RAFF

Thanks Flinn

I appreciate your knowledge. I hope that you're interested in continuing

the conversation. I'd like to get a good grasp of this.

I'm not trying to argue for a position definitively I'd just like to weed out the points

and shine light on these issues so that I can understand this fully.

1. Mutation may or may not be chance driven (depending on the replicator). But it sure is

a stochastic process.

 

I grant that mutation is a stochastic process but if the process is not driven by either chance

or a combination of chance and determinism are we really talking about natural selection? If evidence amounted to

show that the process of mutation was driven by some other force... then isn't NS at best only a crude

approximation? That's not to say that the TofNS would be without utility, or that it

wouldn't have a place in our understanding of life. Darwin may prove to be analogous to

Newton. But it seems me that NS would be undermined to the extent that it could no longer be considered

true if some other force besides a combination of determinism and chance were driving the stochastic process of mutation.

Would you agree with that or not?

2. Replication in a broad sense can exist in the regime of error catastrophe and do just

fine. But replication as we know it exists despite not because of mutation.

True, many traits that resulted from mutations exist despite other mutations. Yes,

of course, the capacity to replicate exists despite random fluctuations in the genetic code that could undermine the process.

To an extent all continuously existent traits do. But unless we completely disregard abiogenesis then wouldn't the replicating traits themselves have

arisen from mutations? That was the point.

We can speculate with good reason that replication exists despite mutations because

the only organisms that exist are the ones who's replicating traits were able to exist despite further mutation.

But that doesn't mean that replication itself didn't arise from mutation or that replication works against mutation by its nature.

Organisms go extinct all the time because these traits fail to exist despite mutations.

[sarcastic mode] Right. [/sarcastic mode]

I may be wrong, and if I am please correct me, but...

To my understanding genetic drift, sexual selection, localized forms of lamarkian

evolution, ect. all piggy back on NS. NS being the fundamental mechanism behind the

rest. Fundamental because without NS there could be no genetic drift, sexual selection,

ect. The reverse is not true. That's what I was getting at.

Consider the DNA repair machinery. It is itself a selected feature of an organism. The

efficiency of the DNA repair machinery could vary as a function of the amplitude of

environmental fluctuations (at least in microorganisms). The exploration should increase

with uncertainty of the future environmental conditions. So in relatively constant

environments populations will keep a low mutation rate (efficient DNA repair machinery)

and will move toward a local fitness maximum. But in less predictable conditions, where

the peaks of maximal fitness shift, the mutation rate will increase (to follow the

shifts).

 

In other words, mutation rate can be viewed as a rate of exploration.

I'm really interested in understanding this. But there are a few points that are

unclear. I'm not familiar with what you mean by "exploration". Would you be willing to

clarify? And does "environmental fluctuations" refer to anything more specific than

changes in the environment?

Perhaps I need to get a better grasp of what your saying but I don't see any argument supporting a teleology of mutation rate variance.

Are you ruling out a purely mechanistic explanation behind mutation rate variance? Because it seems certain to me that there should be a purely mechanistic explanation behind the process you're describing.

I think the use of "selection" in the 2nd sentence is a dangerous

word despite its common usage in scientific discourse because what we refer to as natural selection isn't actually

a process of selection at all. I would argue that our use of language can create the appearance of teleology when in fact there is

none.

 

Example: think of the HIV's inefficient RNA-DNA mutation prevention mechanism. Due to the

unpredictability and the adaptive nature of the immune system the local fitness peaks are

running all across the field. So the mutation rate must be high. See, the evolution of

(at least) this virus is teleological.

 

I don't see how that shows the evolution of this virus to be teleological because i see no reason to discount a purely mechanistic explanation for mutation rate variance. If anything, the fitness peaks running all across the field only supports that fact that mutation is a random process, even if mutation rate variance depends on environmental fluctuations in the way you've explained. But, if I'm missing something please explain because I have more experience with philosophy than evolutionary biology.

This is a very simple algorithm: adapt the mutation rate to the predictability of the

environment.

Why is this necessarily a teleological algorithm as opposed to a mechanistic one?

You can narrow down "what we really mean by God" to the point when it really becomes incompatible with natural selection. But by doing this you would explain nothing. The only theory incompatible with natural selection would be the one that logically excludes it.

 

Hey Flinn, Logical exclusion opens the topic to such absurdities as parallelism, which are not realistic and shouldn't be taken seriously by an epistemologically responsible person.

If we are to be epistemologically responsible, It seems to me that the point where the idea of god becomes incompatible with NS is precisely the point where we interject teleology.

I would appreciate for anyone to correct me if I have a misunderstanding.

Let me simplify my position.

NS, as I understand it, has three components.

1. Chance driven mutation

2. Replication (which arose through mutation)

3. Extinction of some replicators and not others.

These components are sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see on earth.

My issue isn't so much with god, but teleology to be specific. God is only a problem when S/He is a personification of teleology. Even if the acts of God are metaphorical, the teleology behind them is not, and that is what is in question. It has nothing to do with a literal account of any scriptures.

If there is teleology behind (1.) mutation then the theory becomes altered to the extent that it can no longer be considered NS. It would instead be a form of the theory of orthogenetic evolution.

Teleology cannot be behind (2.) replication because the mechanisms of replication arose from mutation.

If teleology is behind (3.) extinction then such a teleology is not a teleological process of creation. It may be teleological to the extent that extinction is opening up new doors, but it can not be claimed that one door is preferred over others since the mutations are random. Even if the entire environment were purposefully altered to the extent to only allow one kind of mutation it would not be teleological process of creation. This is not at all the view we imagine when we imagine teleology as compatible with NS. Though this is an interesting perspective.

 

It doesn't seem to me that popular teleological views are incompatible with natural selection. There may be purpose in everything, even in the laws of probability.

Can you explain how this would relate to the process of natural selection, because I'm not talking about probability. I'm talking about the actual process of NS, as outlined above. I don't see any way for the theory of NS to stand while having purpose.

I suspect that the attack on the theory of evolution in general is more of an ideological, political and cultural issue than a theological one. Religions are almost by definition conservative and many people feel that their "family life" is threatened by the age of science and reason. So they use their religion to defend.

 

I would agree, but teleology is the real issue I'm interested in. If I have a misunderstanding on the matter please point it out to me. I'd be happily corrected on this.

THanks

The concept of God that is inherently incompatible with Evolution is the Young Earth Creationist Idea, many Theists prefer to believe that God works though natural means to guide everything in the universe.

I think the issue is a bit sicker that. And That's what I was trying to convey. Sure YEC is incompatible, indeed, but so are most other ideas of God. Any idea of god that involves intentionally creating human beings is incompatible with NS. The only Theism that works with NS is perhaps pantheism if you will.

Its important to be clear that the issue is with NS not just any garden variety form of evolution. NS is unique among possible forms of evolution because it works specifically without the possibility of intention. That's why the theory is so powerful. The idea that god guides the process is just the thing that is incompatible with the theory.

In a way Darwin did us a bit of a disservice in labeling the theory natural Selection. Because there is no selection, nothing is actually being selected. Its just that some things die before replicating, and others don't. What we see around us are the things that don't. It should really have been called the theory of replication, extinction and mutation or something like that.

Thank You,

Especially Ophiolite.

I'm curious to weed out what exactly the board means by in/compatibility because I am given to the notion that there really is an incompatibility between a teleological account and the process of NS.

Religious moderates often believe that God used the process of NS to create human beings. But I feel that this diagnosis stems from a misunderstanding of how NS works. I could understand god using Lamarckian evolution and that I think is the common misunderstanding because people tend to think of evolution as creatures morphing into other creatures as if they were made of clay. But the process of NS is inherently devoid of teleology.

And since NS is sufficient to explain our existence the question becomes; what exactly would God's contribution to the creation of human beings be?

Since mutations are random, God has nothing to contribute there. If he were to guide mutations then we did not evolve according to NS. Therefore it seems the only role god could have is through the termination of species, which is odd for a benevolent "Creator". In this view life keeps cropping up like weeds and God is the disinfectant. However, the point is that this is not the view the RMods are proposing when they think of NS as being compatible with their beliefs. After all we not talking about a creator or even a designer really. Termination may be teleological in its end but it is not a teleological process of creation. And even if it is teleological in its end, since the mutations are random, it can't be claimed that god is terminating one species with the aim of getting a certain kind of species.

The only other way I can see NS being compatible is through the possibility for some sort of "parallelism" between natural processes and the acts of supernatural deity.

But even if we ignore the fact that parallelism defies Occam's Razor there still the further problem as before. There is nothing left to contribute once NS has run its course. There is no role for the parallel supernatural to fill. Everything has been done already, which makes parallelism possible but absurd.

So it seems that me that what we really mean by God is not compatible with NS. A God who has a role to play, and a God who intentionally engages in the process of creation. Of course we can mold god into anything, but that wouldn't be the moderates' view of god.

I was wondering what people's thoughts were on eternal experience? Not in the sense of an afterlife in another realm or reincarnation but perhaps Panpsychism?

Can anyone help me find a list of publications (books, articles - scholarly or otherwise, ect) on why it is that Natural Selection is incompatible with a teleological or designed view of the human species. Specifically, I'm looking for a published explanation of why it is that God could not have created humans using Darwinian Evolution.

Why the idea of God creating Humans is simply incompatible with Natural Selection. Any publications would be appreciated. Its been along time since I've read the God Delusion but I would assume that it must be in there. Anyone know of any others?

Thanks a million.

R