Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around? The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves, a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley, shows us what happens when evolutionary psychology clashes with powerful social values. The former comes out the worse for it.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
June 30th, 2009 at 7:11 am
This paragraph seems to sum up the article:
Apparently "evo psych" is an evolving science, and new ideas are replacing old.
Comment by The Pixie Again — June 30, 2009 @ 7:11 am
June 30th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Did anyone actually argue that the fault does not lie within ourselves if we commit crimes?
Last I looked rape, no matter what your post-hoc reasoning for it you can come up with (tiny pink elephant told me to do it, my cave-man genes told me to do it, my vengeful god told me to do it, …), it remains illegal and you will be punished.
Or did the person who observed rape occurring in the animal kingdom and speculated how rape in humans could be an adaptation at the same time argue that such rape should be legal and is justified?
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 7:36 am
June 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It is not that simplistic. Within legal systems judges have considerable latitude as far as evidentiary rulings and sentencing goes. One who feels moral failures are programmed is apt to act differently than one who views moral failures as something that must be faced up to and changed.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 10:58 am
June 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Maybe so… so what are we going to do about it? Show that the science is false? Or show that writing a book or advancing a hypothesis can have consequences (irrespective of the correctness of the science)?
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 11:46 am
June 30th, 2009 at 11:49 am
What exactly is the "science" you're referencing.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 11:49 am
June 30th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I assumed that in this thread we were referring to people claiming that rape (and other undesirable behavior) might actually have been selected for through human evolution. That was the "science" I was referring to.
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
So where's the "science" in that, hrun?
Comment by Jean — June 30, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I agree Jean. Where's the science in that claim?
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I don't know. Who do you think I am? Somebody who has time to read up on Evo-Psych research? It seems like Bradford knows. Why not ask him?
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
and subsequently in response to the question "So where's the "science" in that, hrun?"
You're confused. Initially you assert that the science you were referring to was the claim "that rape (and other undesirable behavior) might actually have been selected for through human evolution." Then you modify that to "I don't know" when asked for the science in that.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Evolution is not a "moral" process, something is not moral just because it evolved. No one I am aware of is claiming otherwise. Of course evolution does tend to select things that work and since morality works there certainly might be selective advantages there. This, however, cannot demonstrate morality.
In other words, the author doesn't seem to be making any sort of moral case nor would any reasonable person and yet Bradford fears this research, if true, might lead judges to not punish rapists? I don't see the connection between that seemingly unjustified fear and this research.
PS: Just to be clear, I think most evo-psych is BS. At best they gather interesting correlations but then often jump to wild conclusions.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 30, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Todd:
You need a remedial reading course.
Comment by Bradford — June 30, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
June 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I am not at all confused, Bradford. There is a branch of research (or science if you will) that is called 'evolutionary psychology'. Typically, what was described (human behavior based on evolution) falls into the purview of evo-psych as I understand it. Hence, I called this 'science'. If you have a beef with this particular hypothesis or if you feel that all of evo-psych is not science… then fine. It doesn't matter much to me either way. I have not informed myself in detail about evo-psych to know if it is science or not.
If it is not, I am sure that you (or Jean) can make that case.
Comment by hrun — June 30, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
July 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Bradford great article. Whether or not there's any truth to the conclusions of the researchers is something I wont get into, however I will say that Darwinist are always the first ones to give credit to evolution for constructs such as intelligence, altruism, cognitive reasoning etc however, the negative aspects of life are usually ignored. Someone once said that great ideas have many mothers and fathers, but bad ideas are orphans.
Comment by themayan — July 11, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Hi themayan,
I've been critical of efforts to cite human belief systems and link their origin to an evolutionary process. I think the efforts are laden with mischief. Consider the reaction if a popular or politically correct set of beliefs is cited and linked to a hypothesis which attempts to explain their origin on vague or unspecified evolutionary pathways. My gut instincts signal that there would be resentment and reactions like "it's about justice, not evolution" would surface. The danger of evo/psych research is that it lends itself naturally to politicization.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 7:41 am
July 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am
As we know with a high degree of scientific certainty that life evolved, it becomes a matter of trying to disentangle the biological and cultural aspects of modern humans. However, it is important that such conjectures be testable to be considered more than speculation.
Gee whiz. Animals consume other organisms for nourishment. Frankly, you need to try and understand evolution before making such unfounded statements. The Theory of Evolution certainly does involve death and dying, disease, even extinction. Many things humans would consider "negative aspects of life".
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 9:38 am
July 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Zachriel maybe I should have been more specific. I was speaking in terms of the context of the article, rape, murder, cruelty, etc or what most would consider inhumane behaviour. I was speaking of causation not models. Evolution is supposed to be a scientific and natural model of cause and effect, according to the theory.
Comment by themayan — July 12, 2009 @ 10:30 am
July 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Consider the following human urges:
the urge to rape
the urge to stereotype
the urge to ponder the origins of humans and the universe they inhabit
the urge to use governments to regulate societal behavior
A researcher with some imagination could fashion theories and attempt to identify genes which influence behavior. What approach would be used "to disentangle the biological and cultural aspects of modern humans?"
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 10:30 am
July 12th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Many aspects of human behavior are not easily explained in biological terms. However, where we can find a continuum with related species, then we have reason to suspect an evolutionary origin. However, all of human behavior is highly influenced by culture, so disentangling causes can be problematic. That is not to say that humans didn't evolve. They did. But culture strongly infuences behavior.
Humans are social organisms, and one of the most important explanatory aspects of human behavior is the relationship of the individual with their perceived status within the "group".
Imagination is critical to the proposal of interesting hypotheses, however, being able to demonstrate such relationships can be difficult. Few scientists would consider single genes to have much explanatory power; most treating the question on a biological level.
A fruitful approach might be to isolate heritable behavioral characteristics. In humans, this includes such basics as hunger and sex, but also relationships with others. Peculiar characteristics of humans include the ability to abstract about the past or future or even imaginary worlds.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 11:18 am
July 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Or the ability to abstract about both actual and fantasy worlds like the one in which humans are driven to use governments (actual) to create utopias (fantasies). What heritable characteristics are relevant to this?
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 11:38 am
July 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
You just provided your own answer. It derives from the human ability to abstract.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 11:47 am
July 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hmmm. In view of the fact that this involves a considerable portion of the human brain and many, many genes how could evo/psych approaches be expected to yield useful results about anything attributed to an abstraction capacity?
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 11:50 am
July 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
You seem to be fixated on genes. Humans clearly inherited a panoply of traits from their hominid ancestors. This includes the use of tools and the formation of social groups and cooperation.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Are you saying that the use of tools and the formation of social groups and cooperation can be biologically analyzed apart from consideration of gene expression?
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Yes. Of course. Do you really think we have to know the molecular basis of the gene to observe that traits, including behavioral traits, can be inherited?
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
No. But what I am wondering is how observing primate traits, for example, enables one to state anything about say, rape, which goes beyond it is a related to inheritance. That strikes me as very banal.
Comment by Bradford — July 12, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The only thing we don't know is how life evolved. If the evolutionary pathway cannot be reconstructed "with a high degree of scientific certainty", how can we know that life actually evolved?
First, of course, you must define "evolved". Do you mean simply that life has 'changed over time'? No one disputes that. Or do you mean that "we know with a high degree of scientific certainty that life" evolved from molecules to man? Herein lies the problem.
For instance, take one of life's basic features: Paired enzymes. Paired enzymes are unrelated enzymes that influence metabolic cycles by the same allosteric effectors only in opposite ways at branch points. If only one enzyme evolved at a time, the metabolic cycle proceeds in one direction only and has no balancing factor. If two cycles evolved separately, they could both proceed unregulated, competing with each other over the same resources – or worse – synthesizing and degrading the same compound at the same time. Conditions such as this are called 'disease' and ultimately cause death. All of life's metabolic cycles are precisely regulated so that energy is not wasted.
No one (to my knowledge) knows how paired enzymes evolved.
What I've found in my time discussing this issue is that virtually all atheists believe in molecules to man evolution but none of them want to discuss the details of that evolution. They usually say something like "Read the scientific literature yourself" and "I can't help it if you don't understand it", all the while dodging the fact that they have no clue how this process they so firmly believe in produced anything we see today.
Do you actually know "with a high degree of scientific certainty" how anything evolved Zachriel?
Or is this all smoke and mirrors?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 12, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
July 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Evolution refers to the change and divergence in the genetic compositions of populations. The Theory of Evolution explains how these changes occur. The most fundamental patterns in biology are due to Common Descent.
Yes. The problem is the strawman. The Theory of Evolution doesn't make claims about "molecules to man".
I would be happy to discuss the Theory of Evolution. It's best to start with what is most strongly established. We might start with the fact that humans and monkeys and fishes share a common ancestor and (first-order approximation) they evolved by gradual, selectable steps.
Evolution can be directly observed. And many historical transitions are well-researched. You might consider equine evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
July 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Let's do that then.
And what were those steps then? Are they actually known "with a high degree of scientific certainty"?
No disputing that.
Good!
OK… How did we get from one transitional to another? What were the steps? What is actually known "with a high degree of scientific certainty" about these individual, selectable steps? Or is it assumption that fuels the evolutionary engine?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 13, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
July 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
We observe natural variation in populations.
We observe sources of novel variation.
We observe natural selection.
We observe varying degrees of reproductive isolation.
We observe the nested hierarchy.
We predict and observe the existence of intermediate structures and organisms.
We see (first-order approximation) gradual, selectable adaptation and diversification of ancestral structures for most taxa.
Comment by Zachriel — July 13, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
July 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
This is like the magician objecting that people saying his magic isn't real are using smoke and mirrors to prove it. "I've performed this trick 1000 times, and only once have they shown that the rabbit got into the hat through trickery. And they want you to believe that the rabbit got into the hat through trickery the other 999 times, but they can't prove it! That makes it plausible that it was real magic."
Comment by don provan — July 13, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am
IOW, Zachriel and don provan, you have no clue how anything actually evolved.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2009 @ 11:56 am
July 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The how is through variation and selection, descent with modification from common ancestors. If any of these terms are unclear, I would be happy to elaborate. You might also look at a specific example.
Blount, Borland & Lenski, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008.
Comment by Zachriel — July 14, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Condescension?
I am printing this paper out right now. I will read it and get back to you.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Back from vacation. Nice to see you two still at it.
Question: "How are airplanes made?"
Answer: "by people in factories using drills, screwdrivers, metal fabricators, and other well known tools."
This is an explanation. But it's not very precise.
When Daniel asks "how?", I suspect he wants to know "what?" IOW, what specific variations were chained together to get from, say, an ape-like brain to a modern human brain? You can't tell us, Zachriel. Science is of no help. Moreover, germane to this blog, it is unknown to what extent intelligent intervention would be required in the evolution path.
Consider an airplane. We can all agree that, given known laws and properties of nature, it's existence would be extremely improbable if human-like engineers did not exist. The path from non-intelligent matter and energy to airplanes is extremely improbable unless it routes through human-like engineers. Another way of saying this is: airplanes are dependent on human-like engineers, something more complex than the airplanes. Daniel (and I) want to know if the path from, say, ape-like brain to human brain, or from primordial elements to human brain, is dependent on something more complex than the product. Science cannot answer that presently.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
That's right. Terms and methods may need elaboration.
The concern was "how anything actually evolved". Though brains don't normally fossilize, we do have a great deal of fossil evidence revealing the long evolutionary history of chordates. But let's try a few other transitions first. Perhaps the radiation of dinosaurs, or the development of the mammalian middle ear from reptilian jaw bones, or antibiotic resistance in laboratory bacteria. Or are you saying we have no idea the steps related to the evolution of any historical transition?
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Not at all
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Zachriel has cited this paper as an example of evolution in action – and that it is. Let's examine the details:
The paper examines the evolution, after 30,000+ generations, of a strain of E. coli that gained the ability to exploit citrate as an energy source.
The first thing I noticed was that E. coli already has much of the machinery in place to use citrate:
In spite of all this potential, it still took 31,500 generations for some method of citrate utilization to evolve under lab conditions. The mutation rate to Cit+ is so low, they posit that
They show through experimental "replays" that the evolution of this function is "historically contingent", IOW it only happens in strains of E. coli that have followed one historical path – thus confirming one of the tenets of the non-Darwinian evolutionary theories of people like Otto Schindewolf and Leo Berg – who held that evolution was constrained along certain pathways. I'm sure Zachriel is probably unaware of that though. Most atheists I've encountered show a reluctance to explore anything outside the Darwinian landscape.
What I get out of this is that:
A) Evolution (as presented here) is slow and extremely inefficient. 30,000+ generations may not take long for E. coli, but when we're talking about humans, fish, monkeys and horses, 30,000+ generations to develop the ability to transport one type of molecule into a cell leaves much to be desired when proffering an explanation for the differences between those species.
B) Evolution (as presented here) requires pre-existing elements. What evolved here was not the tricarboxylic acid cycle that metabolizes citrate, but simply the means to utilize it via (most likely) an also pre-existing transport system.
C) Evolution (as presented here) is historically contingent. Most populations did not evolve this ability, but only those within a certain 'family'. This further lessens the odds of said evolution occurring. In fact the authors noted that the rate of mutation for Cit+ amongst the pre-30,000 gen samples was "the lowest upper bound ever reported for a mutation rate that has been experimentally measured".
In short Zachriel, if you want to present this as an example of evolution in action, you're essentially shooting your cause in the foot by doing so.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 15, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Actually, lots of evolution happens in Lenski's experiments. This particular transition is rare and contingent, and that's what makes it interesting enough for a separate paper. You had said, "you have no clue how anything actually evolved". And this paper answers your objection.
Now, we might consider next the Lederberg Experiment which demonstrates that mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
While mutations are random, doesn't Barry Hall's work strongly suggest that with the ebg operon the mechanism generating the mutations appears to be responding to environmental cues?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I don't think Daniel actually wants to know anything.
Isn't this something like objecting that we don't really know how oxygen and hydrogen combine into water because we do not know which specific atoms will come together? Zachriel has given him the "H2 + H2 + O2 = H2O + H2O" equivalent of evolution, but he isn't satisfied with that. When will he be satisfied? I suspect never, because he isn't seeking answers, he's only seeking reasons to deny.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
No.
What path is required to get water from hydrogen and oxygen?
What path is required to get a human brain from an ape brain?
Very different answers. The former is well known, and the latter is not known. "Random variation and natural selection" is not an answer to the second question. RV+NS is a mechanism, not a path. A path pertains to an actual sequence of steps that occured, not simply a mechanism. Me twisting a Rubic's Cube is a mechanism. The order of the twists is a path.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Exactly. I cannot tell you the exact path hydrogen and oxygen atoms take when combining to make water, I can only explain the process. I could, conceptually, take specific atoms and show you them combining into a water molecule, just as we understand specific evolutionary steps. In both cases, there's a certain level of detail we cannot describe, and don't need to describe in order to show that our general description is valid.
Correct. H2 + H2 + O2 = H2O is not a sequence of steps, either, it is a mechanism. If I were to demonstrate it for you, I'd be able to explain in general terms what happened, but I wouldn't be able to describe the individual steps involving each atom.
Mind you, I do not mean to claim here that the specific modification being requested can be explained, I'm merely questioning whether Daniel is making a demand that could be satisfied under any conditions.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Many pathways in evolutionary history are quite well known, others less so. Still, we can look at the overall pattern and determine that life shares common ancestors and that for a great many transitions, there are selectable pathways. We can also directly observe the mechanisms of evolution, including natural selection and novel sources of variation.
ID just points to supposed Gaps and claims it couldn't have happened.
Consider the repeated example of the human brain. Well, there's somewhat of a Gap in extant organisms between humans and other apes. Nevertheless, we can compare various related species and see that brains fit the very same nested hierarchy as expected from Common Descent. We can also see that the human brain is comprised of modified components found in other organisms. We can trace the evolution of brains from primitive craniates through fishes, land vertebrates and mammals. Then to the hominid line where we see further enlarging of brain capacity accompanied by sophisticated use of tools. So we do see the expected pattern of descent with modification.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Agreed. But with H2O, you can provide a path that would work given the laws of chemistry as we know them. There is proof of concept. No such proof of concept exists to turn an ape brain into a human brain in a series of unguided variations. I think it would sufficiently shut the mouth of any skeptic (mine, certainly) if such a path could be demonstrated, never mind the actual path.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I agree.
Well, I haven't been talking about ID in this thread. And I, personally, have never made the claim that "it couldn't have happened." My point is that not enough is known about what's in the gaps to know one way or the other yet. (I'm comfortable with any answer.)
Agreed. Common descent is not a particularly live issue for me personally, although the tree of life is not as tidy as some seem to assert. What is a live issue for me is the nature and cause of the incremental steps. Some are known. Some are obviously not.
Agreed. But brain size is a very limited metric and tells us little of the actual neural pathways (the "programming") that make one kind of brain have different processing capabilities compared to another. There is a vast dearth of information.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
There is significant evidence that transitional structures are selectable, that is, each organism is adapted to its own environment. Consider the evolution of the reptilian jaw bones into the mammalian middle ear.
Brains don't normally fossilize, but we know that human brains fit the nested hierarchy, that human brains are comprised of modifications of structures found in related organisms, that craniates follow a long, diversifying path of evolutionary history, and that humans are derived hominids. In other words, each bit of evidence, from the most ancient craniate fossil to the molecular structure of neurons, fits the hypothesis of evolutionary descent.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Certainly we know some things about this path, so the question becomes one of how much we need to know to meet your requirement of "proof of concept". From my point of view, there's no limit to what you could require. It's nice of you to grant a potential path rather than the actual path, but I'm sure you could find several potential paths already, so you're already rejecting them for some reason.
But beyond that, even if someone could show you an acceptable path, meeting your proof of concept, would you just turn your attention elsewhere? "Well, ok, but what about the thumb? How did that develop? If you can't show me that, then you can't say God didn't do it."
My concern is that you and Daniel could go on forever no matter what anyone showed you. If, instead, you could come up with a concrete requirement, then we could send you to the biologists to see if they can satisfy it. (Hint: Almost all biologist think there are sufficiently well understood pathways to make the general case. Why does Daniel think he's better at defining the requirement then they are?)
As long as Daniel's requirements are open ended, there's no reason to actually engage anyone that actually knows something about these pathways since we'd be wasting their time. Dawkins wrote a book (The Ancestors Tale) providing all kinds of examples of this type, in various levels of details. Perhaps we could start by Daniel explaining why none of that is sufficient. But I think the answer will be something that amounts to "not enough detail", a complaint that can always be made.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
You have to look at the overall pattern, and the predictive capability of the Theory of Evolution. What is posited is a long continuum of descent and diversification from common ancestors. And what we have is a huge amount of data, from many different of study, from geology to genomics, each datum representing a point on the continuum.
When scientists propose testable hypotheses and make empirical predictions, these predictions confirm and extend our knowledge of this continuum. You can wave you hands at Gaps forever because data-points will never fill a continuum.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
You seem to be implying that I asserted the opposite. Why would you think that?
Agreed. So you agree with my statement?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
An account with no gaps that is reproducible. What else?
Where? Before you can create an transitional account from ape brain to human brain you'd have to have a solid handle on how both function, down to the way the precise neural networks operate that are responsible for the function we see in both. Science is a long ways off from that. Given that, where is there a gap-free incremental account for such a transition?
This thread has nothing to do with God or designers. You seem to be implying that I'm hunting for gaps just to feel good about my religion or something. Fuggedaboutit.
An account with no gaps that is reproducible. What else?
I'm afraid general cases won't do for a skeptic like me when it comes to the human brain. I can't answer for Daniel.
As for me, I can only say that what we know about evolution and what we know about ape brains and human brains is so little that any attempt to make a case would be the waste of time.
Does Daniel deny all evolution? If so, I was not aware of that. That is not my position. Not even close. Never has been.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
kornbelt888: My point is that not enough is known about what's in the gaps to know one way or the other yet.
Zachriel: You have to look at the overall pattern, and the predictive capability of the Theory of Evolution. What is posited is a long continuum of descent and diversification from common ancestors. And what we have is a huge amount of data, from many different of study, from geology to genomics, each datum representing a point on the continuum. When scientists propose testable hypotheses and make empirical predictions, these predictions confirm and extend our knowledge of this continuum.
I agree, of course. (What makes you think I wouldn't?) Now, what specific predictions are you willing to make about the evolutionary path from ape brains to human brains regarding the neurological networks that give rise to the uniquely human functions?
Exactly how am I waving my hands?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
This is what you said.
Not all historical details are known, but the pattern of descent with modification is very well established. Are you only concerned with the human brain? Or do you simply question evolution for every Gap in knowledge.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Every Gap then. No amount of evidence would be sufficient for any historical claim. Even when we can make bold and verifiable predictions, you will wave your hands because every time we fill a Gap, two new Gaps appear.
You say you agree, but apparently don't comprehend.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I said that opposite of that? So you're saying that I said in effect that "transitional structures are not selectable, that is, each organism is not adapted to its own environment" ?
Where did I say or imply that?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
That humans brains descended with modification from ancestors common with other craniates. This will mean a nested hierarchy that includes the molecular and macroscopic structures of the brain.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
As I said, I don't require a historical claim. I merely require a path that would work, a proof of concept, regardless if it were the actual path or not.
Well, make some "bold and verifiable predictions" about ape-to-human evolutionary neural network programming and I'll definitely give serious thought to it.
Test me. What about "the overall pattern, and the predictive capability of the Theory of Evolution" compels you to accept the speculation that random variation and natural selection provided a sufficient mechanism to create a evolutionary path from an ape-like brain to a human brain.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
You said, "What is a live issue for me is the nature and cause of the incremental steps," hence my response. The answer is selection, as in Natural Selection.
You also said is that you require a Gapless pathway for historical claims, even when scientists can make bold and verifiable empirical predictions, such as important intermediate fossil organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — July 15, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
This has evidential support from several angles. For example, we know that things like relatively small changes to regulatory genes can be responsible for things like differing skull size. There is proof of concept.
I don't dispute any notion of a "nested hierarchy." I expect that if and when ape brains and human brains are fully understood there will not be anything particularly surprising molecularly and in the general macroscopic structures. We already know a fair amount about those. (And say we find any frozen brains of any transitional species, they will fit into the hierarchy without much fanfare.)
No, where my interest lies is the uncharted waters that make up the distinctive neural networks between humans and our predecessors. The dearth of understanding in this area is so great that nothing that you've said or can offer even gets in the ballpark. It is utterly unknown whether or not the evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to "program" these networks. There is no basis on which to infer that they reasonably can. It's a wide open field of inquiry. It may be unique in all of time and space. That's not hand waving, it's simply the humble acknowledgment of the state of the art.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Let me clarify. By "nature and cause" I mean whether or not the variations are all random variations or non-random variations or a combination. I do not mean to imply that selection is not involved.
I do not require a historical gapless pathway. Only a gapless pathway. It need not be the historical one. What would suffice is a gapless pathway where there all chains of development have proof-of-concept established from random variation and natural selection. For example, if it could be demonstrated that the neural networks responsible for recognition of musical sequences could be generated from RV+NS, I would be satisfied enough not to press for evidence that it could generate perfect pitch recognition, etc.
Well, let's test this. What bold and verifiable empirical prediction can you make based on RV+NS (or the MS) regarding the emergence of the ability of humans to create the theory of gravity? What kind of neural network evolutionary steps should we expect to find in the evidential record, if we could find them?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 15, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 3:20 am
That's an impractical demand. We don't have 100% explanation of any historical sequence of events, and explanations that are not 100% are not worthless. In addition, you get to define "gap", and as I pointed out with my H2O example, a gap can be defined to be ridiculously small.
Oh, yeah, and that's another thing: if we give you a pathway explaining the development, you'll just point out other things we don't know and demand that they must be explained also in order to satisfy your requirements.
We started out discussing how Daniel does, in fact, appear to be hunting for gaps just to feel good about his religion. We have ended up discussing your search for gaps. That made me think the gaps were significant to you for some reason. If your only point is that there's more we could know about how the human brain developed, then we are in complete agreement. In fact, I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that.
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2009 @ 3:20 am
July 16th, 2009 at 7:16 am
And because they are incremental changes and because they are selectable, they are therefore evolvable.
Ah, but you demanded an "account with no gaps that is reproducible". Now, you seem to be merely concerned with one particular purported Gap. So your position is that everything else evolved but the human brain, even though it also fits the nested hierarchy and that any detail we find will fit the hypothesis of a selectable transition. Furthermore, we have a branching pattern with most lineages going extinct demonstrating the happenstance nature of the process. In other words, all the evidence is consistent with natural variation and selection.
As for a pathway from a simple notochord to a human brain, you need only study the developing human embryo. This will give you a first-order approximation. For a more detailed look, determine the divergence in the development of the human brain from the development of related species.
Comment by Zachriel — July 16, 2009 @ 7:16 am
July 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
You still have no clue how this evolved. You only know that it did.
You completely bypassed all my comments (save one) on the first paper and now you're ready to go on to another? I don't think so.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 16, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
To reiterate:
The paper Zachriel cited referenced a demonstrated instance of the evolution of a new function. This mechanism (whatever it turns out to be) was demonstrated to be historically contingent and it took 30,000+ generations to cause enough change to begin the new function.
The obvious question is: Is this demonstrated mechanism sufficient to account for the observed differences between the species he wants to talk about – namely; fish, monkeys, humans and horses?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 16, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Experts that consider the matter say it is sufficient. I admit that I'm not one of those experts, but I also have no reason to doubt their assessment. Are you one of those experts? Can you give me any good reasons to doubt their assessment beyond the fact that you don't like it?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Clues were provided that supported the hypothesis of evolution by variation and selection. Frankly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Sigh.
A description of the history of the populations involved is part of the answer as to how. A clue.
Pre-existing elements are part of the answer as to how. A clue.
Historical contingency is part of the answer as to how. A clue.
Comment by Zachriel — July 16, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Not all of them do don.
I have been going out of my way to read everything I can about biology and evolution. I have a stack of papers on evolution (most recommended by people like you – on forums like this) and I've read them all. I'm also reading a biochemistry textbook in my spare time and have several more textbooks on molecular biology on order. While I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert, I am seeking to educate myself and I am very familiar with the evidence and the arguments for evolution (both Darwinian and non-Darwinian). In fact I'm probably more familiar with the non-Darwinian theories of evolution than you, so you don't need to pretend that my reasons for not accepting the currently held theory are because of some profound ignorance. I find the case unconvincing because I'm familiar with (what I consider to be) a better explanation.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 16, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
It's not a matter of ignorance. Frankly, your answers are too vague to advance the discussion, such as the overstatement "You still have no clue how this evolved."
Yet, you don't provide a better explanation for Lenski's results and an empirical test to distinguish your hypothesis.
You may want to start with a simpler example. Take a bacterium and allow it to reproduce. Expose the colony to antibiotics. Even though they are all descendents of the original bacterium, some live and some die. If you take the survivors and allow them to reproduce, their offspring are also resistant to the antibiotic. The change is heritable. The question then is, did the bacteria develop this resistance because you exposed them to the antibiotic?
Comment by Zachriel — July 16, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
If there's a healthy debate, then what's the problem?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
How about this Zachriel?
From the same paper:
There are two possibilities mentioned here. The first is deemed "unlikely" based on the assumption that evolution degrades unused genes. The second is called "more likely".
From a FLE perspective, I would not be surprised at all by the discovery that it was a cryptic gene even though – from a NFLE perspective – these scientists would. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and predict that it will be a cryptic gene after all.
How about it Zachriel? Care to go on record before the research is done and pick a side?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 16, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
July 17th, 2009 at 7:43 am
I'm not quite sure of your "FLE" hypothesis. We start with a single bacterium which reproduces asexually: they're clones. Yet some of the descendants have a heritable trait that others don't, and this trait leads to a selective differential. Why, according to "FLE", are some of the descendants different? Do they sense the environment and initiate the change? If so, then why don't all of them gain the trait?
You may want to consider the simpler case from my previous comment.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2009 @ 7:43 am
July 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I've been thinking a lot about this since my last reply Zachriel, and I think I spoke too soon. If this was indeed a front-loaded gene, I doubt it would take 30,000+ generations to re-enable it. This seems more like an example of real Darwinian evolution via the mechanisms of variation and selection.
That said, I'd like to point out that, because this function is unattainable via a single point mutation (per the paper), it is highly contingent upon a certain evolutionary history.
I believe this type of contingency therefore, to be a necessary condition for any change in phenotype requiring more than rudimentary changes genetically, (more than single point mutations certainly), IF, (and that's a big "IF"), those changes occur via the Darwinian mechanism.
This is the central issue of the paper IMO. It's one also, that you seem willing to skip over. But this is key. The differences between the species you want to talk about are significant. Is this mechanism – for which we now have a real life observed example – capable of producing all the differences we see between the species in the timeframe necessary?
I don't think so. I'm sure you have no doubts however.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 17, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
July 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean something that takes more than single point mutations takes more than single point mutations, then yes. If you mean something that takes more than rudimentary changes geneticially takes more than rudimentary changes genetically, then yes. There are many types of genetic mutations beyond point mutations (such as those due to insertion sequences), and populations in the Lenski studies become highly diverse, genetically and phenotypically, over time.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
July 17th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Blount, Borland & Lenski, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, PNAS 2008.
Contingency is in the title. It's kinda hard to overlook. The paper is interesting because non-contingent evolution has already been observed in this and other studies.
I don't see the answer to my previous query.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
July 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I assume then we can lay to rest your overstatement about not having a clue about how things evolve.
Genetics is still a relatively new field. There are bound to be many surprises. But genetics provides strong evidence of descent with modification. In particular, the evidence indicates that genomes are cobbled together by historical events, not designed. Nor do we have to have a theory of genetics to find strong confirmation of the Theory of Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
July 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
When I read your replies to me I am often struck with the feeling that either you are arguing with someone else, are incapable of understanding my views, are somewhat insane, and/or I'm a crappy writer and cannot express myself well in this forum. Whatever the case, I'm going to bow out for now.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 18, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
July 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The Theory of Evolution posits a (rough) continuum, i.e. descent with modification, and a branching pattern with extinctions, i.e. Common Descent, that we can explore. When I read your reply, you indicated we would see exactly what is expected from the Theory of Evolution. Then you said "where my interest lies is the uncharted waters that make up the distinctive neural networks between humans and our predecessors." So apparently everything else evolved from primitive cells to hominids over hundreds of millions of years. And brains clearly evolved from primitive organisms up to and including humans. And there is evidence that non-sapien hominids had culture and primitive technology.
But there's a Gap. And it interests you. That's fine.
Comment by Zachriel — July 18, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
July 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Zachriel,
This is why debates about origins are useless. You are heavily invested in your bias, and I am heavily invested in mine. We both look at the same paper and come away convinced that the evidence supports our views. I am not going to change my mind, neither are you. So, what's the point?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 19, 2009 @ 11:28 am
July 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
In science, minds are changed by proposing new hypotheses that entail specific and distinguishing empirical observations.
Comment by Zachriel — July 19, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
July 19th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Blah blah blah. You're not going to change your mind because you've already settled on a worldview by which you interpret all relevant evidence. So have I. (Rare is the individual who hasn't). Why can't you admit that?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 19, 2009 @ 2:32 pm