- cross-posted to:
- biology@mander.xyz
- technology
A new study has found that evolution is not as unpredictable as previously thought, which could allow scientists to explore which genes could be useful to tackle real-world issues such as antibiotic resistance, disease, and climate change.
The study, which is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), challenges the long-standing belief about the unpredictability of evolution and has found that the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents.
You must log in or register to comment.
"The implications of this research are nothing short of revolutionary," said Professor McInerney, the lead author of the study.
(Emphasis mine.)
I get very wary of researchers tooting their own horn that hard. Smells like room temperature super conductor.
Yeah but the theory of evolution writ large needs shaking up. The whole theory reeks of Malthusianism, a disproved economic theory, since Darwin was influenced by Malthus. Many of the sick consequences of "Social Darwinism" are a result of the theory's flawed precursory logic.
That being said I tend to skew cynical. Still I'd like to see parts of a mostly-correct predictive model questioned and reevaluated
The theory has been quite shaken up since Darwin, don't worry. This idea that evolutionary biology hasn't moved since Darwin is basically a strawman. Beside, Social Darwinism has little to do with actual Darwinism, and all reasonable biologist would agree it is pure junk.
So is a crucial part of the theory no longer "survival of the fittest?" Because that's straight Malthus. I'm not a biologist, but I study and read and try to pay attention.
Not really, no. In a sense, never has been. "Survival of the fittest" was a poor formula (I remember reading that Darwin was not fond of it at first and used it somewhat reluctantly but I can't remember where), and a very bad summary of the theory of evolution. To start with because the important thing is differential reproduction (with modifications) between individuals, but not survival per se. But also because natural selection is just a part of the modern theory and many others aspects have been added since then (mutations, drift, phenotypic plasticity, environmental inheritance, etc).
So is a crucial part of the theory no longer "survival of the fittest?" Because that's straight Malthus.
In what way is "organisms that increase their reproductive success spread their genetic material more than organisms that don't" Malthusian? Even Peter Kroptkin, the anarcho-communist who literally wrote the Bread Book, used "Survival Of The Fittest" in his writings.
Malthus is wrong for many reasons but the biggest is that humans are not base unconscious animals who rely on genetic variation to influence their behavior. Malthus built his ideas based on uneducated people in a pre-industrial society. But with increasing education and family planning, the exponential growth that Malthus predicted is severely curved. You shouldn't reject parts of evolution because Malthus used them to justify his political theory. You should reject them if they aren't scientifically sound.
You shouldn't reject parts of evolution because Malthus used them to justify his political theory
This is not what I said. I said that, according to David Harvey, Darwin based his theory of evolution on the writings of Malthus. I'm saying that I believe that this has flawed the theory, as it is based partially on a flawed premise. It doesn't make the theory completely unusable, a good, incomplete, flawed theory can still make correct predictions. but in certain circumstances the inherent logic, the way it handles certain questions, it will produce flawed conclusions. This is true for every system of formal logic, it is an inherent contradiction of all logical systems (epistemic crisis and incompleteness.) But to varying degrees, and to what extent, and how it produces these flawed conclusions is important to consider.
The best example I can think of while sitting in my car about to go unload groceries is gynecology. Does it effectively diagnose or treat disease and abnormalities? Yes. Do we have a good enough mastery of human reproduction to alter the likelihood of pregnancy? Also yes. The science is sound. But the practice of gynecology is often needlessly, senselessly painful, almost cruel, even when practiced by conscientious caring doctors. Why? It's because the founder of gynecology made his discoveries by torturing and experimenting on living slave women, without anesthetics, and many parts of that tradition persist. Because they haven't been readdressed or reconsidered. And maybe because it serves some other social purpose as well.
Science often fails as a form of critique and self discovery. So I'm just out here asking questions to improve my own understanding. I'm a little skeptical of your use of the term "scientifically sound." Especially coming from a fellow hexbear who should know about bourgeois scientism.
I see better where your questions are coming from, thank you. I think the fundamental answer to your question then is that while Darwin was inspired by the writings for Malthus, it would be a strong exaggeration to state that it is based on Malthus theory. More precisely, Darwin used the concepts of exponential growth (though he might not have used that term) and ressource limitations, but applied it to wild populations and concluded very different things from Malthus. Basically, the idea is that ressource limitations would exacerbate the differential reproduction between individuals due to their characteristics (which leads to Natural Selection).
Thus, you can perfectly reject the conclusions of Malthus, especially the political side of what he wrote about Human societies, and conserve the Theory of Evolution.
Darwin was clearly a product of the Victorian high society, and this would have influenced quite a lot its way of thinking and the way he framed the theory (this is well-documented), but it does not mean that the theory itself is politically loaded nowadays. It's been quite refined beyond the writings of Darwin, including by people clearly from the left side of the political board (e.g. Haldane).
Thanks for your input! I'll see what I can find on Haldane, that seems like a good place to continue for me
It's because the founder of gynecology made his discoveries by torturing and experimenting on living slave women
Jesus Christ of course it's always something like this, oh we've got to test the birth control pill by dumping it into the water of a colonized population!
Had no idea though
Not a biologist either (and don't mind me butting in) but a lot of social darwinists seem to violently hate sexual selection
What the...
OK. First, nobody "previously thought" that evolution happens at random... Parts of it, yes, sure, like mutations or genetic drift. But selection is not "at random" in any reasonable meaning of the word.
Second, the paper results are basically about how selections shapes the co-occurring of genes within a genome, in the context of e.g. gene transfer. Interesting, yes. Revolutionary, certainly not. Most biologists would have predicted that outcome... Of course, selection is going to constrain the co-occuring of some gene families, why would this be surprising?
Anyway, look into the study, it looks interesting but you can spare reading the article, it does a very bad job (sorry OP) at placing the idea in its scientific context and the authors are not helping with their bragging about "revolutionary" discovery.
