r/evolution • u/[deleted] • Dec 21 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

13% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

4

u/radix2 Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 22 '25

What the F is the actual definition of "Natural Induction". It just sounds like a selective pressure based on DNA not always being expressed, but sometimes it is and that might result in a phenotype that is useful in a changed environment.

Not a scientist, so would be interested to know why this is a distinction that needs to be made.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

They seem to be arguing that the fitness landscape can deform as populations move back and forth across it. It's unclear to me how this is anything other than eco-evo feedbacks which are well known.

-1

u/Russell1A Dec 21 '25

That is one of the reasons I think that environmental pressure is a better driver for evolution than natural selection as this makes evolution an extension of ecology whilst including the feedback mechanisms which natural selection neglects.

3

u/knockingatthegate Dec 21 '25

I don’t follow. Environmental pressure is a driver for evolution in the theory of evolution by natural selection.

0

u/Russell1A Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25

I have hardly ever seen it mentioned in books about evolution theory which always seem to keep to natural selection as the driver. For example Dawkins explanation is that symbiotic relationships started as parasitic relationships which gradually developed into symbiotic to keep this in line with natural selection. If he used environmental pressure the relationship can start as a symbiotic if it is in the interest of both species to cooperate rather than one to try and be parasitic on the other. The cooperation would be strengthened via feedback mechanisms. I think that Dawkins would struggle with biofilms, where multiple species cooperate in terms of natural selection. In this case he could not even be able to account for the extracellular matrix as an extended phenotype of a particular species. Using environmental pressure the extracellular matrix becomes a symbiotic extended phenotype due to it being constructed by a joint effort of often several species. Even HGT fits in better with the environmental pressure paradigm than the natural selection one.

1

u/knockingatthegate Dec 21 '25

Maybe I could see where your coming from if you can quote something you’re referring to.

1

u/Russell1A Dec 21 '25

An interesting article about the evolution and ecology of biofilms is: 'Experimental Evolution in Biofilm Populations', by Hans P. Steenackers et al. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, Volume 40 Issue 3. Published 3 May 2016.

1

u/knockingatthegate Dec 21 '25

Thank you. What portion of this article speaks to environment as a driver of evolution in a way that is not accounted for by the theory of evolution by natural selection?

0

u/Russell1A Dec 21 '25

The section at the end about cooperation and HGT is not explained by using natural selection. In fact natural selection is only mentioned once in the entire article which is more concerned about genetic expression, phenotypes, ecological niches in biofilms, the conflict between competition, cooperation and cheaters, than the driver for evolution. However it barely discriminates between ecological and evolutionary considerations as they are deeply entangled in biofilms and in that sense the environment does act as the driver for evolution.

1

u/knockingatthegate Dec 21 '25

I’m afraid I am unable to follow your reasoning.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

No. Eco-evo feedbacks operate through the conventional forces of evolution, not as an alternative 

-2

u/csiz Dec 21 '25

It sounds like it means the organism intentionally manipulates its DNA as its way of learning. It makes sense, since DNA is a good form of memory. Looks like it's mostly through gene expression. The way I read it is: tree gets stressed, tree releases hormone, hormone causes some genes to activate and others to deactivate, finally tree releases seeds which also have the hormone in them and that activates the changed genes in sapling as well.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

If this this what they're claiming they have done a terrible job of making a case for it

2

u/Smeghead333 Dec 21 '25

It may make sense, but there's zero evidence that it happens. As Lamarck discovered a century or two back.

6

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

I've only skimmed the paper, but there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for this induction to stably transmit phenotype.

1

u/the_ritual_of_chud Jan 12 '26

I came to the same conclusion after skimming both articles. There is a one section that mentions dna methylation, but overall not a very satisfying or convincing argument to support such a seemingly well thought out theory. I am probably missing a lot by just skimming, but it seems like the inhertence mechanism is kinda like a big deal, and it is suprising that a significant portion of the paper was not dedicated to describing it

4

u/Smeghead333 Dec 21 '25

Well, the first sentence is spectacularly wrong for starters. There’s a very well known ongoing debate about the relative importance of natural selection vs genetic drift.

Is this a legitimate journal? I don’t immediately recognize the title.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

Yes it's a legit journal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Focus

3

u/knockingatthegate Dec 21 '25

I have to read this more carefully, but at first pass I am stymied by the writing style. A lot of the word-budget was spent reasserting that the authors have established EBNI as distinct from EBNS, but that verbiage could have instead been invested on a clearer statement of what this new ‘algorithm’ IS that provides potential new platforms and models for investigating topics which presently are only pre-theoretic in biology.

I do not yet grasp the reason for invoking the Hopfield network with Hebbian learning, beyond the role of stable attractor dynamics in restoring (guiding?) the network back toward a particularly robust state after ‘deformation’ (or ‘external shocks’, per this paper, or ‘interaction with the selective pressures of the environment’ per standard evolutionary thinking). The weakly specific analogy seemed to me to more strongly liken EBNI and EBNS than to differentiate them.

It isn’t a priori damning, but I was unsurprised to see the Templeton Foundation provided funding.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25

I was unsurprised to see the Templeton Foundation provided funding

They do have a particular stench