By: Science

Science — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:25:30 +0000

Some of Roberta s illustrations for the narrative were based closely on sketches he had made during his travels. Science

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:16:57 +0000

Well, I don’t think I’ll be correcting you on that.

By: Tuco

Tuco — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 01:02:43 +0000

It seems to me (and I hope someone will please correct me if I’m wrong – or Rong) that the notion of “competition” being the sole – or even dominant – driver of evolution is not only a gross oversimplification but also something of an outdated concept.
Distilling evolution down to a single word is really more a function of the “popular” (lay?) view of evolution, such as it is. However, if we had to assign a single word as a descriptor, it seems like “adaptation” would be much better. I think that the whole notion of “competition” is so pervasive stems largely from the overlay of a cultural value system onto evolution (i.e. Social Darwinism).
Obviously competition is integral to evolution, such as in mate selection, and I don’t mean to discount its importance, but – and I’m not quite sure how to phrase this – the primary (sole?) determinant of evolutionary success is reproductive success, which is subject to a host of factors.
Maybe I’m way off base, but one of my undergraduate biology profs hammered home that every organism has “problems to solve,” and one of the consistent themes in what little ecology training I had in grad school was niche occupation, both of which, IMHO, put adaptation ahead of competition.

Comments on: Medical blogging; Ask a naturalist; Darwin was Rong research

By: Science

By: Greg Laden

By: Tuco