Gene Organism and Environment
The standard metaphors used to describe DNA and development are examined, including the claim that DNA “makes” protein, that DNA is “self-replicating” and the organisms “adapt” to their environments. In this lecture by distinguished evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, he explains that DNA is manufactured by the cell machinery, that proteins are folded by rules that are not related to DNA sequence and that organisms, rather than adapting to their environment, are actively engaging in constructing their own environments, so that organisms and environments co-evolve. Series: “UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures” [2/2004] [Science] [Show ID: 8393]
Video Rating: 4 / 5
I’ll talk with you some more later . You seem like your worth debating. Fun!
Well then, I guess you agree with me that concepts are more important than words. As I recall Sapir supported the idea that words influence ideas. Not the other way around.
Go back and read the comments. And why are you discussing cybernetics now? We were talking about why I think adaptation is still a relevant topic.
That’d be a dumb debate since theres weak evidence at best for sapir whorff.
I think you forgot what point you were defending. It was me who was defending “adaptation.” It is you supporting Lewontin and his “construction” theory. If you go back and read the thread, you will see I said repeatedly adaptation and construction GO TOGETHER , but makes no sense to quibble with these words without some form of serious study which leads to a conceptual understanding that goes beyond words. If you want to debate what comes first, “words” or “concepts” I will be glad to do so.
Your question is irrelevant. We have discussed the specific issues already. You said you think adaptation is wrong, I said I think it makes no sense without the recognition that “the environment” which, is predominantly the biosphere, is habitable due to the ongoing ecological and metabolic interactions that sustain it / create it.
Concepts are developed by experimental study and observation, then placed into words. Thats how its done.
(I changed this comment by replacing the word “relay” with “developed” , got excited!)
(cont.) Division, since you say “words view is bullshit” than do you really believe words are more important than concepts ? Perhaps you need to start over.
“ecological evolutionary developmental systems”….sorry pal, your not impressing anyone here. Let me ask you something, is there anything you disagree with Lewontin about, or are you just a follower?
Concepts are conveyed in large part by language when I last checked.
You have to understand, Lewontin sets himself apart via his individualistic approach. Thats how you get people to listen to you. Nothing wrong with that. But to understand evolution fully you have to read the subject. The “new words” or old words won’t help you. Labels will do nothing.
moot convo.
The only words view is bullshit.
He is giving you concepts from ecological evolutionary developmental systems theory which you will not find in a lot of college books on biology or evolution.
Forget about the “new words.” You seem to understand the basic concept. If you want to understand more read some university books on the subject of biology and evolution. New words won’t help you…they are just that… only words.
qigong, he make evolution confusing. i know adaptation, i know environment and they work together. whats with the new words.
As I said, they go together. … but,their effects are not always equal. Adaptation happens ALONG with “construction” But forget about these terms. The important thing, which lewontin deemphasized is the interactions are MUTUAL between environment and life form, but NOT always equal. There is no simple word or formula that can convey this. It has to be STUDIED.
I’m not concerned with the “popular mind” or “neodarwinsts” think since they have the same hang ups with labels and forget concepts. . However, it is clear lewontin is talking to a laymens audience. And for him to minimize “adaptation” is silly.
*isn’t conveyed. Most people believe the environment is effectively a “container” for organisms which couldn’t be further from the truth.
In itself adaptation isn’t a bad metaphor sure, as long as it is recognized that there are complex feedback interactions. This is conveyed to the popular mind the way these notions are employed and explained by many professionals. That’s the whole point of his talk.
Individualism is another hang up of neodarwinian view. There would be no ocean suitable for fish without the life histories of organisms.
As I said, they go together. … but,their effects are not always equal. Which is why they are given separate terms. They example I gave for ocean and its life forms exemplifies this. It is not likely that an oceanic fish will change the ocean as much as the inverse. I’m sure lewontin knows this and you know this already. It is complex process. I don’t think any “word” will do it justice. It just has to be studied to be understood.
and lewontin addresses this — it’s called co-construction or co-evolution. Organisms and environments have mutual circular causal relations on one another, Don’t need to posit a separate adaptation. It’s already there in coconstruction.
Neodarwinists tend to neglect construction or sweep it under the rug entirely — adpatation WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION is not only bad, it is false.
Do you think “construction” is a better conceptual metaphor than “adaptation. Look at convergence. Dolphins and fish, although different species,develop similar body shapes, due to the same environment. It is not a bad metaphor, as he says. It is an important part of evolution. As is his “construction” . They go together. Saying one is better than the other is like saying hot is better than cold. You can’t have one without the other.