DNA Dispose, but Subjects Decide. Learning and the Extended Synthesis

Abstract

Adaptation by means of natural selection depends on the ability of populations to maintain variation in heritable traits. According to the Modern Synthesis this variation is sustained by mutations and genetic drift. Epigenetics, evodevo, niche construction and cultural factors have more recently been shown to contribute to heritable variation, however, leading an increasing number of biologists to call for an extended view of speciation and evolution. An additional common feature across the animal kingdom is learning, defined as the ability to change behavior according to novel experiences or skills. Learning constitutes an additional source for phenotypic variation, and change in behavior may induce long lasting shifts in fitness, and hence favor evolutionary novelties. Based on published studies, I demonstrate how learning about food, mate choice and habitats has contributed substantially to speciation in the canonical story of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands. Learning cannot be reduced to genetics, because it demands decisions, which requires a subject. Evolutionary novelties may hence emerge both from shifts in allelic frequencies and from shifts in learned, subject driven behavior. The existence of two principally different sources of variation also prevents the Modern Synthesis from self-referring explanations.

Comprehending the Semiosis of Evolution

“…In particular, recognition and categorization of objects, learning, and communication (both intraspecific and interspecific) can change the evolutionary fate of lineages. Semiotic selection, an effect of choice upon other species (Maran and Kleisner 2010), active habitat preference (Lindholm 2015), making use of and reinterpreting earlier semiotic structures – known as semiotic co-option (Kleisner 2015), and semiotic scaffolding (Hoffmeyer 2015; Kull 2015), are some further means by which semiosis makes evolution happen.…”

Å lære å tenke

“…Slik termometeret registrerte temperatur, mikrofoner registrerte lyd og fotoceller registrerte lys formidlet sansene «signaler», som så ble prosessert til 'mening' i hjernen. Kritikken av dette instrumentelle synet har vaert omfattende (Gallagher & Zahavi, 2013;Gibson, 1979;Kjerschow, 2014;Lindholm, 1996;Merleau-Ponty, 1962;Stoknes, 1996) og skal ikke gjentas her. Ingen organisme ville vaert funksjonsdyktig om ikke sansene formidlet inntrykk som var umiddelbart meningsgivende (Lindholm, 2015).…”

“…Kritikken av dette instrumentelle synet har vaert omfattende (Gallagher & Zahavi, 2013;Gibson, 1979;Kjerschow, 2014;Lindholm, 1996;Merleau-Ponty, 1962;Stoknes, 1996) og skal ikke gjentas her. Ingen organisme ville vaert funksjonsdyktig om ikke sansene formidlet inntrykk som var umiddelbart meningsgivende (Lindholm, 2015). Utviklingspsykologer har for lengst fastslått at spebarns perseptive univers samtidig må vaere meningsgivende for i det hele tatt å kunne skape kognitive utvikling (se for eksempel Meltzoff, 2005).…”

Introduction: a Structural and Historical Approach to Understanding Advancements in Evolutionary Theory

“…To account for the evolvability of these systems, cultural, social, and environmental factors, in addition to what occurs at the genetic and cellular level, must be discussed in relation to one another. And these considerations are already beginning to happen-although not, as far as I am aware, in the extended synthesis camp, biosemioticians have begun making these observations (Lindholm 2015).…”