My condolences Doug. I did not think the Giants would do it.

I know, I didn't feel good about that match up the whole game. Eli was just too on. And the Packers were doing stupid things like a 2 yard screen play when they needed 15 on 3rd.

Joy: So. Zach is rooting for selection, I'm rooting for directed inheritance. Who is surprised?

I'm not rooting for any side, Joy. I'm merely stating what the study's authors thought was more likely, though they were careful not to claim more than what the evidence allows.

Joy: Should there be any bias in funding for further researches on either possibility here?

The proposed research should distinguish between selection and constraint.

Tell me, Zach. Should there be any bias in funding for further researches on either possibility here?

Joy: So why did they claim it was selection?

They didn't. They found the change was deterministic, but did not accurately distinguish between selection and constraint (meaning something that reduces the amount of variation on which selection can act).

Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development: We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.

But as developmental drift indicates there are many ways to produce the same structure, this suggests that generative and developmental constraints are not predominant.

Joy: We don't have any idea right now what those constraints are, several primary mechanisms of selection have been ruled out.

Selection is not ruled out (but likely). They propose further research for making the distinction.

Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development: This approach does not allow a similarly stringent distinction between bias by selection and by selection-independent causes. However, it paves the way for follow-up investigations using other methods, like genetic and population genetic approaches.

Direction implies selection (or constraint).

So why did they claim it was selection? Why do you put "constraint" in parentheses? That doesn't make much sense in the context of the research itself. Looks to me like there are constraints in action, and selection may play a subordinate role as usual. We don't have any idea right now what those constraints are, several primary mechanisms of selection have been ruled out. Think constraints. What might they be?

And thanks for the cached link.

Joy: Extrapolating that to giraffe necks would have all giraffe necks over time (per this development) getting longer regardless of what mutations occur or what developmental diversity is engendered - because "selection" somehow decided long necks were the goal.

Forget mutations for a moment and think about variation.

Giraffe's have an average neck length which varies as a normal distribution around that average. If selection is at work, then those with longer necks will be more successful in leaving offspring. Over many generations, new variations will appear, but now they will be grouped in a normal curve around the longer average neck length. So even though mutations are random, there are enough of them over many generations, that there will simply be normal variation in the population.

What we're attempting to observe is the center of that normal distribution. Will it fluctuate stochastically over time, or will it tend in one direction. Direction implies selection (or constraint).

Joy: Simply establishing that "evolution is not random" is a very big development in biological science.

Darwin proposed his theory of Natural Selection in 1858, and posited that evolution was primarily adaptive, i.e. non-random. The study is interesting, but certainly the headline, New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random, was overblown. Most everything confirms Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Joy: Interestingly enough, ScienceDaily has removed the most recent (Jan. 20) story - the link now goes to the main page where the story is conspicuously absent.

Google remembers.

I think (from the little I can parse) the directionality ruled out randomness more than it confirmed selection or suggested directed mutation. The conclusion was that it's not random, that much is entirely clear. It's the cause of non-randomness that's unsettled.

Exactly.

Neither. The ScienceDaily story was basically a verbatim reprint of the American Technion Society press release dated January 16.

Damn, you're right. ScienceDaily, if you're reading this, I am very sorry. Don't forget to mention my hugely important work in the future please, pretty please.

Simply establishing that "evolution is not random" is a very big development in biological science. Now that this is established, the hows, whys and wherefores are begging to be known. Just think of how much we could do with such knowledge!

You ask me, the cure for cancer is just around the corner.

Given the directionality of the evolutionary trends, not much more can be said than that some directional force was the cause (I know, that doesn't sound earth-shattering). Which still is an interesting observation, because it might have been random.

I think (from the little I can parse) the directionality ruled out randomness more than it confirmed selection or suggested directed mutation. The conclusion was that it's not random, that much is entirely clear. It's the cause of non-randomness that's unsettled.

To their credit, the authors of the original paper suggest possible future experiments to find out more about the underlying causes. Solid science IMO.

I agree. Want to see this expanded upon, repeated (maybe with some other traits in some other kind of critters). It's an exciting finding that fairly demands further research, a.s.a.p. Who wouldn't want to know?

It's the ScienceDaily folks who did a less than stellar job. Maybe they're dishonest political hacks, or maybe they're just incompetent.

Neither. The ScienceDaily story was basically a verbatim reprint of the American Technion Society press release dated January 16. In which Professor Benjamin Podbilewicz said,

"Since random development would not create such unifying trends, we concluded that the observed development was deterministic, not random."

Simply establishing that "evolution is not random" is a very big development in biological science. Now that this is established, the hows, whys and wherefores are begging to be known. Just think of how much we could do with such knowledge!

I'm glad they pulled the confusing report. I think they realized the importance of the finding, but were unsure of how to parse it in terms of RM-NS (and leery of the ongoing debate). I'd very much like to see what the research teams and their leaders think on that score, even if they all don't agree. It would give a good idea of what follow-up research should look like.

Although the paper is widely touted as confirming evolution, I could almost see how an IDiot might distort it in the public mind as not only evidence against evolution, but as positive evidence for ID.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. After all, the phenotypic trait in this study that's supposedly most important for fitness - the structure of the vulva - didn't change. Far be it from me to judge the Designer, but her ways would sure be mysterious to me.

Can I ask critics how, specifically, this multinational research effort could possibly be parsed in support of those non-astonishing incremental changes Zach keeps referring to over evolutionary time frames as how different kinds of organisms evolve?

Given the directionality of the evolutionary trends, not much more can be said than that some directional force was the cause (I know, that doesn't sound earth-shattering). Which still is an interesting observation, because it might have been random. Maybe selection was involved, maybe not. Maybe biased mutations, maybe not. Upthread I made some more suggestions. To their credit, the authors of the original paper suggest possible future experiments to find out more about the underlying causes. Solid science IMO. It's the ScienceDaily folks who did a less than stellar job. Maybe they're dishonest political hacks, or maybe they're just incompetent.

The latest comment at PT (as of now, that's Olorin here) has a broader complaint. The commenter admits s/he is not a biologist, then says s/he went to the actual paper to see what in the world it was claiming. A good idea if you're not scared by reading papers. His/her impression?

Although the paper is widely touted as confirming evolution, I could almost see how an IDiot might distort it in the public mind as not only evidence against evolution, but as positive evidence for ID.

Uh, oh. Citing Behe's The Edge of Evolution, the commenter is concerned that this paper might lend credence to the notion that beyond a certain point mutation/ variation has to be guided in order to produce different kinds of organisms. I haven't read Behe's book, so I don't know how accurate that characterization is, though I can certainly see why the confusion sown by the news reports in question might lead to such a concern.

I'm not agreeing - it doesn't appear that this research actually demonstrated guided mutation/ variation, but rather guided development.

The best I could figure from the paper - also not being a biologist - is that variation (even if it's "astounding" in its evolutionary breadth) is irrelevant to the particular organ structure best suited to survival and reproduction in the class of nematodes examined. IOW, no matter how much variation on the theme comes along, they all end up in the same place - and that it's the end result of development that takes it there regardless of how it starts out or how "astonishing" the evolutionary changes in the genes and/or developmental programming might be in different species.

Can I ask critics how, specifically, this multinational research effort could possibly be parsed in support of those non-astonishing incremental changes Zach keeps referring to over evolutionary time frames as how different kinds of organisms evolve? Not just the confusion of bad reporting, but the confusion inherent in the findings themselves - they cited selection, but if there's selection determining the outcome it looks to work backwards in time (given that this does in fact appear to be a top-down imposition, not a bottom-up diversification). At least in regards to roundworm vulvas.

Extrapolating that to giraffe necks would have all giraffe necks over time (per this development) getting longer regardless of what mutations occur or what developmental diversity is engendered - because "selection" somehow decided long necks were the goal. Given, of course, that "selection" must be blamed because it's the only fully deterministic mechanism in the theoretical framework.

Any ideas on how to interpret in light of these findings?