Room for Discussing Design in Evolution?

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Thanks very much Mark! I appreciate your response and it makes good sense to me, from my own philosophical perspective. I actually had to read back through quite a few posts to get all of the context, but the reason I was asking here, specifically, was that there was a scientific discussion over the evolution of man, and a question was posed regarding the appearance of the globular brain shape. The question asked, and answered, went like this:

@anon46279830; Randy

What is the significance of the globular brain shape?

Randy it is beyond me to know. It would be speculation and sometimes my speculations can get pretty wild. If you want to talk about it maybe we should do so on the other thread rather than this one. Since human culture exploded at that time I have to think it meant more than ease of birth.

I think that you did a great job of sharing an opinion that probably emanates from a position that is very similar to my own. What I really wanted to learn, and it was never really answered by anyone from the MN community, is how do they navigate this area?

The point I am trying to understand is how “significance” can play nice in the MN world. I can see this being plausible:

• Because of the happenstance adaptation of the globular brain shape, human culture was afforded the opportunity to thrive, well beyond its prior potential.

However, this question of significance seemed to point more to the question of “why did it evolve” as in, for what purpose or end did it come about. So that, while one could make the statement above, one could not make the statement below (following the structure of MN):

• The globular brain shape came about in order to accommodate safer births and improved neural activity. Both allowed human culture and populations to explode.

The original article stated that the brain sizes and cranial capacities evolved separately. So if a benefit were to be gained through this beneficial adaptation, it would be considered to be “fortunate” but not “purposeful” from a MN perspective, right?

This is really what I’m trying to flesh out. When we see an adaptation that, from a human perspective, appears to have so much purpose (as in, designed in advance for such purpose), from a MN perspective we can only appreciate the random good fortune (the material significance, as you say) that benefitted a species (man, in this case.)

I assume that is correct… Again, thank you for your response!

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

I’m confused… What is the difference between “God intervening” and “God engaging… in between… working his goals through natural processes”?

intervene: come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

If God is “engaging” in between how he normally works (as you say, through natural processes), he has literally intervened.

[Ashwin_s]

@swamidass

Makes sense. When directed a specific person, mention them so it’s clear first time around next time.

Ok… will take care of that.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

So do you agree with Patrick that evolution shows a creator who is indifferent and cruel?

Why on earth would you conclude that from anything I wrote? I corrected your mistaken understanding of current thinking in evolutionary biology. I drew no metaphysical conclusions. Frankly, I don’t know how to draw metaphysical from descriptions of the physical world.

(By the way, you’ve added another data point confirming the rule that whenever two posters are arguing and one starts a response with “So…”, he or she will immediately mis-state the other’s position.)

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

It’s also not clear what exactly natural selection is in case of phenotypes… it’s an unpredictable untestable tautology which could create any trait and support any claim.

No, that’s also wrong. There is abundant evidence, for example, that natural selection has favored the trait of lactase persistence in humans who have access to milk. Natural selection is most certainly not a tautology.

@Ashwin_s

It’s also not clear whether phenotypic evolution can be considered independent of molecular evolution.

Since selection for lactase persistence was considered – and evidence for it published – decades before its molecular basis was discovered, yes, it is in fact clear. What is true is that phenotypic evolution requires molecular evolution.

@Ashwin_s

If molecular evolution is largely neutral… then this should apply to phenotypes also… whu do you disagree with this?

Yes, I do disagree with that. Molecular evolution is largely neutral because most molecular changes have no effect on phenotype. One cannot draw any conclusions about how important selection is for phenotypic evolution based on that fact.

[Ashwin_s]

@glipsnort

Why on earth would you conclude that from anything I wrote? I corrected your mistaken understanding of current thinking in evolutionary biology. I drew no metaphysical conclusions. Frankly, I don’t know how to draw metaphysical from descriptions of the physical world.

I didn’t conclude anything… that’s why I asked…
When a statement starts with “so do you” and ends with a “?”… it’s a question… not a conclusion… ever come across that data point?

How would you as a scientists answer a query such as Patrick’s… that evolution seems to be a cruel and indifferent process…
Pls note, I am not arguing with you. I am trying to find out what you think.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

Well what is it? Competion as the main impetus for evolution? Randomness?

The options you’re offering aren’t competing possibilities (e.g. competition acting on random mutations would be counted how?), nor do I know what metric to use to assign the most important role.

[Ashwin_s]

@glipsnort

No, that’s also wrong. There is abundant evidence, for example, that natural selection has favored the trait of lactase persistence in humans who have access to milk. Natural selection is most certainly not a tautology.

Yes, but no one could predict it would…and sometimes the opposite effect could also be explained by natural selection…
I have come across peer reviewed piblished papers that point to it as tautology…

@glipsnort

Yes, I do disagree with that. Molecular evolution is largely neutral because most molecular changes have no effect on phenotype. One cannot draw any conclusions about how important selection is for phenotypic evolution based on that fact.

Is there something called phenotypic evolution? Doesn’t it all happen at the molecular level?
Can you clarify pls.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Michael_Callen

I’m confused… What is the difference between “ God intervening ” and “ God engaging… in between… working his goals through natural processes ”?

intervene: come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

@Michael_Callen

I’m glad you asked the question!

The reason “intervene” is a poor word is that it has the connotation that “natural lawful order” is somehow NOT organically a part of God’s normal work.

If a painter in oils makes a landscape with brushes… and then for his final dramatic touches he employs a few deft strokes with a painter’s knife… is he “intervening”? Hardly.

First he ENGAGES the brushes…
THEN he engages the sharp edges tool!

It’s all part of the Creator’s work!

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

How would you as a scientists answer a query such as Patrick’s… that evolution seems to be a cruel and indifferent process…
Pls note, I am not arguing with you. I am trying to find out what you think.

I would answer it the way I just did to you: I don’t know how to draw metaphysical conclusions about ultimate reality from descriptions of physical processes. Specifically speaking as a scientist, I would say that that conclusion lies outside of science.

[Ashwin_s]

@glipsnort

I would answer it the way I just did to you: I don’t know how to draw metaphysical conclusions about ultimate reality from descriptions of physical processes. Specifically speaking as a scientist , I would say that that conclusion lies outside of science.

Ok fair enough… as a confessing scientist, how would you answer such a question?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@glipsnort

Natural selection is most certainly not a tautology.

@Ashwin_s…

Why didn’t you believe this when I said it a month ago? Or do you STILL disbelieve?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Ashwin_s

How would you as a scientists answer a query such as Patrick’s… that evolution seems to be a cruel and indifferent process…
Pls note, I am not arguing with you. I am trying to find out what you think.

@Ashwin_s (@glipsnort)

The only way to answer this at the right level is to confirm that the questioned believes The Fall triggered the creation of carnivores!

Ashwin, is this your position?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

Yes, but no one could predict it would…and sometimes the opposite effect could also be explained by natural selection…

The same could be said about many physical processes described by science. What’s your point here?

@Ashwin_s

I have come across peer reviewed piblished papers that point to it as tautology…

If you have, they’re wrong.

@Ashwin_s

Is there something called phenotypic evolution? Doesn’t it all happen at the molecular level?
Can you clarify pls.

Ultimately, organisms are a bunch of molecules in a dynamic system, so yes, ultimately all evolution is molecular evolution. But it is convenient to distinguish between all changes that occur in DNA or proteins, and the subset that cause any larger observable change in the organism, i.e. changes to phenotype.

[Ashwin_s]

@gbrooks9

The only way to answer this at the right level is to confirm that the questioned believes The Fall triggered the creation of carnivores!

Ashwin, is this your position?

I am not asking from a Christian perspective. I have heard this POV on evolution from both athiests as well as Christians. Its a question based on how evolution is protected by some people as a theory. Historically it has been used to justify some horrible ideas such as eugenics. Hence I want to know how a scientist would answer such a question.
It’s a larger question with larger ramifications.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

Ok fair enough… as a confessing scientist, how would you answer such a question?

As a confessing Christian, I believe that God is the source of and intimately involved in all of the physical world. More specifically, I believe (and this is strictly a personal belief, not a received doctrine) that in the Cross we see that God’s fundamental response to this world, in both its cruelty and its beauty, is to redeem it by participating in it.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Okay, gotcha… So, let’s keep with your analogy. I think it is a good one. God is the artist. The painting is the creation. Painting with brushes is the normal approach for this creation to take place (evolution). A painters knife provides a few flourishes at the end (miraculous intervention.)

This is exactly “intervening”… Painting with brushes is the “course of events” and painting with a knife is coming between those brush strokes in a way that is different.

[Ashwin_s]

@glipsnort

that point to it as tautology…

If you have, they’re wrong.

I will link the paper. You can read it and then say they are wrong…

Reconsidering the logical structure of the theory of natural selection

They make a clear argument instead of a statement based on authority… so I am inclined to agree with them. No offence meant.

@glipsnort

Ultimately, organisms are a bunch of molecules in a dynamic system, so yes, ultimately all evolution is molecular evolution. But it is convenient to distinguish to distinguish between all changes that occur in DNA or proteins, and the subset that cause any larger observable change in the organism, i.e. changes to phenotype.

If all evolution is molecular evolution… and selection has a small role to play in it… I think it’s fair to say selection has a similarly small role to play in evolution as a whole. I don’t get you objection.

[anon46279830]

@gbrooks9

The word “intervene” in this context is unsupportable

Was the Resurrection intervention in the natural order?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Ashwin_s

They make a clear argument instead of a statement based on authority… so I am inclined to agree with them.

“However, natural selection can be described non-tautologically if we’re careful.” Seems pretty clear. Specifically, they state that a propensity definition of natural selection – which is the kind of definition that all evolutionary biologists have used for decades – is not tautological.