
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - benbreen
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
======
Arnor
More to the point would have been:

Does popular understanding of evolutionary theory need more depth and nuance?

The concepts of co-evolution and the symbiotic relationship between an
organism and its environment are both established and obvious. The growing
body of information related to non-genetic inheritance is very interesting,
but it's not really a broad "rethink" of the core concept of evolution.

Still, it brings forth a few concepts that don't really get out of the
classroom and into the mainstream such as the roles of behavior and teaching
on reproductive success. When the subject comes up in the coffee house you'll
hear appeals to `intelligence` or `strength` as intrinsic traits. Many
successful organisms accumulate advantages through life (e.g. knowledge,
immunities, strength). Some of these accumulated traits can be passed to
offspring (knowledge through teaching; immunities through mother's milk);
others simply aid the individual in achieving greater reproductive success.
This isn't _new_ information nor is it _surprising_ to folks with knowledge of
the subject, but it is missed in a more secular setting.

Unfortunately, it's hard to get to even this level of nuance because the
public hasn't got past "survival of the species" and "nature vs nurture."

~~~
ajarmst
The relationship between organisms, ecologies, and the planet needs a more
nuanced treatment in the classroom, as well. We didn't evolve on some static
geological feature -- we evolved to live in a fetid stew of the waste products
of previous generations of life. We are merrily terraforming the planet in our
turn, and other lifeforms must now evolve toward success on a planet that has
been thoroughly infested with homo sapiens sapiens. Of course, whether we will
successfully adapt to the changes we have made is a (rather important) open
question.

~~~
warble
I agree - also the idea (which you hint at) that life and the environment are
not static. The idea that change is bad, is myopic and very human, although
very understandable when change involves your environment disappearing.

------
ctdavies
"We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply
‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-
existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments,
in the process changing the structure of ecosystems."

I thought that these were already generally accepted ideas within evolutionary
theory.

~~~
jobu
_" For instance, leaf shape changes with soil water and chemistry. SET views
this plasticity as merely fine-tuning, or even noise. The EES sees it as a
plausible first step in adaptive evolution."_

So the EES model believes these organisms are evolving as they grow to adapt
to a changing environment. Am I reading this right? Do any organisms actually
have the ability to modify their genetic code as they develop?

~~~
yohanatan
Gene expressions are not binary. Code may not necessarily need to be
modified-- merely activated or deactivated per expression levels. That said, I
wouldn't be surprised if code does in fact get 'modified' over time (but there
is the problem of separating code from data in your model even then).

------
czr80
The Yes side on this comes across as trying to elevate important but minor
elaborations into major disagreements, seemingly just to raise the status of
their work.

~~~
s_baby
Historically it's the other way around.

>Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile,
reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend
into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps
haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to
show a united front to those hostile to science.

When Discovery Institute successfully brought creationism into the classroom
it was able to do so on the grounds that there are holes in the Modern
Synthesis. Since then it has become politically incorrect to question the
validity of such a claim without walking on eggshells.

~~~
zbyte64
Rewrite history much? They brought it into the classroom through politicians.
When it went to court it was thrown out as junk science.

------
guard-of-terra
"organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop
by genes"

I really wish people who have no slightest idea about programming STOP using
the "programs are inflexible" metaphor.

Programs are the most flexible things known to man.

Genes are not blueprints but they are certainly _code_.

~~~
ChristianBundy
To be pedantic, life is the most flexible thing known to man.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Life is not known intimately to man yet. We're still in the metaphors phase as
you can see.

------
nhoven
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

~~~
jstalin
What if the headline were "Does this headline conform to Betteridge's Law of
Headlines?"

------
Someone1234
When we learned about Gene expression[0] traditional evolution was more or
less out of the window. While creatures don't appear to share mental knowledge
between generations they MIGHT share their generic tricks (by selectively
activating/deactivating genes).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression)

------
contingencies
Say what you want about the tenets of evolutionary theory, at least it's an
ethos.

------
ajarmst
So, uh, what James Lovelock has been saying for 40 years, then?

