Adaptation

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about evolution...

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/dolph-schluter-profile-crafoord-prize-scn/index.html

*************

On the Galapagos Islands, a ground finch that usually munched on small, soft seeds was forced, during a drought, to eat harder, larger ones.

Within the space of a few generations, the bird evolved a larger but shorter beak better suited to cracking large seeds.

*************

Evolution here has happened mainly due to active adaptation of the bird to a changing environment and not due to random variations.

Adaptation and plasticity imply an inner mechanism for changing phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This is obviously an intelligent response.

Evolutionary changes have clearly been happening all along, due to active and intelligent adaptation rather than due to random variations. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about evolution...

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/dolph-schluter-profile-crafoord-prize-scn/index.html

*************

On the Galapagos Islands, a ground finch that usually munched on small, soft seeds was forced, during a drought, to eat harder, larger ones.

Within the space of a few generations, the bird evolved a larger but shorter beak better suited to cracking large seeds.

*************

Evolution here has happened mainly due to active adaptation of the bird to a changing environment and not due to random variations.

Adaptation and plasticity imply an inner mechanism for changing phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This is obviously an intelligent response.

Evolutionary changes have clearly been happening all along, due to active and intelligent adaptation rather than due to random variations. 

Cheers.

Sriram

Adaptive radiation doesn't refer to adaption of individuals and doesn't imply an inner mechanism.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about evolution...

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/dolph-schluter-profile-crafoord-prize-scn/index.html

*************

On the Galapagos Islands, a ground finch that usually munched on small, soft seeds was forced, during a drought, to eat harder, larger ones.

Within the space of a few generations, the bird evolved a larger but shorter beak better suited to cracking large seeds.

*************

Evolution here has happened mainly due to active adaptation of the bird to a changing environment and not due to random variations.

Adaptation and plasticity imply an inner mechanism for changing phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This is obviously an intelligent response.

Evolutionary changes have clearly been happening all along, due to active and intelligent adaptation rather than due to random variations. 

Cheers.

Sriram

Except it doesn't suggest that at all - indeed the article is clear that the evolution was based on existing variations within the population:

"Of course, this kind of evolution does not wait for new mutations but works on the variation that is already present in the population,”

This is classic Darwian evolution, which is just as much about existing variation within the starting population (of course itself driven by previous genetic mutation) rather than mutations that might arise later. Indeed the latter is challenging in eovlutionary terms as by the time you wait for a new mutation the whole population may have died out if environmental conditions change dramatically.

So in this study we appear to have a level of variation, which might even be considered 'sub-species' - each better adapted to one of two environments (in the case of the finch to soft seeds, the other hard seeds, in the case of the fish bottom dwellers and open water dwellers). Change the environmental conditions - e.g. a drought which wipes out the soft seeds and guess what happens. The natural variation in beak side now confers evolutionary advantage to those with bigger breaks - so they survive and breed and rapidly the population variation shift so that all birds have larger beaks, rather than must a few.

Classic Darwinian evolution Sriram.

Note that your article never mentions plasticity, nor does it suggest whatsoever that an individual bird grew a bigger beak, merely that the population-level variation shifted towards birds with bigger beaks.

Actually the really interesting thing here - which actually many of us knew anyway - is just how radipdly a change can occur where there is pre-existing variation in the population. This contrasts with the evolution-deniers classic claim that evolution cannot be the answer to diversity as it takes too long. It doesn't - it can take just a couple of generations depending on the circumstances.

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about evolution...

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/30/world/dolph-schluter-profile-crafoord-prize-scn/index.html

*************

On the Galapagos Islands, a ground finch that usually munched on small, soft seeds was forced, during a drought, to eat harder, larger ones.

Within the space of a few generations, the bird evolved a larger but shorter beak better suited to cracking large seeds.

*************

Evolution here has happened mainly due to active adaptation of the bird to a changing environment and not due to random variations.

Adaptation and plasticity imply an inner mechanism for changing phenotype in response to changes in the environment. This is obviously an intelligent response.

Evolutionary changes have clearly been happening all along, due to active and intelligent adaptation rather than due to random variations. 

Cheers.

Sriram

Nothing in the article says, implies, or even hints at that. Ir's a classic example of how small differences can have a big impact when the environment changes. As the article covers significant environmental change can drive evolution more quickly. This covers a specific issue on speciation.

You need to provide working for your conclusion, not just state it.

[Nearly Sane]

...
Actually the really interesting thing here - which actually many of us knew anyway - is just how radipdly a change can occur where there is pre-existing variation in the population. This contrasts with the evolution-deniers classic claim that evolution cannot be the answer to diversity as it takes too long. It doesn't - it can take just a couple of generations depending on the circumstances.

Agreed. This is one of those things where you read it and think 'Of course, it works like that!', but until the detailed work is done it cannot be assumed. It removes the idea of remote populations being required for speciation, which looked too slow a mechanism. It's brilliant but in no sense does it affect Darwin's basic idea.


It's rather wonderful that the finches that were so important to Darwin are still so informative.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agreed. This is one of those things where you read it and think 'Of course, it works like that!', but until the detailed work is done it cannot be assumed. It removes the idea of remote populations being required for speciation, which looked too slow a mechanism. It's brilliant but in no sense does it affect Darwin's basic idea.


It's rather wonderful that the finches that were so important to Darwin are still so informative.

All that you need for very rapid changes are either:

1. A variety of traits as part of natural diversity within the population that do not confer evolutionary disadvantage and that an environmental change confers a significant advantage on one trait, that might even exist in the base population at a low frequency. But it doesn't even need this - hence

2. A variety of traits, including some that are evolutionary disadvantageous in the base population within their existing environment, but these trait are genetically recessive - so only homozygotes express them. So it doesn't matter if all the variants with that trait fail to survive to breed (so you might not even easily see them in the population) - the genes will remain in the population as heterozygotes even if those individuals don't express that trait. Change the environment to make the trait evolutionarily advantageous and the recessive homozygotes survive while other genetic variants don't and as they are homozygotes the offspring are also all recessive homozygotes and will have that trait. As if by magic (but actually by evolution) you can go in a couple of generations from a variation in which a trait seems non existent to one in which it dominates.

[Outrider]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about evolution...

Yes.

On the Galapagos Islands, a ground finch that usually munched on small, soft seeds was forced, during a drought, to eat harder, larger ones.

Within the space of a few generations, the bird evolved a larger but shorter beak better suited to cracking large seeds.

Yes.

Evolution here has happened mainly due to active adaptation of the bird to a changing environment and not due to random variations.

No. The traits were there prior, the species in question is still the same species. 'Evolution' has not happened, here, frequency distribution of particular traits has happened here.

Adaptation and plasticity imply an inner mechanism for changing phenotype in response to changes in the environment.

Arguably.

This is obviously an intelligent response.

No.

Evolutionary changes have clearly been happening all along, due to active and intelligent adaptation rather than due to random variations.

No.

O.

[Sriram]

Traits were there prior, means that the specific genetic trait was already there in the DNA. Depending on the environmental requirement, that particular trait surfaces.

This is intelligence within organisms. It shows adaptation to specific requirements without random variations and NS happening over a long period of time purely by chance.

[ProfessorDavey]

Traits were there prior, means that the specific genetic trait was already there in the DNA.

Yup - at some point in the past there is likely to have been a mutation resulting in variation in the DNA.

Depending on the environmental requirement, that particular trait surfaces.

Absolutely - if that trait becomes advantageous for survival it will become either more prevalent in frequency in the individual animals or plants etc or may even appear to emerge as in the case of the homozygote recessive that was disadvantageous for survival but is advantageous if the environment changes.

This is intelligence within organisms.

No it isn't - this is classic Darwinian evolution.

It shows adaptation to specific requirements without random variations and NS happening over a long period of time purely by chance.

No it doesn't - it just means that the random variation occurred prior to the change in the environment, in other words pre-existed within the diversity of the existing population. This is always how Darwinian evolution was considered to work.

This from the wiki page on the topic, with my emphasis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and their offspring can inherit such mutations. Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment. Because individuals with certain variants of the trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with other less successful variants, the population evolves."

[Sriram]

How does anyone know that the variation was already present in the population or not? In phenotpic plasticity the phenotype changes to suit the environment even though the genotype remains the same.

We see cases of dramatic change in phenotype to suit the environment, such as in chameleons. 

[ProfessorDavey]

How does anyone know that the variation was already present in the population or not? In phenotypic plasticity the phenotype changes to suit the environment even though the genotype remains the same.

By either looking at the variation of phenotypic traits in the population, or by analysing the genomes of a population of the relevant species. Standard scientific stuff.

We see cases of dramatic change in phenotype to suit the environment, such as in chameleons.

Sure - all sorts of animals and plants adapt to rapidly occurring changes in their environment - whether a chameleon changing its colour or a sunflower tracking the sun across the sky. But these abilities, which obviously confer survival advantage would have arisen via classic Darwinian evolution as when a mutation arises that confers that phenotype it will confer better ability to survive and likelihood to breed and will therefore become more dominant in the next generation and ultimately make result in all members of that (perhaps new) species having that trait.

Again this is standard evolution - I'm surprised that you seem surprised and perplexed by all this.

[Sriram]

I am surprised that you don't see the inherent intelligent responses in all these cases. Merely calling it standard evolution doesn't change that at all.

I hope you are not confusing my argument for an inherent intelligence with debunking evolution and arguing for a God!

[Nearly Sane]

I am surprised that you don't see the inherent intelligent responses in all these cases. Merely calling it standard evolution doesn't change that at all.

I hope you are not confusing my argument for an inherent intelligence with debunking evolution and arguing for a God!

No, but you seem to be mistaking your assertions for an argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am surprised that you don't see the inherent intelligent responses in all these cases. Merely calling it standard evolution doesn't change that at all.

There is no 'intelligence' in the sense of direction. For every mutation that confers an advantage there will be others that are catastrophic, for example preventing an organism from even developing. And there will be a load further that confer no phenotypic change whatsoever. You are using surviver bias to try to infer intelligence. That is muddled thinking.

I hope you are not confusing my argument for an inherent intelligence with debunking evolution and arguing for a God!

Nope - although there are plenty of people who wrongly infer 'intelligence', 'direction' or 'purpose' in the processes (beyond simple conferring or not survival advantage) and then ... whoosh ... god. Even more muddled thinking.

[Sriram]

Acknowledging that there is an inherent intelligence is important simply because it is true. To fear that it will ultimately lead to a religious resurgence or a belief in Jehovah...is God phobia.  This may not happen, rather we might uncover deeper aspects of life that we need to uncover.

Attributing everything to chance is clearly misleading.

[ProfessorDavey]

Acknowledging that there is an inherent intelligence is important simply because it is true.

Unevidenced assertion. As you are making this claim the onus is on you to justify it with evidence. Despite posting regularly you have failed to come up with one iota of credible evidence that evolution occurs other than via natural selection based on traits that arise in a random manner - some are beneficial and persist, others are detrimental and disappear, others neutral and are likely to remain within the gene pool but may only become determinative (positively or negatively) when there are environmental changes.

To fear that it will ultimately lead to a religious resurgence or a belief in Jehovah...is God phobia.  This may not happen, rather we might uncover deeper aspects of life that we need to uncover.

On the contrary - I fear it is you Sriram who is unable to accept the evidence - none of which points to any kind of intelligence, purpose, design etc in the evolution of species as to accept it would undermine your prejudged view that there must be design and intelligence driving these processes.

Attributing everything to chance is clearly misleading.

Why - if that is what the evidence demonstrates. Your issue here is confirmation bias and survivorship bias - you focus on the traits that confer advantage and persist but completely ignore the traits that confer disadvantage and vanish. In any kind of intelligate/design framework why would you design in traits that are lethal?

[Udayana]

 Aha!

I see a pattern emerging! People that see patterns where, actually, there are none - are more likely to assume inherent direction or intelligence where there is none.

Sometimes the effect is so pronounced that they can't read a straightforward paper without hijacking the evidence to reach the opposite conclusion to that found!

[Nearly Sane]

Acknowledging that there is an inherent intelligence is important simply because it is true. To fear that it will ultimately lead to a religious resurgence or a belief in Jehovah...is God phobia.  This may not happen, rather we might uncover deeper aspects of life that we need to uncover.

Attributing everything to chance is clearly misleading.

This is just you repeating your assertion.

[Enki]

Acknowledging that there is an inherent intelligence is important simply because it is true.

The idea of an inherent intelligence is simply an assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up. Dolph Scluter(whose work your CNN article refers to) is an evolutionary biologist who has done much important work on ecology induced adaptive radiation, focussing especially on sticklebacks and Darwin's finches. There is no mention of your 'inherent intelligence' either in this article or, at least to my knowledge, in any of his work.

To fear that it will ultimately lead to a religious resurgence or a belief in Jehovah...is God phobia. This may not happen, rather we might uncover deeper aspects of life that we need to uncover.

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with God phobia. That seems to be some sort of hang up of your own making.

Attributing everything to chance is clearly misleading.

And yet again you show little understanding of what Darwinian evolution actually means.

[Outrider]

Traits were there prior, means that the specific genetic trait was already there in the DNA.

Yes.

Depending on the environmental requirement, that particular trait surfaces.

Yes.

This is intelligence within organisms.

No, it's natural selection acting upon the trait that's being 'selected' for.

It shows adaptation to specific requirements without random variations and NS happening over a long period of time purely by chance.

No, it's the natural selection part of evolution in action. If a new beak shape that had previously not been identified emerged, and then was selected for, that would be a more complete example of the evolutionary process.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unevidenced assertion. As you are making this claim the onus is on you to justify it with evidence. Despite posting regularly you have failed to come up with one iota of credible evidence that evolution occurs other than via natural selection based on traits that arise in a random manner - some are beneficial and persist, others are detrimental and disappear, others neutral and are likely to remain within the gene pool but may only become determinative (positively or negatively) when there are environmental changes.
On the contrary - I fear it is you Sriram who is unable to accept the evidence - none of which points to any kind of intelligence, purpose, design etc in the evolution of species as to accept it would undermine your prejudged view that there must be design and intelligence driving these processes.
Why - if that is what the evidence demonstrates. Your issue here is confirmation bias and survivorship bias - you focus on the traits that confer advantage and persist but completely ignore the traits that confer disadvantage and vanish. In any kind of intelligate/design framework why would you design in traits that are lethal?

The trouble with survivorship bias in philosophy is that the corpses are always fresh and with us for post mortem with many of them able to pop back into life at any time.

[Sriram]

Yes.

Yes.

No, it's natural selection acting upon the trait that's being 'selected' for.

No, it's the natural selection part of evolution in action. If a new beak shape that had previously not been identified emerged, and then was selected for, that would be a more complete example of the evolutionary process.

O.

But Natural Selection is a metaphor. There is no actual 'selection' taking place. It is all just chance environmental changes to which the organisms adapt by making suitable changes in their phenotype...even while the genotype remains the same.

It is more like Lamarckism. 

[Outrider]

But Natural Selection is a metaphor.

No, it's a slightly poetic phrase used to describe a well documented, repeatedly observed, rigorously studied natural phenomenon.

There is no actual 'selection' taking place.

There is selection, but there's no selector; there's a blind, natural process which results in selection of fitness.

It is all just chance environmental changes to which the organisms adapt by making suitable changes in their phenotype...

Not quite. Yes it's all chance environmental changes working on organisms, but it's making 'selections' based not on phenotypic changes which organisms are 'making' but rather upon variation that naturally arises within those genotype of the species to create the variation amongst individual phenotypes. That variation occurs whether there is environmental pressure or not.

...even while the genotype remains the same.

No, it doesn't, that's why we aren't all still bacteria, and some people can roll their tongue whilst others can't (and a few other variations in between!)

It is more like Lamarckism.

No.

O.

[Sriram]

That Natural Selection is a metaphor is a fact.

Also, evolution may not be entirely gene centric.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/#:~:text=Neo%2DDarwinism%20is%20the%20term,correct%20since%20Romanes%20coined%20the

**********

This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, form barriers to the integration of physiological science with evolutionary theory.

understanding biological function through physiological analysis requires an integrative approach in which the activity of the proteins and RNAs formed from each DNA template is analysed in networks of interactions. These networks also include components that are not specified by nuclear DNA. Inheritance is not through DNA sequences alone.

The DNA molecule on its own does absolutely nothing since it reacts biochemically only to triggering signals. It cannot even initiate its own transcription or replication. It cannot therefore be characterised as selfish in any plausible sense of the word. If we extract DNA and put it in a Petri dish with nutrients, it will do nothing. The cell from which we extracted it would, however, continue to function until it needs to make more proteins, just as red cells function for a hundred days or more without a nucleus. It would therefore be more correct to say that genes are not active causes; they are, rather, caused to give their information by and to the system that activates them. The only kind of causation that can be attributed to them is passive, much in the way a computer program reads and uses databases.

While the vehicle is also ‘inherited’ (genes on their own do nothing and certainly are not sufficient to ‘make’ an organism – since we must also inherit a complete fertilised egg cell), the story goes that changes in the vehicle are not inherited (so no inheritance of acquired characteristics) while changes in the replicator (e.g. mutations) are inherited. This approach is what enables the wholesale inheritance of the vehicle to be ignored.

Yet, the vehicle (the cell, or each cell in a multicellular organism) clearly does reproduce (indeed, it is only through this reproduction that DNA itself is transmitted), and in doing so it passes on all the phenotype characteristics for which there are no nuclear DNA templates and which are necessary to interpret the inherited DNA.

**********

[Nearly Sane]

Just to point out the 'selfish gene' is a metaphor.