Thoughts on evolution - and other stuff

CoIin: Meeting a friend in the corridor, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) said: "Tell me, why do people always say that it was natural for men to assume that the sun went around the earth rather than the earth was rotating?"

His friend said: "Well, obviously, because it just looks as if the sun is going around the earth."

To which the philosopher replied: "Well, what would it look like if it had looked as if the earth were rotating?"




Ready to see the world differently? Don't worry, if you don't like the view, you can always come back to where you are now.

A devout Christian is liable to look at Nature and see Providence everywhere. The evidence of God's hand is ubiquitous and undeniable. The delicate wing of the butterfly, the beauty of the rose, well, you name your cliche. Even if a skeptic were to point out some "nastier" elements out there in the jungle, the believer is unlikely to see any contradiction. She may not be able to tell you exactly where the goodness lies, but she never doubts that it must be there, even if we mere mortals aren't able to discern it.

The benevolence of God constitutes the very core of the Christian's belief system; all else is inferred from this foundation. To the believer, all this is just absurdly OBVIOUS, and she may utterly fail to comprehend why not all others see what she sees. "It's like they're not even TRYING to see!! "

To the non-believer, of course, none of this is remotely obvious. It's as if the believer is viewing the world through some kind of filter - which, of course, we all are. Or is it a sieve? The non-believer can certainly admit to "apparent design" and the beauty of the rose and the butterfly, but he also thinks of bloodthirsty little parasites, and lions tearing the throats out of gazelles who suffer what we can only assume to be a terrifying and agonizing death.

CoIin: Is there a "fact of the matter" then? Is one right and the other wrong? Or are they both wrong? Well, don't look at me ; what IS clear, however, is that it is POSSIBLE, in fact EASY, for humans to see the world either way given the necessary background assumptions.

In my own case, and I'm sure this holds for most of you as well, everything in nature is viewed in terms of "adaptationism". All creatures are well adapted to their environments, or so we're told (It may come as a shock, but you probably didn't draw this inference for yourself. You were informed). In fact most of us are probably not even aware that this IS an assumption. Once again I emphasize, adaptationism may indeed be the CORRECT basis upon which to construct all our inferences, but it's not the only way the world can be viewed.

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, let me point out that while adaptationism does entail evolution, the converse does not hold. To deny the former is not to deny the latter. Sensible people don't deny evolution, at least in my humble opinion.

We're all brought up on stories of the "exquisite fit" that we see in creatures apropos of their respective environments. Stock examples of the polar bear's white fur, and the camel's hump, and the fish's gills may spring to mind. Just LOOK how well adapted they are!

Well, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, how would the world look if it didn't look as if creatures were "exquisitely adapted"? Think about it. Think carefully about it.

Let's digress for a bit and consider the case of a thermometer, say, or any other functionally defined object. That a thermometer must fulfil the basic requirements to BE a thermometer is simply a truism, a tautology. Anything that does not "fulfil the basic requirements to be a thermometer", i.e. anything that doesn't measure temperature, is just not a thermometer, by definition.

Of course, not all thermometers are the same. Some function better than others. So now we can draw a distinction between what we might call a "competent" thermometer and a good thermometer. A competent thermometer might get the job done, but a good thermometer does it better.

We can easily say the same for a car, or a computer, or a worker. A person who doesn't work is not a worker. As for those who do work, to describe Smith as a "competent" worker is hardly to heap praise upon him. To say he is competent is simply to say that he does the bare minimum to qualify as a "worker". An "excellent" worker (cf. exquisite) is something over and above a merely competent worker.

Well, now, what of these "perfectly adapted" creatures or that "exquisite fit"? What we can now say is that ANY creatures capable of basic survival are just "competent". It's nonsensical to extol the lion's heart or the bird's lungs as "exquisite". If they didn't do what they have to do, the lions and the birds wouldn't be here, and that's that. The being would not "be".

Just as an exercise now, try to name a creature that is not "perfectly adapted" (not my terminology) to its ecology. Can you think of any? A fish species that struggles for air, perhaps? Or a large predator that has difficulty digesting meat? Owls with glasses? Or flies that have to stop and ask for directions in order to find ? (never the males, of course )

If you can't, then let us not say that the creatures we see are "exquisitely adapted". Compared to what? To say that a "being" is able to "be" is to say nothing at all.

So, dear reader, I invite you to look around today. Admire the creatures you see. But ask yourself, what does it really mean to say a creature is "perfectly adapted", or even "well adapted". If nothing is "poorly adapted" how do we know that something is "well adapted"?

Is adaptationism still OBVIOUS? How would the world look if all creatures great and small had indeed evolved, but not in the manner commonly supposed?




"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches. Stones were formed to be quarried and to build castles; and My Lord has a very noble castle; the greatest Baron in the province should have the best house; and as pigs were made to be eaten, we eat pork all year round; consequently, those who have asserted all is well talk nonsense; they ought to have said that all is for the best."

- Voltaire, Candide

lori100: Nice one Colin! I can think of pug type of dogs with flat faces that struggle to breathe every day......they do seem to have trouble adapting to their flat face and nose.....it seems like a cruel joke...

CoIin: Philosophers in the latter half of the 20th century began to speak of our observations being "theory-laden". I think I finally understand what they were getting at.

And "theory" doesn't refer specifically to a scientific theory. Seeing the world through the filter of "God's benevolence" is a case in point. Seeing it through an "adaptationist" filter is another.

Theory-laden observation, if I'm understanding correctly, doesn't occur when a theory is under test. On the contrary, it only occurs when a theory is so deeply ingrained that we don't even think of it as a theory. We don't think of it at all.

We like to think we just look at the world and see it "as it is". This, of course, is optimistic to say the least. The fact that we carve nature up into various distinctions, some natural, perhaps ( "natural kinds"? ) and others arbitrary ( "species"? ) makes this inevitable. We'd never get anything done otherwise.

Perhaps only babies see the world "as it is", at least as far as this is possible for a human being to do, unburdened by all the theoretical filters that we impose on ourselves, Prior to any structures of categorization, they see only a "blooming buzzing confusion" in the felicitous words of William James.

Over and above our self-imposed filters, there are of course the strictures imposed on our understanding by our very humanness, and these we can never remove. Kant suggested as much, I think, with his "categories" of cause/effect, etc.

And yet we expect to find truth?

Perhaps a person's naivete should be judged commensurately with the extent to which they believe to have found this most elusive of beasts.

CoIin: Hi Lori

I can think of pug type of Wireclubbers that struggle to compose coherent posts every day......they do seem to have trouble adapting to the Wireclubbian milieu.....it seems like a cruel joke...

lori100: Hi!

AussieOi: Colin seems to speak more of philosophical enlightenment than ego-centric interpretation. The world got percieved as rounder and less central over time due to enlightenment.

near50ohoh: I can think of one very critical species that is not made suited for it's environment, Colin.


................................................HUMANITY............................................................

Our skin isn't thick or rough enough for the desert, and we would die in three days, or less, exposed to the heat without water.

Our hide isn't thick enough, or covered in enough fur for the arctic, and we would be dead if left on the tundra, in less than three days.

Our hide is not covered in scales or hair enough to endure damp climates, without being susceptible to infections and parasites. And dead of fever within the week.

We need waking time of at least 16 hours, with light enough to see, so we can search for food. And dark enough for at least 6-8, so we can sleep. No more, or less, or we become inconsolable. A danger to ourselves and others.

It is only in a moderate, steady temperature, that we have hope of survival. But we are our own worst predator, so we can't live among ourselves.

I hate to tell you this guys, but we're on the wrong planet!!

................................

near50ohoh: UM just saying but it kind of makes sense that some people believe our first ancestors were brought here from another planet right Lori??

lori100: Right.........all you posted is true, but we also have a mind that can develop and learn better , easier ways to live, to create things to help us...

near50ohoh: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW we do!!

orkanen: Near: It's a nice list, but I find it less than accurate. To sum it up:

Subjected to harsh environments, being naked and alone, we'd surely perish quickly. Yet we are pack animals with reasoning skills, above the average of most othe pack animals. Those of us who take the necessary precautions will survive to see another day. This should cover the first three.

Our sleep cycle is on a 12, not a 24 hour cycle. We can sleep during the day, as well as at night, despite the lacking of darkness during daytime. Some even do. Darkness does aid somewhat in regulating the sleep cycle, but that's it.

With the above mentioned skills, our curiosity, and our ability to learn and to adapt to environments, even as harsh as outer space, we have arrived at the point where we can create and adjust our own environment. We survive so well, we're over populating the planet we live in.

near50ohoh: orkanen Yes we are pack animals, but not all of our reasoning is to our best interests, certainly not as a larger society and definitely not as individuals. We have set up a world in which innovation and creativity are disregarded for what will raise money and keep the populace meek and mild. We are best served as individuals if we live a dual or hypocritical life. And where the war machine is fed before the people are. Where people die everyday for what is cheap and easy to solve so people can be entertained in their manic obsessions. Where people who are poor and brown see the inside of a jail cell or hospital sooner and longer than any white, rich man will.Where gun rights are more important than children surviving through the school day are. How are those good reasoning skills?

the sleep cycle? Actually there have been sleep studies that would argue your perspective. One group I've been interested in following are the studies on shift workers. Laws and workers' rights groups have advocated for changes due to those studies finding that in fact light in the room DOES adversely affect sleep. They have placed the hours required I believe on a 48 hour need actually. (pretty certain but not looking at the study atm) Another group are infants. They find the quality of the sleep devolves the more light that enters the room where the infant is sleeping. Paralleling the shift workers' studies.

The water, air and soil in our planet is being polluted due to rapid and unchecked development and governments would rather do anything else than discuss that and reach an accord. Sooner or later, probably sooner, this planet will die as a result of that or an idiot we elect will push the "button" and blow up this planet. Because science, war machine, government and business come before human life. I'm thinking we have devolved.
The question I see remaining is: how much of the galaxy will we take with us when we finally uh ok burn out?

near50ohoh: Let's pack er up and put the apes in charge!!

CoIin: The Christian opines "God, the omnipotent and benevolent creator, has arranged everything in such a way that all conduces to human wellbeing. Just look around you!"

"If we were a little closer to the Sun, we'd be burned to a crisp; farther away and we'd freeze. If there was no atmosphere, we'd get zapped by deadly radiation. If there was more or less oxygen in the air, respiration would be impossible. If we didn't have dear Jupiter to protect us, we'd have all kinds of nasty asteroids and whatnot blasting us to smithereens. I could go on forever. It is truly a wonder. Praise be to God the Almighty."

The Adaptationist listens, not feeling much wonder at all, and thinking "All she says is indeed true, but it is a TRIVIAL TRUTH, it would HAVE TO be true. It could not be any other way, no matter what theory about the Earth's origins is the correct one."

And doubtless there are planets where life is impossible. It's the most banal of suppositions that we should only expect to find life on planets where life is VIABLE.

The Adaptationist says to the Christian, "Sister, I hear your words, but do not share your sense of amazement. There is much truth in what you say, but it is vacuous truth. There would HAVE TO be much which conduces to life on a living planet, even supposing your God is not the cause. If there was not a great deal here which conduces to life, LIFE WOULD NOT BE HERE."

"Furthermore, with all due respect, I believe I can refute your claim that ALL elements of this system conduce to human wellbeing."

"Please go on" says the Christian.

"Water is wet".

"Um, yes it is" the Christian replies wondering if her Adaptationist brother is perhaps a little dimmer than she thought. "So what?"

"The wetness of water does not conduce to human wellbeing. It is true that all water is wet in our universe, but we've conducted studies in our planetary laboratory, as well as computer simulations, and we have proven incontrovertibly that the wetness of water does not conduce to human welfare. It's entirely neutral in this regard."

"This all seems rather pedantic, brother. Perhaps I can grant that what you say about the wetness of water is true. But as you noted, ALL water is wet. What do you expect - dry water?"

The Adaptationist explains "It is indeed a trivial matter that water should be wet for anyone who does not hold the beliefs that you do. A matter of no significance at all. Just as the blackness of that swan over there is a mere bagatelle. Except for the fellow who holds that all swans are white. Then, of course, a black swan is a VERY big deal."

"But, but, this is silly, brother. All water is wet. There is no such thing in the real world as unwet water."

"Yes, sister, but your God is omnipotent, is He not?"

CoIin: But the Adaptationist does not see, that if his Christian sister has made the mistake (if indeed it IS a mistake) of being deceived by an almost overwhelmingly powerful intuition, inasmuch as he himself holds an adaptationist worldview, he has committed EXACTLY the same error.

More to come....

But first, ponder this. The Christian is amazed by the "fine-tuning" of the solar system vis-a-vis human wellbeing. The Adaptationist sees this as a trivial truth.

The Adaptationist, meanwhile, is astounded by the "fine tuning" of the organism vis-a-vis its ecology. I see this as a trivial truth.

Why should we be awe-struck by the fact that beings are largely composed of elements (traits) which allow them to "be"? Could it be otherwise?


But, Oh! what a powerful intuition it is!!

near50ohoh: OMG two circular arguers found each other ty Colin!!

CoIin: Glad you like it. But it's not a joke.

I'm changing the world here, dah-lin'

near50ohoh:

chattypaddy: i am christian, but i believe in evolution. i'm a cynical christian there may be something out there but all holy books were written by man and man has a way of making a story fit his needs. enough said. most creatures that have trouble like say the man-made animals for instance the dogs and cats breeders mess with to have a nose that is so pushed in his face he has medical problems but the akc and the cat fanciers make it a breed standard. typical human looks before anything else. all life comes from water, every humans and animals in specific regions are made for that climate and that terrain. when they are taken away from the region they will die or adapted. the will to survive is a powerful thing hence the survival of the fittest. that's my two cents

orkanen: chattypaddy: Due to excess dishonesty from some Religionists, the rest of us see ourselves forced to nitpick on semantics. As I have some rudimentary education in various sciences, I don't any more "believe" in Scientific Theories. Instead, I accept the conclusions, based on the facts I so far am aware of, and capable of understanding.

Not to say that your statement "believe" means you do so upon faith. As a comparison, it is still common to say the Sun rises and sets, despite the common knowledge that the Earth is rotating, and not the Sun revolving around the Earth.

near: I've read up on Circadian Rhythm, and I've tested and measured myself, as well as consulting doctors about it, finding we have a 6 hour period where the temperature in our bodies rise approximately 1°C, then during the next 6 hours, it drops equally. On the rise, our bodies are active and alert, as it drops, we feel tired. Therefore, a 12 hour cycle. Our sleep is most efficient during the temperature drop, and as you say, light also counts. See "siesta".

And concerning pollution, speak for yourself.

near50ohoh: orkanen nope I do my part and then some but it doesn't take away the plastic bottles in the ocean does it?

chattypaddy: i give a hoot i don't pollute.

CoIin: Chapter 5 : Did Darwin bite off more than he could chew?

First a truism. (A truism is something that shouldn't need to be said, but if you don't say it, some people get upset)

Truism 1 : That there is no theory of X does not imply that X is not real!

Since I'm in a truistic mood, here's another.

Truism 2 : That there is no theory unifying a concourse of events does not imply that these events happened for no reason. Or reasons!


Familiarity inures us to the AUDACITY of the Darwinian project. Think, comrades! - a GENERAL theory of evolution applicable to all organisms across all times in all milieus! Could there ever be such a panacea? Or is the panacea merely a placebo? To those not staggered by the very notion, I invite you to consider the possibility a general theory of human history.

Sensible people don't deny that history happened!

The lack of a theory of history has not obviously hindered the accumulation of historical knowledge, and yes, in many cases even historians can identify local generalizations, and construct models which yield predictive accuracy, albeit fallible, of course. Come to think of it, not at all dissimilar to the sex-ratio models or predator-prey models that outraged evolutionary biologists will adduce as evidence for the indispensability of the Grand Scheme, models which I have no reason to doubt would continue to function even if the Grand Schemer was found dead in the boardroom.

Like mechanical clocks plugged into an electrical outlet perhaps?

But an across-the-board UNIVERSAL theory of history? Does the idea not strike you as outrageous? It IS outrageous, not that this has deterred a few gallant souls from tackling such a hugely ambitious project. Hegel and Marx come to mind, to name just two (on the grounds that I can't think of any others). It was a 19th century idea. Darwin was a product of his times.

"History is just one damned thing after another". Well, if a theory of history is unattainable, we still have history, don't we? Natural history too. And if what you took to be a novel turns out to be a collection of essays instead, so what?

As long as it's good reading.

(Aphoristic style and exclamation marks courtesy of Nietzsche. By Jove! )

near50ohoh: History has empires rising and falling; cycles between liberal and conservative views; people keeping busy searching for food, sex and entertainment; people searching for answers by whatever means they had available; and making stuff up when they don't. There where do I go to pick up my Nobel Laureate?

CoIin: Thoughts on that Precambrian rabbit...

So, boys and girls, suppose we're discussing the Divine Will theory with our friend, Theo. We suggest that his theory, as it currently stands, is nothing more than a truism. It is compatible with every conceivable observation and incompatible with none. It is, in other words, quite vacuous. Anything at all that happens will be attributed by Theo to Divine Will. In order to be meaningful, the theory would have to rule out the occurrence of certain events.

Theo concedes the point. He would like his theory to be more than just an empty logical tautology. He'd like his theory to be more deserving of respect. He'd like his theory to be more SCIENTIFIC!

Theo now asserts that his theory would be disproven by a shower of Volkswagen Beetles falling from the sky. God would never allow that.

Um, is that all, dude? This is hardly what Karl Popper would describe as a "bold conjecture" to be subjected to severe testing.

Theo nods thoughtfully, "Ok then, a shower of any German car, such as a BMW, would suffice."

Well, friends and lovers, this is all very silly, I hear you lament. Only a theist could come up with such piffle and keep a straight face.

But, take a moment and compare...



"J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied 'fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era'. Richard Dawkins adds that any other modern animal, such as a hippo, would suffice."