Biological Evolution (part 3 of ?)

Adaptationism.

Gould and Lewontin's paper: http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2004s/ees227/01/spandrels.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• adaptation
• evolution
• gould
• lewontin
• dawkins
• dennett
• spandrel

[CousinoMacul]

I've heard similar criticism (which I tend to mostly agree with) of "The Selfish Gene." Not so much about what Dawkins actually said in the book (which I loved, by the way), but more in the way that he said it and the impression that he created--as evidenced by the claims made by many people who've recently read TSG and have apparently molded their entire biological world view on it.

[0ThouArtThat0]

There is certainly something to the idea that genes and organisms can come into conflict (ie, what's good for the genes is not good for the organism). But I think Dawkins may be underestimating the role that whole organisms play in their selection. How much might Baldwinian effects give organisms an upper hand when it comes to altering genes? I would want to say they play a big enough role that selfish genes are made somewhat marginal.

[Spanglefeather]

@0ThouArtThat0

If you like biology with poetry you should definitely take a look at Erasmus Darwin's "Loves of the Plants" on Archive.org, first book of The Botanical Garden.

[naturalpreservation]

Dawkins was caught up in the cultural milieu about genes in the 70s. It's no coincidence that Cloak asked about a Cultural Ethology in 1975, 'cultural corpuscles'. Wilson's Sociobiology referred to 'culturgens', and Dawkins own misguided foray into culture with 'memetics'.

Science can/will work out culture but it will be 'Newtonising culture: expression from evolution'. Culture is different but not detached from nature, 150 of neo-Darwinian shortcoming in this area, and we're still counting.

[naturalpreservation]

In Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True' he breaks evolution down into six parts: gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and non selective mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Natural Selection is well short of anything like an e=mc2 of nature. However, Dawkins, Dennett and Co refer to 'evolution by natural selection' all the time. Dawkins dismisses neutral selection because he finds phenotypic selection more interesting. This kind of narrowism is running out of stream.

[Chick6517]

this was a really great video it was totally what i expected and i have to say that you met the standards of what i expected to see.

[plenipotentiarius]

It seems that the meaning of the term "evolution", if it includes both useless spandrels or appendices or even regressions, and punctuations or leaps along with the more usual steady progression and smart adaptation, the meaning gets so broad that it needs a new science or theory such as the addition of historiography to history. It also seems to be shadowing ideas from historiography. But at least we can distinguish history from current affairs and futurology, what distinguishes evolution?

[Mork5]

only the fittest get a slightly better distribution but not dominant, maybe enough for a long term shift.

i miss 2bsirius !

[Mork5]

well obviously selection and adaptation would defeat themselves in the long run if ther was not something else.

if the less fit would get extincted with only the fittest left a slight shift in environmental conditions would kill the species.

so not only mutation is needed to provide a range, alsö this range is to be kept exept for the blatant counterproductive,

so that there are alternatives in the pool that could cover possible changes of the external.

[0ThouArtThat0]

we become an aspect of their extended phenotype, I don't think that is too much of a stretch. I like my biology with a pinch of poetry, and my poetry with a pinch of biology ; )

[9macrina9]

not so silly at all....perfect for thinking through some of these ideas....so... many features are latent or are potentialities in the existing environment..i think of songbirds...warbling designed for the fitness that mates look for , yet as part of the environment, they are sometimes the most well fed by humans who like their songs for the aesthetic which then becomes an aspect of their niche..we become an aspect of their phenotype? or is that too much poetry:-)