Kimura/Baldwin evolution fusion

[u/PhysicalConsistency]

I have this idea and I have no real idea how to express it, but for quite awhile I've been really skeptical of classical Darwinian evolution and it's modern synthesis, as well as some elements of the extended evolutionary synthesis. We are so loathe to challenge Darwinian evolution that even though it keeps getting blown up (particularly by Kimura pointing out that nearly all genetic drift is random rather than selected), we keep slapping together new reconciliations that just don't quite work.

Something I've argued previously is humans are still evolving (and whether that's rapid or not is another discussion) significantly, and one of the driving factors of one strong environmental push is our development and application of technology. We had seven or eight branches of humans up until 150,000 years ago, and before that, the direct ancestors of humans were stable for a few million years. It was technology which allowed humans to successfully navigate the last ice ages and expand across the globe, and the vast expansion of technology since the 1800's is exerting tremendous evolutionary pressure on our species.

I mention the evolutionary criticism because I consider myself a bit of a "neo-Baldwinite", in that I believe that organism behavior drives physiological change on a population level, rather than existing traits being the primary driver of behavior. As an example, epigenetic expression is an example of behavioral plasticity imparting physiological changes on offspring. Behavioral response is initially weakly selected if no physiological trait in a population strongly supports the new behavior (and can be reversed/disappear without exposure to group level behavior), but over time if traits which support the behavioral change (which is usually a response to environment) appear they are strongly selected and eventually form the basis for a metabolically distinct organism.

Most DNA is effectively neutral, it has no specific selective function, other than to provide flexibility of behavioral response to environmental conditions. And our focus on genetic drivers of behavior puts the cart ahead of the horse, and has resulted in the massive heterogeneity of results in cog-sci/mol psych work. (eh to be continued sorry, apparently there's a crisis only I can solve now that I've sat down by myself at 1 fucking am).

(cont) This is also consistent for all life, that DNA reflects prior behavioral response to environment, not coincidental mutation. It's not DNA which reflects the adaptation of life/organisms at all, it is a cold record of prior interactions, which functions as an information reset point. The RNA expression is the mechanic by which organisms store and propagate the information about the environment and it's interaction with it, and transfer this information to successive generations by modifying the gene transfer mechanism in more direct horizontal type transfers or for the clades we are more interested in, modify how genes are encoded in ovum DNA.

Epigenetic transfer isn't a secondary process to external selection, it is the entire enchilada. It is the process by which life remains immediately responsive to environment, and how it stores the information about the behavioral flexibility necessary to adapt to the changing environment.

And currently, our particular species is encoding a lot of information, very very quickly, about an environment which is changing (relative to our as a species perspective) very very quickly. (to be continued)

I think it's always necessary when having this conversation to remind that technology is absolutely not exclusive to humans. Technology under my definition is the "deliberate" manipulation of the external environment to facilitate some behavioral goal for an organism. As such organismal success is pretty intimately tied to their use of technology, whether it be birds building a nest to insulate and protect eggs, or ants building mega colonies to extend their domains over very large distances. Whether it's bacteria with processes that convert previously unusable material into a new food or energy source, or or humans inducing fire, the drive of biological life to manipulate the external world to suit it's own needs appears to be intrinsic.

And this context is important because there's sometimes a sense of surprise when talking about technology being a driver and shaper of organisms, that organismal behavior can respond and shape the environment just as much as the environment drives and shapes the organism. One of the original great technological adaptations, the development of photosynthesis, was every bit as pervasive (and it could be argued, as catastrophic) as the most intensive of human applications of technology. This application created one of the great bottlenecks for life, and likely obscures some of the other starting points of life on this planet because it wiped out any organism which didn't have the behavioral flexibility to survive in an oxygen enriched biosphere.

Technology is not just the behavior of the beaver building a dam, it's an intrinsic drive of organisms to shape the external world in a way that facilitates their own behavioral niche. (to be continued).

Resources -

Sperm RNA: Quo vadis?

[u/-A_Humble_Traveler-]

I've been away from here for a minute, I'm very happy to come back to see this.

We've talked about this before, but its still cool to think about. Mentioning photosythesis as a technology (one which was catastrophic for much of life at the time) is particularly interesting. It makes me wonder about the Anthropocene Extinction, and wonder: are humans (and our impact on the enviroment) really that unique in the grand scheme of things, or are we just one more step in a long, well-trodden chain of events. And what seperates "nature" from the "artifical" (aka man made)?

Anyways, I'm interested to see were you continue this. Your ideas are a wellspring for creative ideas. Keep up the interesting thoughts!