There are no guarantees, just a bias on selection due to individuals in a population being, by their particular combination of alleles, more or less successful at passing them on.
1 Like
Just so. which answere the original question: âHow can less fit individuals outcompete more fit individuals?â
Answer - by the latter being less successful. In other words, the principle is contingent upon the circumstances, so itâs a rule of thumb, not a rule. That is:
This statement is not true, as Eddie pointed out.
1 Like
To clarify my definition of âintrinsic teleologyâ: predicting the organismâs action requires the future effect. So, the above definition is different, since I could write a computer program that satisfies the above definition, but no computer program could satisfy my definition, since all Turing machines are entirely past driven.
I think thatâs consistent with the normal views, at least in A-T philosophy, and is the difference between an artifact and an organism. The algorithm has extrinisic teleology in that the programmer has an aim for it, whereas the program itself merely follows efficient causes.
The same would be true of organisms conceived, as Descartes did, as automata - which is intellectually present in the concept of organisms as algorithmic machines driven by DNA. It is hard to see any other alternative in the purely molecular approach.
However, if organisms form their own aims (as every appearance suggests and as anti-cruelty legislation assumes), then they are more than their DNA, and are not Turing machines, any more than humans are.
In that case, one has to seriously modify any algorithmic approach - for example, it could still be the case that much of DNA operates algorithmically, but that might point as much to an intrinisic teleology as to the work of the external designer. Bill Dembski is happy with that line in Being as Communion, finding common ground with Tom Nagel on it.
At this point the molecular approach breaks down, because molecular science has no better way of explaining intrinisc teleology in organisms than it does in humans, leading to those awkward attempts to explain human will as an illusion - all because of the refusal to admit, or understand, final causationâs reality.
1 Like
Host responses to pathogens would probably be the best description of my specialty. I work for principal investigators as a lab technician. They come up with the grand ideas and I find ways of testing them in the lab.
Publishing doesnât make you infallible.
1 Like
I agree. However, it is you who have been putting the stress on publishing of a certain kind â publishing the results of primary research, which results are usually published in peer-reviewed articles in journals. You contrasted such results with what is found in mere âbooksâ. Thatâs why I asked you whether you published âprimary researchâ on evolutionary mechanisms in peer-reviewed journals, as do, on their day did, people like Margulis, Shapiro, Gunter Wagner, etc. You seemed to be suggesting that, on the whole (and granting that no given publication is automatically infallible just because itâs published), those who have repeatedly met the test of peer review in their fields by having articles published would be more likely to understand the subject matter than those who have not met those tests.
This is part of a broader puzzlement I have over the debates over evolution, especially as they occur in the blogosphere. I have known many scientists in my life, and I have found that the majority of them tend toward intellectual cautiousness when writing about subjects out of their field, or even out of their subfield. Some carry the worry that âI might make an error,â so far that they not only wonât write about another science (e.g., a physicist wonât say a syllable about meteorology), but wonât even write about other areas of their own science (e.g., a nuclear physicist might refuse to enter a debate among specialists in thermodynamics, even if he actually knows a fair bit about thermodynamics). But in biology, at least in these popular debates, I find that this principle of caution is not observed. It seems that any biologist (and even a good number of biochemists) are willing to pronounce upon the subject of evolution with great confidence, even if their particular area of biological expertise is, say, the composition of cell walls, or Great Lakes ecosystems, or the developmental patterns of plants, rather than evolutionary mechanisms. Thus, Larry Moran, a biochemist who by his own admission has never published a peer-reviewed article in a journal of evolutionary biology, will make declarative statements like, âEvolution doesnât work that way, it works this wayâ â as if his fiat settled all outstanding debates in the field of evolutionary biology â and all kinds of people in these debates â including, it seems, a number of biology Ph.D.s â regard him as a sort of guru of modern evolutionary thought. Arthur Hunt is an expert on something like plant genetics, and loves to debate ID folks on evolution, but Iâm unaware that he has published anything in evolutionary theory proper. I never learned what publications in evolutionary theory Steve Matheson had, either, but he was always telling everyone how evolution worked. Iâm not sure that P.Z. Myers would be recognized by Americaâs evolutionary theorists as one of their number, either. Iâm unaware of any contributions of Ken Miller to theories of evolutionary mechanism, yet he writes book after book about evolution, takes the stages in debates against ID folks, etc. None of the biologists at BioLogos have any publications on evolutionary mechanisms, yet they have presented themselves as teachers of how evolution works. And of course, many of the others on BioLogos endorsing evolution wholeheartedly werenât biologists at all, but physicists, physical chemists, or astronomers.
On the other hand, almost absent from these internet discussions are the full-time evolutionary biologists, who research and teach about evolutionary mechanisms as the very definition of their jobs. (Jerry Coyne would be one exception, though one wonders if he really does any evolutionary biology any more, as opposed to blogging and writing popular books.) They seem to mostly stay out of the internet debates, and the popular debating circuit. I donât see Gunter Wagner, Andreas Wagner, Eva Jablonka, Stewart Newman, etc. either on the creation/evolution lecture/debate circuit, or engaging in long disputes about evolution on blog sites like this.
Donât misunderstand me. Iâm not arguing that no one from outside of a specialty or subspecialty could possibly have anything intelligent to say. Iâm a firm believer in the principle that intelligent argument is more important than formal credentials. But I do find it odd that so many scientists will normally stay within their safely demarcated subspecialties where they are protected by their credentials, but when it comes to evolution, a ton of them come out of the woodwork â even though they may have no publications in evolutionary theory, or in biology, or in any life science. It is as if the defense of evolution is so central to their conception of the world that they are willing to throw all normal caution to the winds, and speak out of their fields. I find that very interesting, from a sociological point of view.
Have you any comment on why, when the subject is evolution, scientists abandon their normal reserve and jump into debates in areas where they have not been certified by their peers as competent to comment authoritatively, yet try to sound as authoritative as possible against their debating opponents?
1 Like
Your statement is only true for high level, technical debates about a topic in science. Whereas scientists are usually much more protective about the âbasicsâ of their subfield. E.g. I am hardly an expert on thermodynamics or statistical mechanics but I hope I would be able to say something if someone denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Clearly, many biologists think that many arguments against evolution are simple enough that any professional biologist would be qualified to tackle it.
2 Likes
Your point is valid.
However, what is amusing is that, these discussions on evolution then break down into highly technical details⌠and at some point of time or the other, the scientists who support evolution will claim that the other party (even if he/she is a biologist with a PHD) does not understand evolution, or is biased by religion .
This is especially relevant in the context of the above discussion, where the opinions of people such as Shapiro who have published their ideas on evolution in peer reviewed journals are being dismissed with claims like âI have looked at the science and their claims and i find their science to be seriously lackingâ. i.e someone outside the subfield is dismissing the views of someone working in the field. The person might be right.
However,I dont see that happening with real basic stuff on which all people of the larger field can comment.
1 Like
Yes, and I have no problem with this. For example, when some creationist says there is no evidence at all for common descent, I have no problem when any biologist or geologist etc. jumps in to answer. But I was speaking of higher-level matters where the discussion is between trained scientists. Larry Moran, who is a biochemist, and as far as I can tell virtually unknown in the world of evolutionary theory in the academic sense (he is considered a âmajor evolutionary theoristâ only in the blogosphere, as far as I can see), will say, not just of fundamentalists, but even of other secular atheist scientists like himself, that they donât understand correctly how evolution works. And it doesnât bother him that some of those scientists he disagrees with hold posts in evolutionary theory at top universities, and that he is only a biochemist with a hobbyistâs interest in evolution, and no publications in the field; heâs still very sure he is right and the others are wrong. So my question is why so many people with Ph.D.s in the life sciences think that their little sliver of the life sciences (whether itâs biochemistry, or genetics, or cell biology, or something else), out of all sciences relevant to evolution, contains all that is necessary for the understanding of the most advanced questions in evolutionary theory. Why is âarmchair evolutionary theorizingâ so much more common than, say, âarmchair fluid dynamics theorizingâ or âarmchair synthetic chemistry theorizingâ or âarmchair aerodynamic engineering theorizingâ? Why are scientists who are keen on evolution so much more willing than scientists normally are to pass judgment on the work of people with more specialized knowledge of evolutionary theory than they themselves have?
Is it simply an artifact of the blogosphere, i.e., that the sort of scientist likely to spend large amounts of time blogging and debating about evolution, is likely to be one with the highest opinion of his own (or her own, though the massive predominance of males in these debates is impossible not to notice) ability to speak âoff the cuffâ and to make snap judgments about complex issues outside of his specialty, whereas the sort of scientist who is more modest about his ability outside of his specialty tends not to engage in these debates, precisely because of that modesty?
Ah - youâve noticed that curious habit too! It usually comes at the end of the cycle of âNot theories but data â not data in books but data in papers â not data in those peopleâs papers but those of the people who understand evolution.â
I first noticed the trope in 2011, in the response to the only article Iâve written at the request of BioLogos, before I came to be considered unsafe.
But now there is a solution, as I wrote last year in At last! An end to not-understanding-evolution misery! 
EDIT: I missed out the stage, when all else fails, that if someoneâs contested idea is finally conceded to be incontrovertible, it is what evolutionary theory always said anyway.
1 Like
Thanks for the link. I read the article you linked to. The Author has an interesting take on why Biologists rush to defend evolution as a theory⌠let me quote him -
The âSynthesisâ movement of the mid-20 th century was a specific historical event that established a cultural identity for evolutionary biology tied to a master theory of evolution (the OMS), a set of canonical founders (Mayr, et al), and an interpretation of intellectual history. Generations of students learned that the founding of the discipline was a victory of reason over unreason that restored Darwinâs thinking and ended a dark period called the âEclipseâ. Many scientists identify with this tradition and feel bound to defend it, with the inevitable result of distorting science, as we can serve but one master.
We donât want another âSynthesisâ in the sense of a deliberate campaign to establish a cultural identity that, in the future, will be protected jealously by conformists.
1 Like
Iâve never read Larry Moran so canât judge about his case specifically, but youâre probably right that some scientists do err in going out of their subfield and being out of depth with it. But another aspect that you have to consider is that this sometimes happens because such scientists are considered public representatives of all science, in a dialogue where the trustworthiness of the entire field is often called into question. Thus they naturally feel pushed to put on a front where they know all the answers, even if they donât.
A second point is that evolutionary biology does seem to be a field where people agree on some basic things (like creationism is wrong) but there are major disagreements over other issues. I remember the time when Dawkins had a huge disagreement with E O Wilson about kin vs. group selection and wrote a public letter signed off by a number of biologists who supported him. This kind of thing never happens in particle physics, for example.
1 Like
We can find plenty of those types of people who disagree with Shapiro. If you think Shapiroâs claims have to be protected against criticism then that speaks poorly of his work.
Amen! I think that much of the aggressiveness in discussions of evolution, not merely when atheist scientists confront creationists etc., but even when one atheist scientist confronts another, comes from the fact that more is speculative, and less is known for certain, in evolutionary theory than in many other sciences. So there is room for claims that the other scientist doesnât understand the material, for pushing oneâs own pet assembly of proposed mechanisms, and more generally for sheer assertiveness.
I donât object to the fact that there is much disagreement among evolutionary theorists; I object only when some bloggers and debaters try to paper over these disagreements in order to present a unified front against creationists or ID people. The fact is that even among non-religious evolutionary theorists who are not creationists or ID proponents (e.g., Sternberg, Newman, Wagner) there are serious differences regarding evolutionary mechanism â as you say, evolutionary theory has not reached the level of maturity of some areas of physics. And it does no good to say, âWell, all evolutionary theorists accept natural selectionâ â because the weighting of natural selection relative to other factors varies according to the evolutionary theorist involved, and the difference is non-trivial. Is all, most, about half, or only a little of evolutionary change âunder selectionâ, for example? How big a factor is horizontal gene transfer? And how important is the revival of âstructuralistâ approaches to evolution? The fact is that evolutionary theory is in ferment right now. I think thatâs a good thing, but certain people in the public debates donât like that ferment interpreted in a way that suggests any serious disagreements â and that downplaying of significant differences is for political purposes, i.e., for the sake of fighting off creationist or ID criticisms of evolution. It used to be that scientists shunned the popular media, caring only about what other specialists in their fields thought; but now many seem to be writing with popular debates in mind, and conducting themselves in less than professional ways, saying things that are less than academically correct, because of that popular focus. (This has happened in debates about global warming and in other areas as well.)
I donât think that. I do think that biologists would be a little more open to Shapiro, and to others whose view of evolution is not âmainstreamâ (whatever that is supposed to mean, in an era of ferment like today), if they took a broader view of their discipline, had more historical sense of evolutionary theory. I have found that reading Gouldâs Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and the historical writings on evolutionary theory by Turner, Denton and others, has broadened my intellectual horizon beyond the classical mutation/selection trope that is still the conception of evolution that many blogging scientists seem to be pushing. A biologist who reads only technical journal articles in specialized areas like population genetics is not going to get the biggest, broadest, and richest conception of evolution, no matter how technically proficient he is.
The point is not whether Shapiro is right or wrong, the point is the uptight defensiveness with which he is attacked. Instead of, âI donât completely agree with Shapiro, but he makes one or two points from which contemporary evolutionary theory could benefitâ, we get âShapiro is junkâ. I expect that biologists will say the same thing about Scott Turnerâs new book, rather than offer a balanced judgment. My impression is that evolutionary theorists, and, even more, biologists who arenât evolutionary theorists but proclaim themselves expert in the field anyway, tend toward doctrinaire attitudes. My reaction as a philosopher in the style of Socrates is to be suspicious of anything that smells doctrinaire, whether in philosophy, political theory, religion, social science, or natural science (including biology and evolutionary theory). When I sense a franticness to shoot some new idea down, a lack of balance in critical appraisal, all my alarm bells start ringing. Thatâs how Socratic philosophers are. Thatâs why they make few friends; they tend to side with no one, but to look for balanced accounts that irritate partisans at the extreme ends of any debate.
1 Like
I tend to agree with Douglas Futuyma on this
All too often, the EES or âThird Wayâ group are arguing aesthetics. I would agree that scientists can get bogged down in reductionism at times, but I donât see how Shapiro and others are really adding to to the theory of evolution.
That seems to be a serious case of projection. You just wrote an entire post that was very defensive in the face of Shapiroâs ideas being criticized.
No, there is no projection. The pro-evolution bloggers and internet debaters are very hostile, routinely, to anything they consider non-mainstream in evolutionary theory. Often they react against thinkers they havenât even read, as when you accused Turner of having a chip on his shoulder. And often they tell me that nothing is worth reading but peer-reviewed technical articles, that books which set forth a broader perspective are a waste of time, not real science, etc. The resistance to new ideas is palpable, and everyone notices it. That is why Altenberg, the Third Wave, Turner, Denton, and so many others are speaking up. They are tired of the âfall into line or get out of the professionâ dogmatism of many of their peers. And they arenât usually creationists or even religious; they are often agnostic or atheist, they are trained, and they publish in recognized journals. Nobody likes to be bullied into accepting the status quo, merely because most scientists vote for it. Indeed, that shouldnât be the scientific way. Itâs certainly not the philosophical way.
I am not defensive about Shapiro. I just think he doesnât know what he is talking about when he discusses random, which is precisely in my area of expertise.
That is precisely where he is most wrong. He creates a psuedohistory of evolution.
The reason that many scientists are defensive is because they are being attacked with a pseudihistorical account of the discpline, and nonsense about relabling well understood concepts to call them new. Most of the science is talking about is great, because it is already accepted. Even his harshest critics think that too!
Who exactly is calling Shapiro âjunkâ?
1 Like
They are hostile to what they see as bad science.
If you could discuss the science it would help greatly. Perhaps we could actually see if there is anything to what they are proposing.
3 Likes
I never said you were; I was addressing aquaticus.
I havenât ever commented on Shapiroâs discussion of ârandomnessâ, but I would like you to point out specific peer-reviewed articles and books of his where he says something incorrect about ârandomnessâ. I canât tell what you are referring to. I have no interest in defending Shapiro as such, but I would like to know exactly what he says that is supposedly wrong, rather than see his work dismissed as âbad scienceâ without any evidence for the charge. If heâs wrong, thatâs fine, but I get the strong impression that he is hated as much for his âinsolenceâ, i.e., for refusing to go along with the majority, than for any actual flaws in his empirical research or reasoning. And itâs that groupthink tendency that Iâm objecting to, not criticism of Shapiro as such, which are fine with me if unaccompanied by venom and expressions of tribal disapproval.
But if you do choose to talk about Shapiro, please start a new thread about it, so the discussion isnât lost here.
Note that I said âhistorical sense of evolutionary theoryâ; I was talking about changes in evolutionary theory over the years, not evolutionary changes in the organic realm.
In any case, I did not cite Shapiro as someone who wrote about the history of evolutionary theory. I cited Turner, Denton, and Gould. My point was that biologists more aware of the history of their own discipline â and most biologists arenât, because the history of biology is almost never a compulsory part of any biology program in any secular university â would be less likely to react violently against notions of evolution that donât fall into lockstep with the supposed mainstream. They would have more perspective. I have found Turnerâs book to be very calming in its effect â non-polemical, constructive, educational. It would be good if more biologists read it.
I donât know what account you are talking about, but I take my historical account from well-trained biologists who accept evolution and in some cases have been leading evolutionary theorists themselves, including George Gaylord Simpson, one of the founders of the modern synthesis, and Stephen Jay Gould, who held the chair at Harvard. Gouldâs knowledge of the history of evolutionary theory dwarfs that of any biologist Iâve seen blogging or debating on the internet. He knowledge of the literature, from pre-Darwin up to the time of Gouldâs own death, is massive, and detailed. Iâve been told here and elsewhere that the only thing that matters is keeping up with the technical journal articles of the past ten years or so, that books about evolution are a waste of time, etc. After reading large parts of Gouldâs book, and other books on the history of evolutionary thought (written by pro-evolution scientists), I disagree.