"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

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".

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
>

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.

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

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
>
What's changed since the article was published? Is the origin of life
itself been solved or the origin of the photo-sensitive cells that
evolved into eyes? Were they the same "master control genes", involved
in the downstream genes expressing the formation of eyes in mice,
fruit-flies and humans? Were they these the same as the "master control
genes", that controlled downstream genes that expressed trilobites eyes?
Since some trilobites had complex eyes, so where is the empirical
evidence that demonstrates that eyes evolved? Is there fossil evidence
demonstrating eye evolution?

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.”

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.
>
And you don't attack them for their questioning - that's fair!

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> 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?
>
This question was preface of a article from Nature. But personally, I've
questioned evolution for a decade or more.
>
> 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.”
>
I can see you put consider thought into this. I followed and understood
most of most of what you wrote. Although I read and reread your
response, frankly some of what you wrote baffles me. I sincerely
appreciate your thoughts on this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:00:17 -0400, 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

Yet another embarrassing typo; you should quite while you're behind.
The last sentence of your quote actually reads:

"The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs
rests upon the theory of natural selection."

More to the point, in another sentence, the author correctly
identifies the problem with the above:

"The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it
is absurdly crude and misleading."

The problem here is, you and the author don't realize that what is
absurdly crude and misleading is his expressed description of the
theory of evolution.

He dwells on the origins and amplifications of advantageous functions,
while he completely ignores that natural selection demands the
*environment* to establish what functions are advantageous. For
example, eyes are useless, in fact DIS-advantageous, where sensory
radiation doesn't exist, as in underground caves.

Also, his expressed credulity of the existence of light-sensitive
cells is absurd, as any cell with a pigment can provide exactly that
function.

Finally, his credulity of evolved eyes is a common PRATT, as Darwin
himself provides an excellent description in OoS.

>DOES EVOLUTION THEORY NEED A RETHINK?
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/514161a

And here's another PRATT. The "rethink" identified by your cite above
*accepts* natural selection, but argues there are other, perhaps more
important, processes involved, as part of an extended evolutionary
synthesis, none of which have anything to do with a purposeful
Designer.

You have posted similar argument many times in the past, and I and
others posted similar replies as the above. That makes your post just
another PRATT of PRATTs.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

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

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

jillery pretended :
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:00:17 -0400, 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
>
>
> Yet another embarrassing typo; you should quite while you're behind.

Hmmm.

On 3/27/24 4:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> jillery pretended :
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:00:17 -0400, 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
>>
>>
>> Yet another embarrassing typo; you should quite while you're behind.
>
> Hmmm.
>
There's some rule that every spelling flame must contain at least one typo.

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

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.

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

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?

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

On 3/27/24 6:26 PM, Burkhard 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
>
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.

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"

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.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:04:00 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>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.

And measles, which had been close to eliminated, is now on the rise in
Europe including the UK and Ireland

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2024/0325/1439899-measles-cases-ireland/

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

Except that's not the way it's supposed to work - stupidity should
eradicate stupidity. I guess it just takes a few generations :(

>
>Jan

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

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:35:36 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 3/27/24 4:39 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> jillery pretended :
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:00:17 -0400, 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet another embarrassing typo; you should quite while you're behind.
>>
>> Hmmm.
>>
>There's some rule that every spelling flame must contain at least one typo.

Right, he mis-spelled "hmm".

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge