"Evolvability" challenges NeoDarwinism

-


Article: Exploring the Expanse Between Theoretical Questions and Experimental Approaches in the Modern Study of Evolvability" by Jeremy A. Draghi.

Evolvability is the ability of a population to evolve new traits and adaptations. It is a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology, but it has been difficult to study empirically. This is because evolvability is a complex property that is influenced by many factors, including the genetic variation of a population, the environmental conditions in which it lives, and the nature of the evolutionary challenges it faces.

Despite these challenges, there has been significant progress in the study of evolvability in recent years. This progress has been driven by advances in both theoretical and experimental approaches. On the theoretical side, researchers have developed new models and frameworks for understanding the factors that influence evolvability. On the experimental side, researchers have developed new techniques for measuring evolvability in laboratory experiments.

One of the most important insights from the modern study of evolvability is that it is not a single, monolithic property like neo darwinism. Instead, evolvability is a multi-dimensional trait that can vary in different ways. For example, a population may be evolvable for one trait but not for another. NeoDarwinism has troubles explaining this. Additionally, evolvability can vary over time and in response to different environmental conditions.

Another important insight from the modern study of evolvability is that it is not simply a product of natural selection. Other factors, such as epigenetics, genetic variation, biased mutation rates, and recombination rates, also play important roles.

The modern study of evolvability challenges many of the other core assumptions of neodarwinism. 

One challenge that the study of evolvability poses to neo darwinism is the concept of genetic constraints. Genetic constraints are factors that limit the range of possible evolutionary changes. These constraints can be imposed by the structure of the genome, by the developmental process, or by the environment. The study of evolvability has shown that genetic constraints can have a significant impact on the direction of evolution. NeoDarwinism on the other hand has no directionality.

Evolution is not simply a gradual process that occurs through the accumulation of small, incremental changes as with neodarwinism. Instead, it is a multi-dimensional trait that can vary in different ways. For example, a population may be evolvable for one trait but not for another. Additionally, evolvability can vary over time and in response to different environmental conditions.

Here are 10 ways evolvability is challenging the core assumptions of neo-Darwinism:

  1. Evolvability is not random. Neo-Darwinism assumes that mutations are random, but evolvability research shows that mutations are biased towards certain directions. This suggests that evolution is not simply a matter of chance, but is also guided by internal factors eg GC bias.

  2. Evolvability is not gradual. Neo-Darwinism assumes that evolution occurs through the gradual accumulation of small changes. However, evolvability research shows that evolution can also occur through sudden, large changes. This is known as punctuated equilibrium.

  3. Evolvability can be Lamarckian. Neo-Darwinism rejects Lamarck's idea of inherited acquired characteristics. However, evolvability research shows that some acquired characteristics can be inherited, through Lamarkian mechanisms such as epigenetic inheritance.

  4. Evolvability is not limited to natural selection. Neo-Darwinism assumes that natural selection is the primary driver of evolution. However, evolvability research shows that other factors, such as epigenetics, drift and developmental constraints, can also play a role.

  5. Evolvability is not limited to adaptation. Neo-Darwinism assumes that evolution is all about adaptation to the environment. However, evolvability research shows that evolution can also occur through neutral drift and other non-adaptive processes.

  6. Evolvability is not a fixed property of species. Neo-Darwinism assumes that evolvability is a constant property of species. However, evolvability research shows that evolvability can vary within and between species, and can even change over time.

  7. Evolvability can be affected by the environment. Neo-Darwinism assumes that the environment only plays a role in evolution by selecting for or against existing traits. However, evolvability research shows that the environment can also affect evolvability itself.

  8. Evolvability can be affected by development. Neo-Darwinism assumes that evolution and development are two separate processes. However, evolvability research shows that development can play a role in evolution, and that evolution can also affect development.

  9. Evolvability is essential for complex adaptations. Neo-Darwinism has difficulty explaining the evolution of complex adaptations, such as the eye. However, evolvability research shows that evolvability can play a key role in the evolution of complex adaptations.

  10. Evolvability is essential for diversity. Neo-Darwinism has difficulty explaining the diversity of life on Earth. However, evolvability research shows that evolvability can play a key role in generating and maintaining diversity.

Overall, evolvability research is challenging many of the core assumptions of neo-Darwinism. This is leading to a new synthesis of evolutionary theory, which is more complex and nuanced than the traditional neo-Darwinian view.

It is important to note that evolvability research is still a young field, and there is still much to learn. However, the progress that has been made in recent years has been significant, and it is clear that evolvability plays a fundamental role in evolution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No, the EES is not just a add on to Neo-Darwinism aka the Modern Synthesis

-
Image
" The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis fthe theory of evolution) are, if not outright overturned replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (EES). So, not to mince words , the Modern Synthesis is gone" -Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist (Cited by over 270,000 evolutionary scientists.) The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a significant departure from the traditional neo-Darwinian framework, also known as the Modern Synthesis . While both theories aim to explain evolutionary change, they differ fundamentally in their underlying mechanisms and the roles they assign to various biological processes. A crucial point of divergence lies in the interpretation and application of the term " evolutionary ," particularly concerning the incorporation of epigenetic mechanisms....
Read more

Is the random mutational model of evolution on its way out?

-
Image
While the random mutational model of evolution has long been a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the study of epigenetics are challenging its core assumptions. The Random Mutational Model and Its Limitations The traditional view of evolution, often called the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism , emphasizes random genetic mutations as the primary source of variation. Natural selection then acts upon this variation, favoring individuals with advantageous traits. This model has been successful in explaining some evolutionary phenomena, but it also has limitations: It struggles to explain complex adaptations: The idea that complex features like the eye or the immune system arose solely through random mutations seems statistically improbable. It overlooks the role of the environment: The traditional model treats the environment as a selective force, but it doesn't fully consider how organisms can actively respond to and s...
Read more

ERVs and Common Descent: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Findings

-
Image
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have long been considered strong evidence for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees. These remnants of ancient viral infections, embedded in the genomes of both species, were once thought to be non-functional "junk DNA." The premise was that the shared presence of these seemingly random insertions in corresponding genomic locations could best be explained by a shared evolutionary history. However, recent research, such as the "Switching Sides" article published in May 2021, has challenged this assumption by demonstrating that ERVs play a functional role in the development of the human embryo and immune system. This discovery raises questions about the validity of using ERVs as primary evidence for common descent. The Traditional Argument for Common Descent The traditional argument for common descent based on ERVs rests on the following points: Random Insertion: Retroviral insertions are thought to occur randomly in...
Read more