4 ms·
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 symbioti
by Arnor 12y ago
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."
- stefantalpalaru 12y agoRead the article. It's about the "modern evolutionary synthesis" [1] - the current paradigm, developed in 1936-1947 - vs. the "extended synthesis" [2] (2007-ongoing). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis [2]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566710 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566710
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ajarmst 12y agoThe 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 12y agoI 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.