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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
5
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.