argue for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The EES will supposedly expand the scope of the Modern Synthesis (MS) and SET, which has been characterized as gene-centred, relying primarily on natural selection and largely neglecting reciprocal causation. Here, I critically examine these claims, with a special focus on the last conjecture. I conclude that reciprocal causation has long been recognized as important by naturalists, ecologists and evolutionary biologists working in the in the MS tradition, although it it could be explored even further. Numerous empirical examples of reciprocal causation in the form of positive and negative feedback are now well known from both natural and laboratory systems. Reciprocal causation have also been explicitly incorporated in mathematical models of coevolutionary arms races, frequency-dependent selection, eco-evolutionary dynamics and sexual selection. Such dynamic feedback were already recognized by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin in their bok The Dialectical Biologist. Reciprocal causation and dynamic feedback might also be one of the few contributions of dialectical thinking and Marxist philosophy in evolutionary theory. I discuss some promising empirical and analytical tools to study reciprocal causation and the implications for the EES. Finally, I briefly discuss how quantitative genetics can be adapated to studies of reciprocal causation, constructive inheritance and phenotypic plasticity and suggest that the flexibility of this approach might have been underestimated by critics of contemporary evolutionary biology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319912624_On_Reciprocal_Causation_in_the_Evolutionary_Process/fulltext/59c14f3ba6fdcc69b92bbf19/319912624_On_Reciprocal_Causation_in_the_Evolutionary_Process.pdfDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Charlesworth, Deborah & H. Barton, Nicholas & Charlesworth, Brian. (2017). The sources of adaptive variation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 284. 20162864. 10.1098/rspb.2016.2864. The role of natural selection in the evolution of adaptive phenotypes has undergone constant probing by evolutionary biologists, employing both theoretical and empirical approaches. As Darwin noted, natural selection can act together with other processes, including random changes in the frequencies of phenotypic differences that are not under strong selection, and changes in the environment, which may reflect evolutionary changes in the organisms themselves. As understanding of genetics developed after 1900, the new genetic discoveries were incorporated into evolutionary biology. The resulting general principles were summarized by Julian Huxley in his 1942 book Evolution: the modern synthesis. Here, we examine how recent advances in genetics, developmental biology and molecular biology, including epigenetics, relate to today’s understanding of the evolution of adaptations. We illustrate how careful genetic studies have repeatedly shown that apparently puzzling results in a wide diversity of organisms involve processes that are consistent with neo-Darwinism. They do not support important roles in adaptation for processes such as directed mutation or the inheritance of acquired characters, and therefore no radical revision of our understanding of the mechanism of adaptive evolution is needed. © 2017 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Really? Where's the beef ? :) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah_Charlesworth/publication/317266422_The_sources_of_adaptive_variation/links/5a118bf3aca27287ce299f57/The-sources-of-adaptive-variation.pdfDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Domestication as a model system for the extended evolutionary synthesis. Zeder, Melinda. (2017). Interface Focus. 7. 20160133. 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0133. One of the challenges in evaluating arguments for extending the conceptual framework of evolutionary biology involves the identification of a tractable model system that allows for an assessment of the core assumptions of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). The domestication of plants and animals by humans provides one such case study opportunity. Here, I consider domestication as a model system for exploring major tenets of the EES. First I discuss the novel insights that niche construction theory (NCT, one of the pillars of the EES) provides into the domestication processes, particularly as they relate to five key areas: coevolution, evolvability, ecological inheritance, cooperation and the pace of evolutionary change. This discussion is next used to frame testable predictions about initial domestication of plants and animals that contrast with those grounded in standard evolutionary theory, demonstrating how these predictions might be tested in multiple regions where initial domestication took place. I then turn to a broader consideration of how domestication provides a model case study consideration of the different ways in which the core assumptions of the EES strengthen and expand our understanding of evolution, including reciprocal causation, developmental processes as drivers of evolutionary change, inclusive inheritance, and the tempo and rate of evolutionary change. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Melinda_Zeder/publication/319190747_Domestication_as_a_model_system_for_the_extended_evolutionary_synthesis/links/599b101445851574f4ac5ce8/Domestication-as-a-model-system-for-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis.pdfDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? J. Futuyma, Douglas. (2017). Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis. Interface Focus. 7. 20160145. 10.1098/rsfs.2016.0145. Evolutionary theory has been extended almost continually since the evolutionary synthesis (ES), but except for the much greater importance afforded genetic drift, the principal tenets of the ES have been strongly supported. Adaptations are attributable to the sorting of genetic variation by natural selection, which remains the only known cause of increase in fitness. Mutations are not adaptively directed, but as principal authors of the ES recognized, the material (structural) bases of biochemistry and development affect the variety of phenotypic variations that arise by mutation and recombination. Against this historical background, I analyse major propositions in the movement for an 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. 'Niche construction' is a new label for a wide variety of well-known phenomena, many of which have been extensively studied, but (as with every topic in evolutionary biology) some aspects may have been understudied. There is no reason to consider it a neglected 'process' of evolution. The proposition that phenotypic plasticity may engender new adaptive phenotypes that are later genetically assimilated or accommodated is theoretically plausible; it may be most likely when the new phenotype is not truly novel, but is instead a slight extension of a reaction norm already shaped by natural selection in similar environments. However, evolution in new environments often compensates for maladaptive plastic phenotypic responses. The union of population genetic theory with mechanistic understanding of developmental processes enables more complete understanding by joining ultimate and proximate causation; but the latter does not replace or invalidate the former. Newly discovered molecular phenomena have been easily accommodated in the past by elaborating orthodox evolutionary theory, and it appears that the same holds today for phenomena such as epigenetic inheritance. In several of these areas, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate enthusiastic speculation. Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation. [really?]Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply