Incommensurability of the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis


The article "Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Controversy" states that evolutionary biologists today debate whether it is convenient to revise the standard theory of evolution, or if an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is necessary. The conceptual relationship between the standard theory of evolution (also known as the Modern Synthesis) and a putative EES is not clear.

One concept in philosophy of science that has traditionally been put in place to make sense of the conceptual relationship between competing theories or frameworks is that of Kuhnian incommensurability. Kuhn argued that incommensurability arises when two theories have different conceptual frameworks, such that it is not possible to translate one theory into the other without loss of meaning.

In a book chapter, Massimo Pigliucci argued that the Modern Synthesis and the EES are not incommensurable frameworks and that their relationship is best understood as a business-as-usual extension of our current knowledge about evolution. However, while valuable, we believe that Pigliucci's analysis is limited in several respects.

First, Pigliucci does not adequately address the issue of conceptual change. He simply assumes that the EES is a straightforward extension of the Modern Synthesis, but this assumption is not justified. The EES introduces a number of new concepts and principles, such as niche construction, evolvability, and genetic assimilation, that are not part of the Modern Synthesis.

Second, Pigliucci does not consider the possibility that the EES may lead to different predictions than the Modern Synthesis. For example, the EES suggests that niche construction may play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. This could lead to different predictions about the distribution of traits in nature.

Third, Pigliucci does not address the issue of how the EES would be evaluated. If the EES is incommensurable with the Modern Synthesis, then it is not clear how we would go about evaluating it. We would not be able to use the same standards of evidence that we use to evaluate the Modern Synthesis.

In conclusion, we believe that Pigliucci's analysis of incommensurability between the Modern Synthesis and the EES is limited in several respects. We argue that there are compelling reasons to think that both frameworks are incommensurable, thereby leaving the door open for future philosophical explorations.

The concept of incommensurability was introduced by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued that scientific theories are not simply collections of statements that can be compared and contrasted on the basis of their empirical content. Rather, theories are also frameworks that provide scientists with a way of seeing the world, and these frameworks can be incommensurable with each other.

Incommensurability has been a controversial concept in the philosophy of science, but it has also been applied to the study of evolutionary biology. One of the most interesting cases of incommensurability in evolutionary biology is the debate between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.

The Modern Synthesis is the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was developed in the 1930s and 1940s, and it is based on the idea that evolution is driven by natural selection. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is a more recent development, and it argues that the Modern Synthesis needs to be expanded to include other factors, such as developmental biology, ecology, and genetics.

Some philosophers of science have argued that the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis are incommensurable. They argue that the two theories use different concepts, have different aims, and employ different methods. This makes it difficult to compare the two theories on a rational basis.

Here are some of the key points to consider when thinking about incommensurability in evolutionary biology:

  • Incommensurability is a complex concept with a long history in the philosophy of science.

  • The concept of incommensurability has been applied to the study of evolutionary biology, particularly the debate between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.

  • The debate over the incommensurability of the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is ongoing however the EES is in the lead.

The Modern Synthesis is a well-established theory of evolution that integrates Mendelian genetics with Darwinian natural selection. It is a powerful framework for understanding how evolution works, but it does not account for all of the factors that can influence the evolution of a species.

Epigenetics is a field of study that examines how environmental factors can influence gene expression without changing the underlying DNA sequence. This means that epigenetic changes can be inherited by offspring, even if the environment that caused the change is no longer present.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is a newer theory of evolution that incorporates epigenetics and other factors. The EES argues that epigenetic changes can play a significant role in evolution, and that they can be passed down to offspring.

There is strong evidence to support the idea that epigenetics can influence evolution. For example, studies have shown that epigenetic changes can affect the susceptibility of plants to pests, and the ability of animals to survive in harsh environments.

In conclusion, epigenetics and the EES provides a better explanation for evolution than the Modern Synthesis.

Here are some of the ways in which epigenetics and the EES could explain evolution better than the Modern Synthesis:

  • Epigenetic changes can be inherited by offspring, even if the environment that caused the change is no longer present. This means that epigenetic changes can accumulate over generations, and could lead to the evolution of new traits.

  • Epigenetic changes can be influenced by the environment, which means that they could be a mechanism for adaptation to changing environments.

  • Epigenetic changes can affect the expression of genes, which could lead to changes in the phenotype of an organism. This could have a significant impact on the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce, and could therefore lead to evolution.

Overall, epigenetics and the EES provide a more complex and nuanced understanding of evolution than the Modern Synthesis. They suggest that the environment can play a more direct role in evolution, and that epigenetic changes can be a powerful mechanism for adaptation. More research is needed to confirm these hypotheses, but they have the potential to revolutionize our understanding of how evolution works.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more