scholarly journals Nowe idee w biologii ewolucyjnej: od NDMS do EES

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 415-440
Author(s):  
Sy Garte
Keyword(s):  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Nowoczesna synteza neodarwinowska (NDMS — neo-Darwinian modern synthesis) przez kilkadziesiąt lat stanowiła podstawę teorii ewolucji. Okazało się jednak, że NDMS ma swoje ograniczenia, a jej ustalenia są nieaktualne w odniesieniu do różnych obszarów badań biologicznych. Nowa, rozszerzona synteza ewolucyjna (EES — extended evolutionary synthesis), uwzględniająca bardziej złożone interakcje między genomami, komórkami a środowiskiem, umożliwia ponowną ocenę wielu założeń NDMS. Do standardowego paradygmatu zakładającego, że głównym mechanizmem zmienności biologicznej jest powolna kumulacja losowych mutacji punktowych, należy teraz dołączyć nowe dane oraz koncepcje symbiozy, duplikacji genu, horyzontalnego transferu genów, retrotranspozycji, epigenetycznych sieci kontrolnych, tworzenia nisz, mutacji warunkowanych środowiskowo i wielkoskalowej reinżynierii genomu w odpowiedzi na bodźce środowiskowe. Otwarcie myśli ewolucjonistycznej na szersze i bardziej ekscytujące spojrzenie na wielką teorię Darwina może nieść konsekwencje dla wiary chrześcijańskiej.

scholarly journals Between Teleophilia and Teleophobia

Biosemiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Schaetzle ◽  
Yogi Hendlin
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Biology ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Theory Building ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Processes ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Multi Level

AbstractDenis Noble convincingly describes the artifacts of theory building in the Modern Synthesis as having been surpassed by the available evidence, indicating more active and less gene-centric evolutionary processes than previously thought. We diagnosis the failure of theory holders to dutifully update their beliefs according to new findings as a microcosm of the prevailing larger social inability to deal with competing paradigms. For understanding life, Noble suggests that there is no privileged level of semiotic interpretation. Understanding multi-level semiosis along with organism and environment contrapunctally, according to Jakob von Uexküll’s theoretical biology, can contribute to the emerging extended evolutionary synthesis.

How Individualized Niches Arise: Mechanisms of Niche Construction, Niche Choice, and Niche Conformance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rose Trappes ◽  
Behzad Nematipour ◽  
Marie I. Kaiser ◽  
Ulrich Krohs ◽  
Koen J. van Benthem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Narrow Sense ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Individual Level

The debate between the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) and the modern synthesis (MS) partly relies on different interpretations of niche construction. We dissect the umbrella term of niche construction into three separate mechanisms: niche construction (taken in a narrow sense), in which individuals make changes to the environment; niche choice, in which individuals select an environment; and niche conformance, in which individuals change their phenotypes. Each of these individual-level mechanisms affects an individual’s phenotype-environment match, its fitness, and its individualized niche, defined in terms of the environmental conditions under which an individual can survive and reproduce. Our conceptual framework distinguishes several ways in which individuals alter the selective regimes that they and other organisms experience. It also places clear emphasis on individual differences and construes niche construction and other processes as evolved mechanisms. We therefore argue that our framework helps to resolve the tensions between EES and MS.

scholarly journals The Information Continuum Hypothesis of Evolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasmus Skern-Mauritzen ◽  
Thomas Nygaard Mikkelsen
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Continuum Hypothesis ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Epigenetic Markers ◽  
Epigenetic Information ◽  
The Devil

Life is information dancing through time, embedded in matter and shaped by natural selection. Few biologists or philosophers concerned with evolution would object to this description. This apparent accord could be taken to indicate universal agreement on the forces shaping evolution; but the devil is in the details and disagreement is apparent if one looks behind the curtain. The decade strong prevalent paradigm of the Modern Synthesis holds the position that evolution happens by random changes and natural selection acting on genomic inheritance. But there is a new kid on the block; the proponents of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis argue that inheritance is more than genomes and includes epigenetic information, niche constructs (ranging from the meerkats dens to humans railroads) and culture among other factors – and that these factors are both inheritance and a force shaping evolution. Here we introduce The Information Continuum Hypothesis of Evolution; a conceptual framework that focus on the inherited information rather than the diverse representations this inherited information may have (DNA, RNA, epigenetic markers, proteins, culture etc.). As a tool we introduce the concept “hereditome” to describe the combined inherited representations of information. We believe this framework may help bridge the apparent gap between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.

scholarly journals El ideal de unificación en biología: el caso de la síntesis evolutiva extendida

2019 ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Susana Gisela Lamas
Keyword(s):  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Epistemic Value ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Theoretical Unification ◽  
Externalist Approach

In this article I will analyze whether the so-called Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a synthesis and an extension with respect to its predecessor, Modern Synthesis (MS). It will be argued that the MS proposes an externalist approach to evolution while the EES considers it necessary to overcome the internalism/externalism dichotomy by proposing more integrative approaches. It will be concluded that the EES cannot be considered an extension of MS and that the appeal to that extension is related to sociological aspects and the epistemic value of theoretical unification that was always present in biological evolutionary thinking.

scholarly journals Plant Evolutionary Ecology in the Age of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E Olson
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Ecology ◽  
Plant Ecology ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Synthesis ◽  
As Stress ◽  
Plant Ecological

AbstractPlant ecology is increasingly turning to evolutionary questions, just as evolutionary biology pushes out of the strictures of the Modern Synthesis into what some regard as an “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.” As plant ecology becomes increasingly evolutionary, it is essential to ask how aspects of the Extended Synthesis might impinge on plant ecological theory and practice. I examine the contribution of plant evolutionary ecology to niche construction theory, as well as the potential for developmental systems theory and genes-as-followers adaptive evolution, all important post-Modern Synthesis themes, in providing novel perspectives for plant evolutionary ecology. I also examine ways that overcoming dichotomies such as “genetic vs. plastic” and “constraint vs. adaptation” provide fertile opportunities for plant evolutionary ecologists. Along the same lines, outgrowing vague concepts such as “stress” and replacing them with more precise terminology in all cases provides vastly increased causal clarity. As a result, the synthetic path that plant ecologists are blazing, becoming more evolutionary every year, bodes extremely well for the field, with vast potential for expansion into important scientific territory.

scholarly journals Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Gecow
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Change ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Coherent System ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
System A ◽  
Evolutionary Changes ◽  
Small Base ◽  
Inheritance Of Acquired Characters ◽  
Acquired Characters

The article points out the main obstacles in the discussion of Lamarckian mechanisms, resulting from overly persisted beliefs, habits and understatement. The aim of the article is not to show new biological observation, but to indicate the need to change methodology. ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are those that create ‘non-random’ changes (in the aspect of adaptation), and even ‘resulting from instruction’, and these changes become evolutionary. It is part of ‘developmental biases’. To avoid widespread prejudices a permanent stress is needed that such ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are an effect of Darwinian mechanisms but this stress is not enough visible. The term ‘Lamarckism’ has two meanings unreasonably connected. The correct meaning is, that adaptive evolutionary changes can be induced by environment and next they are inherited, but typically it is understood as irrational believing that evolutionary changes are adaptive without necessity of help of Darwinian mechanisms. In this case the terms ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ and ‘Lamarckism’ are not coherent which leads to misunderstanding. Such irrational Lamarckism has small base in Lamarck’s view, it arisen from too shallow interpretation of Lamarck. In the theme ‘inheritance of acquired characters’ a few steps to evolutionary change is indicated, which typically are omitted in the description. Old such descriptions need rebuilding in a new coherent system of notions but to create such system a theory is necessary. The Lamarckian dimension of evolution protrudes beyond the basics of Modern Synthesis however necessity to change the name of the synthesis to Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is discretionary decision. It would be obligatory, when the Modern Synthesis will be treated as typical theory derived from specified assumptions when its assumptions are extended. The article points to the growing need to pay more attention to the precision of definition, specification of assumptions and abstract inference, as deficiencies in these areas are the main cause of misunderstanding and a brake on progress. Unfortunately, they are not appreciated in biology, and even ‘speculations’ are considered undesirable.

Introduction: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis M. Walsh ◽  
Philippe Huneman
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Cell Biology ◽  
Population Change ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Comparative Biology ◽  
Darwinian Theory ◽  
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

The modern evolutionary synthesis arose out of the conjunction of the Mendelian theory of inheritance and the neo-Darwinian theory of population change early in the 20th century.1 In the nearly 100 years since its inception, the modern evolutionary synthesis has grown to encompass practically all fields of comparative biology—ecology, ethology, paleontology, systematics, cell biology, physiology, genetics, development. Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum—“nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (...

Why Would We Call for a New Evolutionary Synthesis?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Huneman
Keyword(s):  
Genotypic Variation ◽  
Modern Synthesis ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Alternative Scheme ◽  
Random Nature

Considering challenges to the modern synthesis (MS), this chapter reconstructs an explanatory scheme proper to the MS. It contrasts it with the explanatory scheme proper to some alternatives to the MS. It considers which empirical facts should compel us to adopt the alternative scheme, or stand with the MS, or consider a weakly attenuated form of its explanatory scheme. Hence the last section focuses on the form of variation: Given that many findings are accumulating concerning the not purely random nature of variation, it asks which specific patterns of variation would be likely to support an alternative explanatory scheme. It argues that neither biased variation nor random genotypic variation is likely to vindicate a specific explanatory scheme.

scholarly journals Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 20160145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Futuyma
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Epigenetic Inheritance ◽  
Reaction Norm ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Synthesis ◽  
Proximate Causation

Evolutionary theory has been extended almost continually since the evolutionary synthesis (ES), but except for the much greater importance afforded genetic drift, the principal tenets of the ES have been strongly supported. Adaptations are attributable to the sorting of genetic variation by natural selection, which remains the only known cause of increase in fitness. Mutations are not adaptively directed, but as principal authors of the ES recognized, the material (structural) bases of biochemistry and development affect the variety of phenotypic variations that arise by mutation and recombination. Against this historical background, I analyse major propositions in the movement for an ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’. ‘Niche construction' is a new label for a wide variety of well-known phenomena, many of which have been extensively studied, but (as with every topic in evolutionary biology) some aspects may have been understudied. There is no reason to consider it a neglected ‘process’ of evolution. The proposition that phenotypic plasticity may engender new adaptive phenotypes that are later genetically assimilated or accommodated is theoretically plausible; it may be most likely when the new phenotype is not truly novel, but is instead a slight extension of a reaction norm already shaped by natural selection in similar environments. However, evolution in new environments often compensates for maladaptive plastic phenotypic responses. The union of population genetic theory with mechanistic understanding of developmental processes enables more complete understanding by joining ultimate and proximate causation; but the latter does not replace or invalidate the former. Newly discovered molecular phenomena have been easily accommodated in the past by elaborating orthodox evolutionary theory, and it appears that the same holds today for phenomena such as epigenetic inheritance. In several of these areas, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate enthusiastic speculation. Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document