Comments on: Nothing in evolution makes sense except in light of population genetics

By: thinkevolution.net » Blog Archive » Opening of unnatural history museum

Thu, 24 May 2007 19:12:35 +0000

[…] of natural selection. But that’s a problem in its own right, addressed in my most recent post about Michael Lynch’s recent PNAS paper. Lynch explains that biologists too often attribute […]

By: Dan Gaston

Dan Gaston — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:12:20 +0000

My own personal view is that invoking evolution itself in the explanation isn’t the problem, but invoking adaptation specifically is often overused. Perhaps my own perspective is a bit biased, since I deal with Molecular Evolution and put a great deal of weight on Neutral and Nearly Neutral changes as well as ones that offer a selective advantage. This parallels population genetics where Neutral Drift acts most strongly on Neutral mutations because it removes selection from the equation.

By: Laelaps

Laelaps — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:42:08 +0000

Great insights. My personal pet peeve when it comes to “adaptation” comes into play when people misuse the term. There’s plenty of talk, especially in popular articles, about organisms “adapting to their environment,” but to me it sounds like the creature in question is thinking “Ok, I live on a lake shore, so I should probably evolve structures to help me make the best of it.” Obviously we know this is not the case, but I tire of hearing the same implication being spat up by professors and popular science writers.

By: RPM

RPM — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:45:06 +0000

Instead, I’m frustrated with and critical of the overuse of evolutionary explanations where they don’t belong.

Along the same lines as what the previous two commenters wrote: it’s not evolutionary explanations that are a problem, but adaptationist explanations. Lynch also published a version of this thesis in MBE about a year ago, and I’m pretty sure he also brings it up in his new book (which I have not read).

I’m not sure if this was intentional or not, but your blog post title is actually Lynch’s motto for his lab’s research. He includes it in his talks and I think it’s also on his lab webpage (did he include it in the article too?).

Also, you need to post a sitefeed for you blog. I’ve visited a couple of times via various links, and I always look for a feed to add to my newsreader . . . but I can’t find one!!

By: ABP

ABP — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:52:30 +0000

Indeed, totally intentional. Lynch uses this phrase as a section heading in the paper. And just a few minutes ago my copy of The Origins of Genome Architecture, Lynch’s new book, was delivered to the lab. When I get around to reading it hopefully I’ll be able to post some more thoughts on this.

Thanks much for the heads up on a sitefeed. I still have no idea what I’m doing with this blogging stuff but adding a sitefeed sounds like a straightforward task that I should be able to handle. If any of you other grad student evolutionary bloggers visit this thread again:

Anyone going to the European evolution meeting in August? That’s my next meeting, would be nice to meet some of you all…

By: Chris Harrison

Chris Harrison — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:51:07 +0000

Very nice post. I read Lynch’s paper last night, and I think you did a great job with your summarization. I’m a first time visitor, but I don’t need a sitefeed to remember to come back!

By: CCP

CCP — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:26:29 +0000

We who study organisms as opposed to genes, molecules, or mathematical models do not doubt the reality of adaptation. The concept may well be overused, or used in poorly supported contexts, but please let’s keep the baby.

By: DGS

DGS — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:10:51 +0000

CCP writes: We who study organisms as opposed to genes, molecules, or mathematical models do not doubt the reality of adaptation. The concept may well be overused, or used in poorly supported contexts, but please let’s keep the baby. Lynch is an old-school organismal biologist. Reems and reems of Daphnia studies, and his lab hosts the Daphnia stock center. Lynch doesn't doubt the reality of natural selection, if you read any of his work (the quant gen book, for example) he gives plenty of machinery for studying just that. It's just that there are four forces at work, and he focuses on the other three.

By: Shoa Clarke

Shoa Clarke — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:46:41 +0000

I have read the paper and I’ve heard Michael Lynch talk on the subject. Indeed, he is a bit “scathing.” While he brings up some very poignant and important points, he is a bit self righteous, and at times, he just seems like he’s starving for attention. In the paper, Lynch presents a number of “myths” which he dispels. While some of the myths are clearly blatant falsehoods (”Evolution is natural selection”) which certainly should be set straight, others are not really “myths” but simply ideas (”Natural selection promotes the ability to evolve”) which have neither been proven nor disproven. Moreover, in the process of presenting these myths which he claims we (other biologists, the public, etc) should question, he presents some of his own ideas, which are often equally questionable.