Talk:Evolutionary physiology

Image:Phenotypic Hierarchy 1.svg
This image is highly dubious. No reference is offered. Natural selection does not act on behavior, per se. Rather, Genes produce morphology which produces behavior, which is more or less successful, with physics and the ecology acting as constraints. With the same factors, a counter clockwise circle of arrows would make more sense with constraints expressed in some other way. Without a reference, the image should be removed as OR and Synthesis.μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, no, evolution acts on behavior without mechanistic changes (bird courtship shows tremendous variation in species with no important differences in musculo-skeletal morphology), mechanistic changes can occur without changes in behavior (all frog jumps are pretty much the same motor pattern, from toads to treefrogs), and the same net mechanical output can be produced by the same motor pattern acting on different morphologies (terrestrial lateral undulation of eels and snakes has the same EMG pattern, in spite of *massive* differences in muscular anatomy). Yes, morphology acts as a constraint (no elephant long-jumpers or brachiating fish), but motor control is highly plastic, both evolutionarily and within the individual (learning to ride a bike is impossible under your conceptualization, since morphology hasn't changed).  Sure, you could argue that "morphology" includes the layout of neurons in the brain, the receptor genes they express, etc, but that's stretching too far.  There's much more to biology than just genes.
 * As for the source, I've seen about 100 versions of this in powerpoint slides over the years, including in my own - go to any job talk for a morphology/physiology position, and you'll see some variant of this within the first 5 slides. I'd say it crops up in about 10% of symposium talks, maybe up to 30% if it's an interdisciplinary crowd.  The concept of the inter-relation of these factors is not just prevalent, it's the basis for entire fields and careers.  Just because this exact form hasn't been printed before doesn't make it invalid, OR or synthesis.Mokele (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate your effort, assuming the chart is your creation, and your effort at explanation of the science. But evolution is variation and selection in cyclical iteration.  "Act on" is fatally vague, and fails to reflect the relevant cyclicality of the causation.  But I am not interested in debating.  Unless there is a reference for the chart in its actual form it amounts to OR.μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's not mine. And it's not actually cyclical - selection constantly acts on a continually replenished pool of variation.  The closest you get to a cycle in a real system is annual plants or insects where the entire population is eggs/seeds for some period of time.
 * As for referencing, there are *loads* of similar charts all over WP that illustrate concepts such as lift, torque, etc without any attribution at all. Plus, google the name in the file attribution - this isn't some random graph pulled out of the ether, but a central concept of an entire field contributed directly to WP by a leader of that field. Mokele (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we can't apply the rules here until they are applied elswhere? If there is a good rationale for this, i.e., if there are slides like this all over, it shouldn't be hard to provide a reference.μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want a reference for the general concept, or this exact version? The former is easy, the latter, not so much.  I think you're getting needlessly hung up on trivial rules to the detriment of the article as a whole - remember, Ignore_all_rules. Mokele (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)