Re: IS A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEEDED?

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.