Perfection in Nature and Frank Sinatra

[Reg Prescott]

I just came across the following intriguing passage in Elliott Sober's "The Nature of Selection" (page 175):

 

Quote

A related point is that natural selection does not guarantee that the adaptations found in nature are perfect. Darwin (1859) concluded The Origin of Species by pointing out that the theory makes the existence of imperfect, though serviceable, adaptations comprehensible in a way that the doctrine of special, divine creation does not.

 

The first claim -- "the theory [of natural selection] makes the existence of imperfect, though serviceable, adaptations comprehensible" -- seems perfectly sensible to me. The second -- "the doctrine of special, divine creation does not [make the existence of imperfect, though serviceable, adaptations comprehensible]" -- is less obviously tenable.

But first a parable...

The Chinese word for contradiction or paradox is mao-dun (矛盾). The former character (矛 - "mao") means spear; the latter (盾 - "dun") means shield.

The story goes that way back when in a marketplace somewhere in China, a vendor was shouting, "Roll up! Roll up! These spears are the strongest in the world. They can penetrate any shield".

Meanwhile, at a neighboring stall, another vendor cries, "Roll up! Roll up! These shields are the strongest in the world. No spear can penetrate them".

Hence "mao-dun", or paradox.

Now, back to Darwin and Sober, if it were the case that You-Know-Who had created perfectly adapted gazelles and perfectly adapted lions, would we not also find ourselves facing paradox? Does the hungry lion feast or not? The paradox could of course be obviated by creating imperfect (though serviceable) adaptations, in which case divine, special creation is no less comprehensible than natural selection.

Any thoughts?

The Sinatra fans among you may wish to check out the opening lines of his "Something's Gotta Give" to aid your lucubrations.

 

(Not sure whether music links are allowed. I'll remove it upon request. It is kinda relevant though ).

[Eise]

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, back to Darwin and Sober, if it were the case that You-Know-Who had created perfectly adapted gazelles and perfectly adapted lions, would we not also find ourselves facing paradox? Does the hungry lion feast or not? The paradox could of course be obviated by creating imperfect (though serviceable) adaptations, in which case divine, special creation is no less comprehensible than natural selection.

Any thoughts?

I think you are applying the criterion of 'perfectness' on the wrong level. It is not between different species: in your example of the gazelles and the lions we see a continuous 'arms-race'.

But animal bodies, how greatly adapted they might be, have some 'design errors'. E.g. the placement of our trachea and the oesophagus, which has the risk of suffocation when eating. There is an evolutionary explanation for it, but as a design from scratch, it should never have been made like this.

[Reg Prescott]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I think you are applying the criterion of 'perfectness' on the wrong level. It is not between different species: in your example of the gazelles and the lions we see a continuous 'arms-race'.

But animal bodies, how greatly adapted they might be, have some 'design errors'. E.g. the placement of our trachea and the oesophagus, which has the risk of suffocation when eating. There is an evolutionary explanation for it, but as a design from scratch, it should never have been made like this.

Hi Eise. Thanks for the input.

Re your first sentence. We can agree, I'm sure, that a perfect (whether through adaptation or creation) gazelle -- in a given ecology -- would be quite a different beast from a perfect lion.

The point I'm making, however, is that a perfect gazelle would be a beast who, among other things, invariably evades predators. A perfect lion, on the other hand, would be a beast who, inter alia, invariably catches its prey.

And here lies the paradox.

Under such circumstances it makes little sense to speak of an "arms race". When perfection has been attained, there's no place left to go. At least not in the upwards direction anyway.

Thus, to circumvent the paradox -- of lions feasting on gazelles that cannot be feasted upon -- You-Know-Who (just supposing) might have had to introduce imperfection. And if this scenario is correct, the special divine creation hypothesis is just as explanatory as that of natural selection with regards explaining the imperfections we see in nature, contra your final remark "it should never have been made like this".

Does this make any sense to you?

Edited October 18, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Eise]

43 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

And here lies the paradox.

It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me.

In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.

[mistermack]

I can see God's logic. 

He created humans, and he created leprosy. He didn't want leprosy to wipe out the humans, he just wanted to see them suffer. So he made it less than fatal, and not hugely contagious, so that there would always be some lepers begging him for a cure for their awful disgusting ailment.

I think he went a bit to far with smallpox though. Not his finest hour. 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me.

In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.

If I could give you a dozen up votes I would Eise!!! Exactly what came to my mind when I read that crazy tripe. But I was choosing to stay out of it, due to experience in other threads of circular arguments, ignoring of evidence and examples invalidating this weird philosophical stance that he has been trying to push since 2015. I could mention some more relevant  anomalies in the OP claim and that of his reply to you, but I thought it best to try and alleviate another dummy spit.  Not only is his knowledge of science questionable going on past posts, but it appears he also has a tentative grip on his favourite area philosophy. Again you have hit the nail fair square on the head.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Thus, to circumvent the paradox -- of lions feasting on gazelles that cannot be feasted upon -- You-Know-Who (just supposing) might have had to introduce imperfection. And if this scenario is correct, the special divine creation hypothesis is just as explanatory as that of natural selection with regards explaining the imperfections we see in nature, contra your final remark "it should never have been made like this".

I see no paradox.

Watch one of the many excellent Nature programmes available.

You will see the both pack hunters and lone hunters prey on the weak members of the target flock.

They rarely catch a 'perfect' specimen.

[Reg Prescott]

24 minutes ago, Eise said:

It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me.

In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.

We seem to be at cross purposes, Eise.

In the OP we see that Darwin believes (i) imperfection in nature is rendered comprehensible by natural selection, but not by special creation.

(To be clear, I'm not defending special creation -- nor natural selection for that matter -- just examining the philosophical implications of Darwin's claim)

What I'm saying is if special creation implies perfection in nature, as Darwin appears to have believed, then we end up with precisely the kind of paradox you've alluded to yourself (lifting a stone that cannot be lifted, or gazelles evading predators that cannot be evaded). Thus, assuming You-Know-Who is as limited by logic as the rest of us (i.e., paradox is as insuperable to Him as it is to us), it would be necessary to introduce imperfection in nature.

And if that were the case (I'm not arguing that it is the case), then imperfection in nature would be rendered comprehensible by special creation as well as by natural selection.

[studiot]

The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by studiot
spelling

[Strange]

It seems a bit silly to try and apply logic to concepts based on religious belief. 

Maybe some people believe god’s creations are perfect. And maybe that gives rise to logical paradoxes. But the people who believe are not going to care at all. It is a matter of faith, not logic. 

It seems pointless to ask why people’s beliefs can be illogical. To some extent it is part of the definition of belief/faith that it is not based on logic or facts. 

And none of this has any relevance to evolution (or Sinatra).

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.

 

It also seems that “Reg” is discussing Darwin’s personal opinions rather than the science so  I’m not sure what the point is. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Hi Eise. Thanks for the input.

Re your first sentence. We can agree, I'm sure, that a perfect (whether through adaptation or creation) gazelle -- in a given ecology -- would be quite a different beast from a perfect lion.

The point I'm making, however, is that a perfect gazelle would be a beast who, among other things, invariably evades predators. A perfect lion, on the other hand, would be a beast who, inter alia, invariably catches its prey.

And here lies the paradox.

Under such circumstances it makes little sense to speak of an "arms race". When perfection has been attained, there's no place left to go. At least not in the upwards direction anyway.

Thus, to circumvent the paradox -- of lions feasting on gazelles that cannot be feasted upon -- You-Know-Who (just supposing) might have had to introduce imperfection. And if this scenario is correct, the special divine creation hypothesis is just as explanatory as that of natural selection with regards explaining the imperfections we see in nature, contra your final remark "it should never have been made like this".

Does this make any sense to you?

The problem lies in your premise, and is twofold. First that special creation implies perfection, and then what that perfection is. The quote you provided makes no mention of perfection, it only mentions imperfection. And the context of that imperfection was summarized quite nicely by Eise in the first response to you. That it is difficult to reconcile special creation with those kinds of imperfections does not imply that special creation requires perfection. 

A quick comparison with nature tells you that your interpretation cannot be correct. Special creation is wrong, and/or this perfection (or interpretation of perfection) does not exist.

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

 In the OP we see that Darwin believes (i) imperfection in nature is rendered comprehensible by natural selection, but not by special creation.

No, that's not what the passage implies.

[Eise]

7 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The second -- "the doctrine of special, divine creation does not [make the existence of imperfect, though serviceable, adaptations comprehensible]" -- is less obviously tenable.

Yes, it is if you try to apply it on a paradoxical situation with perfect gazelles and lions. But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have designed better.

So while I follow your argument, it is based on the idea that such things as perfect gazelles and lions make any sense. But they already don't make any sense in themselves, the concepts of perfect gazelles and lions are empty. So you can prove everything. So what the fuzz? What do think you gain by this argument? Show that evolution is conceptually not sound?

Maybe you should lookup Darwin's remark in context, to see what he is talking about.

[Reg Prescott]

Hi again,

19 minutes ago, Eise said:

So while I follow your argument, it is based on the idea that such things as perfect gazelles and lions make any sense. 

Quite the opposite! The argument is based on the idea that "such things as perfect gazelles and lions" does not make any sense, by which I mean the co-existence of perfect gazelles and perfect lions leads to paradox of the spear-shield type.

20 minutes ago, Eise said:

But they already don't make any sense in themselves, the concepts of perfect gazelles and lions are empty. 

The concepts are clearly not empty. You just tokened them. As did I. What we can say, instead, is that the concepts do not refer (cf. the concept of a unicorn: we all have the concept, but the concept suffers from "reference failure").

22 minutes ago, Eise said:

So you can prove everything. So what the fuzz? What do think you gain by this argument? Show that evolution is conceptually not sound?

Sigh! This always happens. For the record, for the zillionth time LOL, I'm not religious. I don't believe in God.

The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with undermining evolution. It's purely conceptual in nature, and its thrust -- assuming it is sound -- lies in refuting the claim that special creation, if true, would fail, contra Darwin, to explain imperfection in nature.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The argument is based on the idea that "such things as perfect gazelles and lions" does not make any sense, by which I mean the co-existence of perfect gazelles and perfect lions leads to paradox of the spear-shield type.

Are you absolutely certain that your definition of "perfect" for gazelles and lions is the same one that Darwin had in mind? Or that Creationists have in mind? Do you have a reference for Creationists defining "perfect gazelle" in this way?

 

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Quite the opposite! The argument is based on the idea that "such things as perfect gazelles and lions" does not make any sense, by which I mean the co-existence of perfect gazelles and perfect lions leads to paradox of the spear-shield type.

That assumes your so called paradox of the spear and shield is a paradox.

 

Again I see no paradox.

 

Please explain it to me.

[Reg Prescott]

@ Eise

I'd like to retract the following statement from my previous post: "The concepts are clearly not empty."

I was talking crap. 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The point I'm making, however, is that a perfect gazelle would be a beast who, among other things, invariably evades predators.

That cannot be the correct definition of "perfect" for a prey animal. By definition, a prey animal exists to be eaten. Therefore a "perfect" gazelle is one that can be caught, but escapes often enough to allow the species to survive. I think that both Creationists and evolutionary theory would agree about that.

Although, a "perfect" prey animal according to Creationists should be one that just appears from nowhere, rooted to the spot, when a predator was hungry. There would be an inexhaustible supply of these magic animals so lions would never go hungry. But not so many that they would get fat.

Also, a "perfect" mosquito wouldn't carry malaria and their bites wouldn't itch.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Eise

I'd like to retract the following statement from my previous post: "The concepts are clearly not empty."

I was talking crap. 

 

Progress. +1

 

Now how about responding to my serious question on paradoxes?

Two members have now raised objections to the gazelle / lion construct.

I can offer a resolution to the spear / shield construct

Ancient  lore and literature is littererd (pun intended) with clever stories like this, for instance the Irish strong man who couldn't be killed indoors or out.

The most popular 'paradox' of this type is the what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object ?

This has its resolution in Newton's third Law and Mathematics.

Edited October 18, 2018 by studiot

[Eise]

32 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Quite the opposite! The argument is based on the idea that "such things as perfect gazelles and lions" does not make any sense, by which I mean the co-existence of perfect gazelles and perfect lions leads to paradox of the spear-shield type.

So obviously Darwin did not mean that... Did you find the context already in Darwin's work? I offered you the a possible correct context, and I assume this is what Darwin meant.

34 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The concepts are clearly not empty. You just tokened them. As did I. What we can say, instead, is that the concepts do not refer (cf. the concept of a unicorn: we all have the concept, but the concept suffers from "reference failure").

OK, good you retracted this. You cannot create meaningful concepts by just gluing a few words together. I can talk about to the 4^th angle of a triangle, but I do not even need to look for triangles that could have a 4^th angle, because the reference is empty, in this case the 'concept' is logically contradictory.

On the other hand, the concept of 'unicorn' is not empty, but it highly depends if it has a real referent, not just an intentional, on how you define it. If you define it as 'a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin' it is very clear that you can describe such an animal, but we know there are no real specimen of this animal. If you define it just as 'an animal with one horn on its head', then there are several animals that fit the description, e.g. the Indian rhinoceros. See, here my unicorn:

Isn't it a beauty?

The concept of a 'perfect thing' is that perfection is relative to some ideal, i.e. it is related to our aims and values. @Strange gave a few examples (I would add that the perfect mosquito also does not buzz...). See e.g. some criticisms on the ontological proof of God's existence of Anselm.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Eise said:

OK, good you retracted this. You cannot create meaningful concepts by just gluing a few words together. I can talk about to the 4^th angle of a triangle, but I do not even need to look for triangles that could have a 4^th angle, because the reference is empty, in this case the 'concept' is logically contradictory.

I must remember this one. +1

 

By the way I once had a short (mathematical) paper published in The Empire Survey Review under the title

The Use of the 5th Quadrant.

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by studiot

[Reg Prescott]

Hi again,

1 hour ago, Eise said:

So obviously Darwin did not mean that... Did you find the context already in Darwin's work? I offered you the a possible correct context, and I assume this is what Darwin meant.

 

Unfortunately, Elliott Sober is no more specific about context than quoted in the OP. After reading through the final chapter of Origin, though, the following passage is quite telling:

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418)

http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Darwin_Origin_Of_Species.pdf

 

Now, this passage seems to make clear that Darwin was not contrasting the imperfections found in nature (as would be expected from natural selection) against a better, albeit imperfect, design -- as you suggested -- that we might expect if special creation were true. Rather, he's contrasting imperfection with absolute perfection.

Compare with this remark from your second last post: "But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have [been] designed better". Darwin appears to be saying they could not only have been designed better, but perfectly.

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

OK, good you retracted this. You cannot create meaningful concepts by just gluing a few words together. I can talk about to the 4^th angle of a triangle, but I do not even need to look for triangles that could have a 4^th angle, because the reference is empty, in this case the 'concept' is logically contradictory.

 

I'd agree with all of this, Eise, except the suggestion that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is "meaningless". It's not particularly relevant to our argument, though the concept seems perfectly meaningful to me. We can understand it, right? (Compare with the concept FERLUD GERCILP) If something is meaningless surely we would not be able to understand it. It's just that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is not only uninstantiated (like the concept UNICORN), but cannot be instantiated.

 

As you rightly note, it fails to refer. Frege would say, though, it has a sense (and thus meaningful), but no referent.

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

On the other hand, the concept of 'unicorn' is not empty, but it highly depends if it has a real referent, not just an intentional, on how you define it. If you define it as 'a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin' it is very clear that you can describe such an animal, but we know there are no real specimen of this animal. If you define it just as 'an animal with one horn on its head', then there are several animals that fit the description, e.g. the Indian rhinoceros. See, here my unicorn:

Ah, now we're straying a wee bit off topic. This stuff fascinates me, though. What you're assuming here is that reference is determined by the satisfaction of a description (a la Russell and Frege). Kripke and Putnam, as you probably know, offer an alternative theory of reference, applicable to at least proper names and so-called natural kind terms, under which reference is secured via a causal chain, as opposed to the unique satisfaction of a description. 

On this alternative view, reference of the concept UNICORN (which presumably has no extension or referent) or FRANK SINATRA (which presumably does, or did, have a referent) is secured through the user being causally connected in the right way to the referent. For example, Joe Sixpack might not be able to offer but the vaguest description of Richard Feynman, say, ("Er, he's a famous scientist or something"), a description that does not uniquely single Prof Feynman out, though on the Kripke/Putnam account, successful reference can nonetheless be achieved.

 

It seems counterintuitive to say that just coz poor ole Joe is unable to uniquely identify Richard Feynman, he cannot refer to him. And for reasons such as this, classical descriptivist theories of reference are pretty much moribund.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Reg Prescott
added a link and a few bits and pieces

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

I'd agree with all of this, Eise, except the suggestion that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is "meaningless". It's not particularly relevant to our argument, though the concept seems perfectly meaningful to me. We can understand it, right? (Compare with the concept FERLUD GERCILP) If something is meaningless surely we would not be able to understand it. It's just that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is not only uninstantiated (like the concept UNICORN), but cannot be instantiated.

 

Well as Mathematician, I disagree that the concept of a triangle with four angles is meaningless.

Eise's statement of empty is more useful.

Such concepts are actually in much use in (particularly applied) Mathematics.

 

38 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

ow, this passage seems to make clear that Darwin was not contrasting the imperfections found in nature (as would be expected from natural selection) against a better, albeit imperfect, design -- as you suggested -- that we might expect if special creation were true. Rather, he's contrasting imperfection with absolute perfection.

Compare with this remark from your second last post: "But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have [been] designed better". Darwin appears to be saying they could not only have been designed better, but perfectly.

 

Maybe you are right in your interpretation of Darwin's meaning.
But that does not make his a correct analysis.

But how is that relevant to Frank Sinatra?

I note you have moved from the one unique definition of perfection to a scale of perfection.

Again +1 for this shift.

However to be mathematical again, (since scales are mathematical) there is the asymptote interpretation to absolute perfection.
This would dispel your worries about the use of such, although it is now too late for Darwin to revise his work.

[Strange]

And, what is still being ignored is that the definition of "perfect" is subjective and context dependent. So it is not surprising that one can create a paradox by choosing mutually contradictory definitions. That says absolutely nothing about other people's different definitions of "perfect".

Edited October 18, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And, what is still being ignored is that the definition of "perfect" is subjective and context dependent. So it is not surprising that one can create a paradox by choosing mutually contradictory definitions. That says absolutely nothing about other people's different definitions of "perfect".

Yup +1

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Hi again,

 

Unfortunately, Elliott Sober is no more specific about context than quoted in the OP. After reading through the final chapter of Origin, though, the following passage is quite telling:

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418)

http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Darwin_Origin_Of_Species.pdf

 

Now, this passage seems to make clear that Darwin was not contrasting the imperfections found in nature (as would be expected from natural selection) against a better, albeit imperfect, design -- as you suggested -- that we might expect if special creation were true. Rather, he's contrasting imperfection with absolute perfection.

Not so much. 

On p 184 (emphasis added)
"Natural selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it has to struggle for existence."

The phrase "more perfect" is inconsistent with the notion that he's talking about some "absolute perfection". How can you be more perfect than something else that is absolutely perfect? It's like being north of the north pole.

There's also 

"Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under nature."

Which flat-out denies your thesis. That whole section makes clear he is using perfection as a relative and local measure of fitness. Not an absolute.

You are introducing your own notion of perfection here, not Darwin's. And your original quote was not from Darwin, so that's yet another person's definition involved (though, as I pointed out, they never mention perfection, only imperfection)