Philosophy and Evolution: Minding the Gap Between Evolutionary Patterns and Tree-Like Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since Darwin, the familiar genealogical pattern known as the Tree of Life (TOL) has been prominent in evolutionary thinking and has dominated not only systematics, but also the analysis of the units of evolution. However, recent findings indicate that the evolution of DNA, especially in prokaryotes and such DNA vehicles as viruses and plasmids, does not follow a unique tree-like pattern. Because evolutionary patterns track a greater range of processes than those captured in genealogies, genealogical patterns are in fact only a subset of a broader set of evolutionary patterns. This fact suggests that evolutionists who focus exclusively on genealogical patterns are blocked from providing a significant range of genuine evolutionary explanations. Consequently, we highlight challenges to tree-based approaches, and point the way toward more appropriate methods to study evolution (although we do not present them in technical detail). We argue that there is significant benefit in adopting wider range of models, evolutionary representations, and evolutionary explanations, based on an analysis of the full range of evolutionary processes. We introduce an ecosystem orientation into evolutionary thinking that highlights the importance of "type 1 coalitions" (functionally related units with genetic exchanges, aka "friends with genetic benefits"), "type 2 coalitions" (functionally related units without genetic exchanges), "communal interactions," and "emergent evolutionary properties." On this basis, we seek to promote the study of (especially prokaryotic) evolution with dynamic evolutionary networks, which are less constrained than the TOL, and to provide new ways to analyze an expanded range of evolutionary units (genetic modules, recombined genes, plasmids, phages and prokaryotic genomes, pangenomes, microbial communities) and evolutionary processes. Finally, we discuss some of the conceptual and practical questions raised by such network-based representation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".