"By some estimates, Slovenians are now better off than Britons."
I assume the obsession with the UK has to do with Americans feeling closer to the UK, and having a higher interest in the UK, than many other countries.
I think the idea of the UK being being in some kind of poverty spiral or irreversible decline has no much to go for it. Probably Brexit has been bad for the UK, but even that is mostly reversible.
Two heretical comments that call into question whether population genetics has general utility for explaining adaptive evolution.
First, William Provine came to believe that the population genetics was a mistaken attempt to apply ideas from physics to systems far more complex than those in physics. (Yes, I know that Provine suffered from a brain tumor in his last ten years, but that is not a reason to dismiss entirely his final evaluation of population genetics.) There are many levels of adaptive evolution, from the inter-seasonal bucket-sloshing of James Thompson to the origin of new body plans. Population genetics is only applicable to the lower end of this spectrum. It is likely that adaptive innovation and radiation is explained far more by ecological opportunities than by genetic architectures. That said, population genetics is invaluable for timing evolutionary divergences. More analogous to fingerprint technology than to a theory of the crime.
Second, one may see Dawkins' gene centric view as merely rhetoric built on top of elementary population genetics in order to explain a few behavioral traits found in a few taxa.
Of course, population genetics is a massive theory, but perhaps its attraction mostly lies in its particular utility for telling the story of H. sapiens, a world-traveling quasi-altruist.
"but perhaps its attraction mostly lies in its particular utility for telling the story of H. sapiens"
no, pop gen is mostly really in the service of evolutionary biology today. its origins were in eugenics, at least for fisher in particular. but that's not the interest/focus of modern researchers really.
" Population genetics is only applicable to the lower end of this spectrum."
most ppl reject scale dependence in evolution. do you have evidence? (i found provine's later work hard to decrypt tbh)
Consider three taxa: Enyalius, a genus of 10 morphologically similar lizard species living in forest understories in Brazil; Anolis, a genus 400+ morphologically varied lizard species all over the Neotropics; and the Cetacea which are both diverse and very different from their terrestrial ancestor. All three of these taxa originated in the range of 40-60 million years ago. Morphological diversification in Enyalius was minimal; in Anolis it was modest but clearly present and adapted to the use of different types of foraging perches; in the Cetacea morphological diversification was great and based on novelties not present in the terrestrial ancestor.
Kevin Padian, for the title of a book review (“The Whole Real Guts of Evolution?” Paleobiology 15 (1989):73-78) quotes a comment by Conrad Waddington to the effect that “the whole real guts of evolution – which is, how do you come to have horses, and tigers, and things – are outside the mathematical theory." "Mathematical theory” refers to classical population genetics. Padian says in his article (p. 76):
…macroevolution is, in Waddington’s words, “the whole real guts of evolution."
And such considerations are largely outside the Neodarwinian theory. In other words, population genetics has provided no tools which explain macroevolutionary differences of the sort that I began with. Why was Enyalius bound by stasis while the Cetacea flowered? Ecological explanations are possible, and an as yet undeveloped theory of sequential trait acquisition, possibly based on modeling in "artificial life," could further the study of macroevolution. Certainly, evodevo has provided more explanation than population genetics at this scale.
Regarding the utility of the selfish gene meme, see Agren's book, "The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution."
I don't mean to discourage anyone from learning population genetics, but they should realize that it is not the Rosetta Stone of evolutionary biology.
"other words, population genetics has provided no tools which explain macroevolutionary differences of the sort that I began with."
you are just accepting at face value some arguments from some researchers. it's not a consensus. pop gen has plenty of explanations for 'stasis.' it's called stabilizing selection.
"And such considerations are largely outside the Neodarwinian theory."
no, it's not. padian may think so, and gould and eldridge do, but a lot of evolutionary biologists don't.
"I don't mean to discourage anyone from learning population genetics, but they should realize that it is not the Rosetta Stone of evolutionary biology."
"you are just accepting at face value some arguments from some researchers. it's not a consensus. pop gen has plenty of explanations for 'stasis.' it's called stabilizing selection."
Of course it is not a consensus, but dissatisfaction with the Modern Synthesis is broad, from physiologists like Denis Noble, to system scientists like Stuart Kaufman, to a host of paleontologists, and to lowly evolutionary ecologists like me. Stabilizing selection could probably be demonstrated in a taxon like Enyalius, but even then it is not an explanation; the explanation would have to come from ecological data and experimental performance data on the extant organisms to demonstrate the unlikelihood of directional selection in their ecological setting. If performing differently than Enyalius does now, say in foraging behavior, does not yield more calories with less risk, then stabilizing selection itself would be explained. Otherwise, a population geneticist invoking stabilizing selection (even if demonstrated) to explain stasis is not fully informative.
Re A. M. Leroi, as a scholar he's hardly a peer of people like Noble, Kaufman, Eldredge or Padian, probably not even of me. I think it's interesting that you would cite him. Thanks for the insights you have provided.
Just listened to your Lyman Stone chat. You can talk to anyone RK
Quite entertaining.
I think our host should read this book and then get the author on for a podcast interview - https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Britain-Speak-English-ebook/dp/B0B3KWTSYG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=31T3614QYN2WU&keywords=lambshead+fall+of+roman+britain&qid=1691817908&s=digital-text&sprefix=%2Cdigital-text%2C239&sr=1-1
"By some estimates, Slovenians are now better off than Britons."
I assume the obsession with the UK has to do with Americans feeling closer to the UK, and having a higher interest in the UK, than many other countries.
I think the idea of the UK being being in some kind of poverty spiral or irreversible decline has no much to go for it. Probably Brexit has been bad for the UK, but even that is mostly reversible.
https://www.mangosorbananas.com/p/is-albion-sinking
Two heretical comments that call into question whether population genetics has general utility for explaining adaptive evolution.
First, William Provine came to believe that the population genetics was a mistaken attempt to apply ideas from physics to systems far more complex than those in physics. (Yes, I know that Provine suffered from a brain tumor in his last ten years, but that is not a reason to dismiss entirely his final evaluation of population genetics.) There are many levels of adaptive evolution, from the inter-seasonal bucket-sloshing of James Thompson to the origin of new body plans. Population genetics is only applicable to the lower end of this spectrum. It is likely that adaptive innovation and radiation is explained far more by ecological opportunities than by genetic architectures. That said, population genetics is invaluable for timing evolutionary divergences. More analogous to fingerprint technology than to a theory of the crime.
Second, one may see Dawkins' gene centric view as merely rhetoric built on top of elementary population genetics in order to explain a few behavioral traits found in a few taxa.
Of course, population genetics is a massive theory, but perhaps its attraction mostly lies in its particular utility for telling the story of H. sapiens, a world-traveling quasi-altruist.
"but perhaps its attraction mostly lies in its particular utility for telling the story of H. sapiens"
no, pop gen is mostly really in the service of evolutionary biology today. its origins were in eugenics, at least for fisher in particular. but that's not the interest/focus of modern researchers really.
" Population genetics is only applicable to the lower end of this spectrum."
most ppl reject scale dependence in evolution. do you have evidence? (i found provine's later work hard to decrypt tbh)
Consider three taxa: Enyalius, a genus of 10 morphologically similar lizard species living in forest understories in Brazil; Anolis, a genus 400+ morphologically varied lizard species all over the Neotropics; and the Cetacea which are both diverse and very different from their terrestrial ancestor. All three of these taxa originated in the range of 40-60 million years ago. Morphological diversification in Enyalius was minimal; in Anolis it was modest but clearly present and adapted to the use of different types of foraging perches; in the Cetacea morphological diversification was great and based on novelties not present in the terrestrial ancestor.
Kevin Padian, for the title of a book review (“The Whole Real Guts of Evolution?” Paleobiology 15 (1989):73-78) quotes a comment by Conrad Waddington to the effect that “the whole real guts of evolution – which is, how do you come to have horses, and tigers, and things – are outside the mathematical theory." "Mathematical theory” refers to classical population genetics. Padian says in his article (p. 76):
…macroevolution is, in Waddington’s words, “the whole real guts of evolution."
And such considerations are largely outside the Neodarwinian theory. In other words, population genetics has provided no tools which explain macroevolutionary differences of the sort that I began with. Why was Enyalius bound by stasis while the Cetacea flowered? Ecological explanations are possible, and an as yet undeveloped theory of sequential trait acquisition, possibly based on modeling in "artificial life," could further the study of macroevolution. Certainly, evodevo has provided more explanation than population genetics at this scale.
Regarding the utility of the selfish gene meme, see Agren's book, "The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution."
I don't mean to discourage anyone from learning population genetics, but they should realize that it is not the Rosetta Stone of evolutionary biology.
"other words, population genetics has provided no tools which explain macroevolutionary differences of the sort that I began with."
you are just accepting at face value some arguments from some researchers. it's not a consensus. pop gen has plenty of explanations for 'stasis.' it's called stabilizing selection.
"And such considerations are largely outside the Neodarwinian theory."
no, it's not. padian may think so, and gould and eldridge do, but a lot of evolutionary biologists don't.
"I don't mean to discourage anyone from learning population genetics, but they should realize that it is not the Rosetta Stone of evolutionary biology."
according to some people, yes. but i don't personally really agree... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11258392/
"you are just accepting at face value some arguments from some researchers. it's not a consensus. pop gen has plenty of explanations for 'stasis.' it's called stabilizing selection."
Of course it is not a consensus, but dissatisfaction with the Modern Synthesis is broad, from physiologists like Denis Noble, to system scientists like Stuart Kaufman, to a host of paleontologists, and to lowly evolutionary ecologists like me. Stabilizing selection could probably be demonstrated in a taxon like Enyalius, but even then it is not an explanation; the explanation would have to come from ecological data and experimental performance data on the extant organisms to demonstrate the unlikelihood of directional selection in their ecological setting. If performing differently than Enyalius does now, say in foraging behavior, does not yield more calories with less risk, then stabilizing selection itself would be explained. Otherwise, a population geneticist invoking stabilizing selection (even if demonstrated) to explain stasis is not fully informative.
Re A. M. Leroi, as a scholar he's hardly a peer of people like Noble, Kaufman, Eldredge or Padian, probably not even of me. I think it's interesting that you would cite him. Thanks for the insights you have provided.
A striking likeness!