Fodor Opens the Door to Front-loading
by MikeGeneFodor has raised the specter of many biological structures that only appear as adaptations; structure that exist merely as free riders on a smaller subset of true adaptations. And I think the most significant sentence in his essay is this:
Adaptationism is a species of what one might call "˜environmentalism' in biology.
According to adaptationism, organisms are simply passive players in evolution, where alterations just happen to them and it is the environment that "selects" those variants that just happen to best fit. This hardcore non-teleological view evolution places great restrictions on front-loading.
Let's use Fodor's biological example as a heuristic example:
The experimental investigation of these hypotheses involved forty years of inbreeding for tameness in thirty or so generations of silver foxes. The results are impressive. On the one hand, foxes that were bred for tameness also tended to share a number of other phenotypic traits. Unlike their feral cousins, they tend to evolve floppy ears, brown moulting, grey hairs, short curly tails, short legs and piebald coloration (in particular, white flashes). Inbreeding for tameness also had characteristic effects on the reproductive cycles of the foxes and on the average size of their litters. And these are all traits that other domestic animals (dogs, cats, goats, cows) also tend to have. An adaptationist might well wonder what it is about dogs, cats etc that makes curly tails good for their fitness in an ecology of domestication. The answer, apparently, is "˜nothing'. Curly tails aren't fitness enhancing, they just happen to be linked to tameness, so selection for the second willy-nilly selects the first.
If it is indeed only the environment that is shaping and crafting floppy ears, brown moulting, grey hairs, short curly tails, short legs and piebald coloration, then front-loading such traits would seem to be out of the question. A front-loading perspective does not allow for the manipulation of the environment and the environment is loaded with contingency.
The options for the front-loader are as follows. You can either restrict your front-loading objectives to traits that are likely to appear in broadly defined environments (i.e., hot/cold, dry/wet, etc.) or you could endow your designs with a certain level of robustness such that a front-loaded state will poke through regardless of the environment (even though here, selection may still have a say, as the emergence of front-loaded states that are poorly timed could be severely disadvantageous and thus pruned away).
Fodor's example helps us to see that our biotic reality may be easier to front-load than we think. For example, if you wanted to front-load a mammal to evolve floppy ears, brown moulting, grey hairs, short curly tails, short legs and piebald coloration (in particular, white flashes), you would not need the environment's help to mold each trait. You would only need to design (or front-load) tameness and the rest unfolds.
In the past, I have argued that evolution, as a front-loaded phenomenon, is constrained by the architecture of life. Fodor is making the same basic point, but only from the perspective of a non-teleologist.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Linkage between genetic traits has been known for a century. Typically, they are traits found on the same chromosome especially those in close proximity. Sometimes selection for existing alleles can drive substantial evolutionary change, while a single gene may control multiple aspects of an organism's phenotype. Dolph Schluter's work with Stickleback speciation is an interesting example of how linked traits affect evolutionary change. Evolution works within various constraints, and not every change is equally likely.
It seems that anytime a historical pattern is identified, you suggest teleology. Does the Telic Entity prefer long and fat Sticklebacks, but not long and skinny? And when was this *decision* to link length and width made? Apparently for Sticklebacks, a few millennia ago. But the genetics seems to indicate it was just more 'ordinary evolution'.
Comment by Zachriel — October 22, 2007 @ 10:40 am
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Fodor seems to make the point that the expression of traits a, b and c can be incidental to the selection of trait x. It's a package deal that gives an illusion of selection causality for a, b and c. Is there an existing mechanism that could bring about group trait expressions? It might be found in pathways for hox gene expression. Alternate transcription factors could induce the expression of differing traits; only one of which was causally connected with an adaptive response to the environment. Whether a tail is curly or straight could be part of the expressed group but also be irrelevant to the causal process. Front loading can be more subtle than at first it appears.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 10:49 am
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Zachriel:
Before attempting to distinguish a telic cause from a non-telic one we need to address causality. If linkage between genetic traits is incidental to selection, rather than being driven by it, then models for genetic change can be considerably more complex with respect to telic possibilities than is assumed.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 10:57 am
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
It can be based on the selection for animals with characteristics that belong to a younger age: playfullness and dependency and that with the general juvenilization the other characteristics also appear. However, I doubt whether that would also not interefere with reproduction. Another possibility may be the selection for atavisms in which recent developmental pathways are not invoked and the animal exhibit traits of its predecessor. Both possibilties may well be related in an 'ontology follows phylogeny' scenario.
These scenarios would give the appearance of front-loading, but by a different mechanism.
Comment by AdR — October 22, 2007 @ 11:19 am
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 am
In this case it is most certainly a selection for animals with lower levels of certain hormones. The absence (or lower levels) of hormones would easily explain the linkage between lower fear and aggression levels and the appearance of the observed physiological changes (floppy ears, sub-adult markings in silver foxes, growth defects, reproduction defects, …).
Comment by hrun — October 22, 2007 @ 11:42 am
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Bradford:
Eye color is linked to skin color. Blue eyes are linked to white skin, for example. It's possible there is some evolutionary reason for it, but it's also possible that there is no particular reason at all — that's just the way it works out. Does it seem reasonable to consider the notion of a Designer that prefers the blue-eyed, white-skin combination?
The genetic disorder Down Syndrome has a highly recognizable appearance. Why is that particular look connected to the presence of a 21st chromosome, as opposed to any other phenotype expression? To my knowledge, there is no particular reason at all. But perhaps there is a reason: the Designer wanted them to look that way, and also threw in the cognitive impairment and thyroid problems for good measure?
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I like how it's usually the critic that brings in the theological and philosophical objections to a convesation that wasn't initially addressing motives and intentions of a specific Designer.
And not to forget this like-minded gem:
Comment by Doug — October 22, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
telic: adj .. Directed or tending towards a goal or purpose; purposeful
Comment by Zachriel — October 22, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Well aware Zack. Does this explain the psychoanalysis of the Designer in question? As if it serves as some defeater to the possibility of Design.
I'm surprised you're supporting the argument.
Comment by Doug — October 22, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Why are you comparing the variation of a particular gene to the addition of a new, extra chromosome?
Comment by Doug — October 22, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Doug:
The quote of mine to which you are referring was a response to Bradford's statement, "…models for genetic change can be considerably more complex with respect to telic possibilities than is assumed."
Doug:
Like the blue-eyes/fair-skin link, it's an example of linking which is (probably) arbitrary; people with Down Syndrome look that way because that's just how it worked out (probably).
Why is the proposed curly-tail/temperament link of any interest? It seems the blue-eyes/fair-skin link would have served equally well.
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Doug, don't be surprised that critics will switch gears and attempt to turn a scientific issue into a theological one. It indicates what lies at the heart of their convictions.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
But you've got a complete, extra chromosome to deal with. More than just one trait of interest being focused on… and then a change to that one trait somehow resulted in changes to other traits. This is a whole chromosome; one would assume the effects of its addition would be more widespread.
Okay, but does Mike's point no longer stand:
Frostman:
Reasonable or not, blue eyes have lower amounts of melanin - skin color is largely the result of the amount of melanin in the skin. There's a common denominator between the two - eye and skin color.
Comment by Doug — October 22, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Frostman:
Why ask the question? Zachriel, AdR and hrun appear to understand the significance of genetic linkage. The hormonal explanation supplied by hrun could account for the specific referenced example. Multiple effects would arise from a single cause consistent with standard selection explanations. Gene expression is linked in developmental stages too. A mutation affecting that process, entailing a selective advantage, might impact unrelated functions whose properties are non-trivial; unlike the examples given above.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Doug,
I actually did not know blue eyes were related to melanin. So that was a bad example. Touche.
The Down Syndrome example was only meant as a linking example, not a phenotype-genotype example. A whole host of traits are linked together, with presumably no adaptive reason. People with Down Syndrome have those traits just because that's how it worked out in the end. There doesn't have to be a reason for it.
To focus on my particular examples (good or bad) is beside the point, however. The point is that there are many traits which are linked without apparent reason with regard to fitness or advantage. This does not necessarily imply there is some mystical telic process or entity behind them.
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Bradford:
Bradford, I was responding to this comment of yours:
Is your point that I used "Designer" instead of "telic" something?
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
But they're examples with the intention of showing that Mike's reasoning was flawed; however, the examples don't support what you're intending them to.
But this is where you would be asked to provide those examples and then to show how they don't support Mike's post.
Did Mike say that? Front-loading, as a process, has been explained to a greater extent time and time again. If you want to label it a mystical process, fine. But do understand that neither Mike nor Krauze advance it because of some deep philosophical ruminations…. For me, it appears to be more empirically grounded than a non-teleological position.
Comment by Doug — October 22, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The claim is that life is front-loaded for a purpose. Hence purpose becomes part-and-parcel of that claim. Yet, the scientific evidence indicates ad hoc evolutionary processes.
Many linkages are due to chromosomal proximity. Others are due to shared biochemical mechanisms. There is a pattern, but there is no reason to suspect telic causation, and ample evidence otherwise.
But if you are to take the telic hypothesis seriously, you have to be able to make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions derived from the claim of "purposefulness".
Comment by Zachriel — October 22, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
You can probably think of life's architecture (or at least part of it's architecture) as a set of dials. In a population, there will be some natural variation among individuals in how the dials are set. Evolution works with this available variation. So, from just a few dials, development can generate a wide range of variation as a byproduct of the system architecture. If rather than relying on continegency, evolution is constrained, then it's possible that it was an advanced , initially designed state that evolution is working with.
Comment by Guts — October 22, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
The Down Syndrome example was adequate. The traits are all linked, and there is no apparent adaptive reason for it. I don't mind repeating that the blue-eyes example was a mistake.
Given that I felt the conversation winding down, I did leave that up to the reader. But now that you ask, the first google hit for "genetic linkage" is the Wikipedia article which mentions this example: "in fruit flies the genes affecting eye color and wing length are inherited together because they appear on the same chromosome."
So eye color is not linked to wing length as the result of fitness or advantage (probably). It's the result of how genetics works. Likewise, the linked traits in Down Syndrome (characteristic facial features, thyroid problems, etc) are not the result of adaptations (probably). They are outcomes of the genetics itself.
Supposing there is a link between short curly tails and temperament, that does not imply we should go looking for a front-loader (or a designer, or whatever) just because we don't immediately understand the reasons underlying it.
Forgive me for paraphrasing front-loading as "mystical telic process or entity". I am new here and have not read through the archives. Thus far I see little difference. Both take something which is currently unknown, such as the link between curly tails and domestic temperament, and use them to support their hypotheses. Both appear to use classic God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Frostman:
But why are you saying this as if it contradicts the blog entry? It completely supports it. In other words, there is a strong dependence on the system architecture itself, not on the contingent environment (i.e. adaptations).
Comment by Guts — October 22, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Hi Zachriel,
As opposed to "˜extraordinary evolution'?
I think you missed the whole point. I'm not suggesting teleology is in fact indicated by anything Fodor wrote nor am I looking for extraordinary evidence of extraordinary evolution. I'm merely raising a teleological perspective as an alternative to the conventional non-teleological perspective. And in raising this perspective, I'm a) noting that the hardcore "environmentalist" non-teleological view does indeed pose a problem for front-loading, but b) Fodor has his finger on something that "helps us to see that our biotic reality may be easier to front-load than we think."
No, my claim is that life could be front-loaded for a purpose. Thus, what is most important here is whether or not this proposal is plausible. As for evolutionary processes, they only look ad hoc. But since non-teleologists have been teaching us how to think about evolution (and thus defining what is "important") for decades, such appearances should not be surprising.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Hello Frostman,
Huh? No where do I argue or imply that unknown mechanisms for linkage constitute a gap that needs to be filled by a designer. I am merely speaking to the plausibility of front-loading, where linkage may indeed make it easier to front-load complex states. I think the front-loading signals must be rooted in biology and thus carried into the future as "endogenous structures." Standard anti-ID complaints don't apply.
I never claimed that "we should go looking for a front-loader" as a consequence of a link between short curly tails and temperament. I used Fodor's example in a heuristic sense, helping us to envision one way front-loading can be played out. As I explain:
Since you are new here, I should point out that I don't expect you to embrace the front-loading perspective at all, so there is no need to include yourself with a "we." By all means, stick with the conventional non-teleological perspective, as it makes no difference to me. You'll only run into problems when you expect some of us to think and see as you do.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Then you do not appreciate the basis on which non-telic assumptions are made. If a link between two disparate functions exists and only one is attributable to natural selection then the other must be accounted for. If the causal basis for both is an underlying cause that itself would be selected for, as was the case in the hormone example, then both traits arise from a single causal event. But if an underlying cause gave rise to traits that, in and of themselves were not adaptive responses to environmental factors, but were biological properties useful in subsequent lines of descent, you could single out changes at point x in a timeline that were biologically useful at future point y. If the changes were neutral with respect to fitness at time of occurence but subsequently favorable you would have a predictive indicator asked for by Zachriel. The strength of the indicator would be a function of the number of traits and their adaptive suitability to future conditions. In effect, there would be evidence of foresight in a process.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
"Adaptationism" (in these caricatures and critiques) reduces to the truism that whatever exists exists because the necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence exist.
Creationists accept the truism (creationists are "adaptationists"), obviously, and only chafe at the idea that a "Creator" or "Designer" is not included (per late modern scientific and philosophic conventions) amongst those "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions.
Adaptationism is an assumption shared by creationists and evolutionists (and just about everyone else): The universe is a coherent, self-consistent, and rationally comprehensible whole. To suggest otherwise is to question the very basis of "modern science""”and creationism (or "ID").
Obviously, if we knew everything there was to know about the universe (the conditions both necessary and sufficient)"¦
The fact that we don't is the very statement of the problem of adaptation.
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Bradford:
So an originally neutral (wrt fitness) trait becoming non-neutral is evidence of foresight. Is it then fair to say that an originally non-neutral trait becoming neutral is evidence against foresight?
Comment by Raevmo — October 22, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I used plural forms intentionally. An assessment would take into account the weight of evidence over time and foresight would be evaluated with respect to outcomes. Neutral events are a given. Look at the big picture though.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Mike:
Why easier?
Comment by Raevmo — October 22, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
MikeGene:
Is the front-loader known? Who did the front-loading, and when? Front-loading implies a front-loader, no? Honestly I don't see a significant difference between The Front-Loader and The Designer (or the designer, lowercase, for the directed panspermia one). Is there a difference? I am saying this from the perspective of an outsider — perhaps you could have a FAQ which includes the front-loader vs designer issue. I see the articles tagged as front-loading, but they don't appear to answer my question.
I will always assume good faith. I hope you will do the same in return.
Comment by Frostman — October 22, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Of course front-loading is easy. If you only knew then (the Precambrian) what you know now.
"Look" is a word with several related definitions. We have substantial evidence of ad hoc evolutionary processes. This could mean ad hoc evolution, or it could mean all the appearance of ad hoc evolution with angels pushing descent on crystal genomes. Without a distinguishing empirical prediction, the angels are extraneous.
Comment by Zachriel — October 22, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Bradford:
Are you a politician? Your answer seems to contain no information. I asked a very simple question: if a change from neutral to non-neutral is evidence of foresight (as you claimed), is the opposite change evidence against foresight? Or do you now withdraw your claim?
Comment by Raevmo — October 22, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Zachriel:
No, we have substantial evidence of facilitated evolutionary processes. Ad hoc evolutionary processes would be driven primarily by the contingent enviornment, which would make FLE difficult.
Comment by Guts — October 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Is a neutral mutation evidence against change over time?
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Bradford:
No, but your "answer" is evidence that I'm wasting my time. Paka tovarishch apparatchik.
Comment by Raevmo — October 22, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I don't see how you can definitively argue telic or atelic evidence from neutral or non-neutral changes regardless, considering the changes would be ongoing anyway. It's like getting excited whenever seven shows face up on dice that haven't stopped rolling yet, and may not ever stop.
If anything, the conversation just illustrates one more way where the traditionally atelic view can be taken in a telic way if the person chooses to, with about as much standing.
Comment by nullasalus — October 22, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
nullasalus:
You're right. But it is helpful to point out the mindset of critics. I recall what forums were like before the news of the Wedge strategy. It was pretty much the same as it is now. Juvenile antics aplenty in reaction to suggestions of teleology. The Wedge merely served as a convenient excuse for it.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Frostman:
Front loading focuses attention directly on possible evidence for it namely, the genetic features of different organisms. You ask for evidence of a designer. I could just as easily ask for evidence of the step by step genetic changes that led to the evolution of organism x or better yet the factors that led to the generation of that first putative genome from whence came the evolution of all else. You are not going to be able to produce direct evidence for either. The best you can do is point to indirect evidence of the former and "looks like evidence" for the latter. Evidence for historic causes is intrinsically indirect in nature or something even less than that.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
For a detailed explanation of the genetic and developmental explanation of the connections between the domestication of Russian silver foxes and the various traits listed by MikeGene, go here for an article by Lyudmila N. Trut:
http://reactor-core.org/taming...
This is a summary of the scientific study into artificial selection for increased "domestication" of silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes), initiated by geneticist Dmitry K. Belyaev in Siberia in 1959. One of our students at Cornell worked at Belyaev's institute over one summer, made a presentation in our evolution course at Cornell, and confirmed virtually all of the points outlined in Trut's research report.
Basically, almost all of the changes in the phenotypes listed by MikeGene are the result of paedomorphosis; that is, the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. Silver fox kits are very different, in both anatomy and behavior, from adults. Specifically, silver fox kits have broader/more rounded skulls, curly tails, piebald fur, etc., plus the much more "domesticated" behavior of kits, rather than adults. In non-artificially selected (or "naturally" selected) silver foxes, these traits all change during puberty, resulting in a transformation into the almost solitary, "wild" silver foxes one sees in…well, the wild.
All of the changes noted in Trut's article are associated with changes in hormonal levels and anatomical characteristics that respond to such changes. In other words, the set of anatomical changes listed by MikeGene are quite literally linked to the other traits via what Darwin called "correlation of growth." The Russian researchers selected for "domesticated behavior" and got all of the other traits linked to that character because they are all linked in the developmental biology of mammals in general, and canids in particular.
Now, how much does adding a hypothesis that such traits are "front-loaded" into the developmental genetics of silver foxes add to our understanding of the biology of this phenomenon? Nothing at all, IMHO. Just ask yourself this question; would having such an hypothesis have changed the research protocols used by Belyaev and his colleagues? I honestly can't think of any way it could.
Therefore, of what practical or theoretical use is such an hypothesis? None, as far as I can tell. Metaphysically interesting, perhaps, but useless to the field or laboratory researcher who is trying to figure out how (rather than why) something works.
–Allen
**************************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
**************************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
**************************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
**************************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 22, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
P.S. Before you all point out the differences between "how" and "why" questions, it is generally accepted in the natural sciences that the answer to these two questions is exactly the same answer.
For example:
"¢ How does a dropped rock fall to the ground? Because of the force of gravity (i.e. it is caused to do so by a force generated by all material objects).
"¢ Why does a dropped rock fall to the ground? Because of the force of gravity (i.e. it is caused to do so by a force generated by all material objects).
Now, if one asks why why the force of gravity exists, a trained physicist follows Wittgenstein's advice, and remains silent.
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 22, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
And, for an answer to the question of what constitutes the "evolutionary biology" position on "adaptationism," check out:
http://www.blackwellpublishing...
and
http://paleobiol.geosciencewor...
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 22, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
And for a brief introduction to the classic texts in evolutionary biology, go here:
http://www.blackwellpublishing...
All pdf, all the time:smile:
–Allen
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 22, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
Front-loading is a solution in search of a problem.
Having failed to find a problem for which front-loading is the answer, proponents are happy when they merely identify a scenario that doesn't rule out front-loading.
Unfortunately, a hypothesis, in order to be useful, needs to do much more than simply evading disproof.
Comment by keiths — October 23, 2007 @ 12:25 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 am
Hi Allen,
That's not the point. The fox example is one raised by Fodor and I used it, in a heuristic sense, to illustrate a larger point. I hope you are not under the impression that I am arguing silver foxes were front-loaded.
The front-loading perspective is a teleological perspective that explores unexplored possibilities. All it means, in the context of this dispute, and at this stage, is that the non-teleological perspective is just that "“ one way of looking at the data. I'm not claiming that non-teleologists must adopt a teleological perspective. On the contrary, we can expect non-teleologists to bring a non-teleological perspective to the table.
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2007 @ 12:26 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 am
Hi Frostman,
Nope.
The working hypothesis envisions a human-like intelligence at the origin of life on Earth.
Sure.
Front-loading is a form of design; an attempt to constrain and channel evolution by design.
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2007 @ 12:30 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 am
I found the problem Keiths- life's origin.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 12:43 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Bradford:
Since you did not answer my question about the difference between The Designer and The Front-Loader, I will use The Designer since that term strikes me as more honest. In fact the whole paragraph of mine which you quoted was focused on that question, so it is strange to me that you would quote it at all, since your response did not address it.
What exactly are you claiming for the role of The Designer here? Presumably the purpose of the blog post was to demonstrate a mechanism which The Designer could use, namely front-loading. And that appears to be the gist of it. Nothing could be more vague.
So on the one hand you will not be satisfied with a natural evolutionary explanation unless "step by step genetic changes that led to the evolution of organism x" is demonstrated. Very rigorous. But on the other hand you appear to be happy with The Designer hypothesis, which is accompanied by a total lack of rigor. Who is The Designer? How is He acting here? What is His purpose? How can we test for His handiwork? Can you tell me anything at all about this Designer?
Since you dodged Raevmo's question twice, I will ask a third time because I'm curious about the response. If a change from neutral to non-neutral is evidence of foresight (as you claimed), is the opposite change evidence against foresight?
nullasalus:
The analogy isn't quite right because the random nature of dice is well understood. An ateleologist with respect to dice-rolling would not get excited about the sequence of rolls because he understands principle of randomness (assuming the dice are fair). But a teleologist with respect to dice rolling may get excited, for he sees true purpose behind a roll of double-sixes followed by snake eyes.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 12:51 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 am
Mike,
Thank you for your candor. So the front loader is the intelligent designer. Right?
I gleamed from your earlier statement, "Standard anti-ID complaints don't apply," that front-loading is somehow different than popular ID. But since front-loading does in fact involve a front-loader — that is, a designer — then how is it different? If I understand you correctly, the distinction is the proposed mechanism, front-loading, used by the designer. But since popular ID does not specify mechanisms, I see no effective difference after all.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 1:07 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Hi Frostman,
You should re-read my original reply; you were under the impression that I was trying to use front-loading to fill in some gap when that had nothing to do with my point.
What does "popular ID" say to you?
I have to run off to bed. Since you are new, I should point out that I typically post late at night. Oh, and welcome to Telic Thoughts!
[BTW, if you are truly interested in front-loading, you can go here to find a link where I talk about it.]
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2007 @ 1:13 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
Generating a cell able to survive, replicate and adapt to environmental challenges.
That's not what I claimed. What I actually wrote was:
Number of traits was written not a single neutral change as has been unethically spun. If a white coat of fur were the result of FL we would have limited inferences to draw from this. If however white fur were added to increased body fat, more efficient insulation, metabolic modifications and enhanced tools with which to ensnare arctic prey then you would have an altogether different evidentiary picture.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 1:15 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
If he observes six consecutive rolls of double sixes he has reason to be excited about the quality of the dice and the intent that accompanied that.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 1:22 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 am
Allen MacNeill wrote:
This is simply untrue.
There are plenty of trained scientists who have engaged in developing a Theory of Everything, which, if verified, would explain why the force of gravity exists:
[Emphases added]
Comment by stunney — October 23, 2007 @ 1:32 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 am
You'll have to argue with Raevmo then - he was offering a counter-example in response to Bradford's talk of neutral trait becoming non-neutral. I simply said that if the process is ongoing, neither development can do much work for you because the dice are still rolling. What if a non-neutral trait becomes neutral then non-neutral again? Etc.
And 'assuming the dice are fair' is pretty much the crux of the argument anyway. Bradford already got to it, but I'll repeat with my version: the ateleologist won't see any purpose behind twenty consecutive rolls of seven either. The teleologist will see it as evidence that the dice are fixed. Both will start arguing about the odds of trends, but it gets neither of them very far as much as I can tell. Then again, neither one has an advantage over the other either.
Comment by nullasalus — October 23, 2007 @ 1:33 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
The ateleologist would proceed to argue that the dice were fixed as a consequence of some natural force of nature. Perhaps the ends were eroded or the faces were indented in six places on each side by some mechanism. If the mechanism can be identified all the better. If not then inferring ID as a cause is just throwing a monkey wrench into gaps filled with chance and an unidentified sifter and everyone knows respectable academics do not do that.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 1:42 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 am
Ah yes, keiths wants a gap. Yet front-loading is indeed all about a problem "“ just to what extent can a human-like intelligence use design to constrain and channel evolution?
I find the hypothesis to be quite useful.
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2007 @ 6:41 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 am
That is an important question. The term "front-loaded" is vague enough to allow many levels of equivocation. As this blog concerns teleology, then, yes. The tentative claim is that there is a front-loader, a Telic Entity.
Yes, we might hypothesize that each step of evolution is due to incremental genetic changes. From that hypothesis, we can then make various predictions as to what we would expect to observe in genomes and various other evidence. How well the data fits our expectations determines how confident we are in our theory. And where there are discrepancies, we modify our theories accordingly.
So yes, if there was teleological front-loading, we hypothesize a purposeful Telic Agent. From that hypothesis, we should be able to form specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. That is what is missing, though. Hence, telic evolution is at best speculation, or even wishful thinking.
Most scientists understand that humans act with purpose, and that dice are human manufactured devices that should be "fair", but are often tampered with to gain advantage over adversaries. Think Bradford! It is your knowledge of humans and dice that allows you to consider cheating to account for skewed distributions.
A more appropriate example might be water forming ice. Perhaps it is Jack Frost who carefully weaves beautiful and intricate crystals on the windowpane, or perhaps there is some underlying property of water. Making that scientific determination requires forming and testing valid hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2007 @ 7:51 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
As I said to Mike, I will always assume good faith on the part of others. I hope you will return the courtesy. Quotes and their intent may get mangled in the course of a discussion, and it's not always the result of malicious intent. I politely corrected your mistake here without suggesting unethical behavior, although that option was on the table.
nullasalus:
Aha, but the example I gave was double sixes followed by snake eyes. Twenty consecutive rolls of seven changes the analogy entirely. What do you have in mind which corresponds to the twenty consecutive rolls, in the biological world? If such evidence were brought forth it may be indeed be convincing. What is it?
Bradford:
Fortunately, sufficient evidence will convince even the most hardened skeptic. Only the hopelessly obstinate remain opposed to the theory of relativity, although many doubted it before the evidence piled up. What specifically is the evidence for the Designer's hand in creating "a cell able to survive, replicate and adapt to environmental challenges." I am quite open to hearing it.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 8:19 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
What remarkable evidence for incremental evolution. Instead of the sudden appearance of multicellularity, we see evidence that multicellularity was preceded by various mechanisms concerning communication between individual cells. It's almost as if integration between related cells is a gradient that can be climbed rather than an uncrossable chasm.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2007 @ 9:29 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Mike:
Let me rephrase. It was eventually your point. You are using a designer to explain something, are you not? That something is a gap, otherwise it would already have an explanation.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 10:57 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Bradford:
Can we at least agree that the silver fox example does not serve the front-loading hypothesis? The underlying cause for the linked traits found in silver foxes bred for tameness has been identified. Allen MacNeill's post summarizes it well (thanks, Allen). Like the wing-length/eye-color link in fruit flies, the reason for the linkage is understood.
If I assess your position correctly, you are holding out for an example of linking which is not understood and which could therefore serve as an "open door" for front-loading. Do I understand your position correctly? Mike, is this your position as well?
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 11:47 am
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Frostman,
Read what I posted again: I don't view discussions of odds as all that persuasive generally in either the telic or atelic view, and said I view both arguments as about equally compelling depending on where you're coming from. Even if both sides agree that an event transpired that was exceptionally unlikely, eventually someone can cite MWI or eternal inflation (And yes, this has gone on in the biological realm too. I view it on par with 'God did it'.) And exceptionally likely events don't strike me as atelic in and of themselves.
So to be clear here: When it comes to likelihood and biology, I'm not saying the teleologist has one over on the ateleologist. They're pretty much equivalent.
Comment by nullasalus — October 23, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
MikeGene: Fodor has raised the specter of many biological structures that only appear as adaptations; structure that exist merely as free riders on a smaller subset of true adaptations.
I understood you were saying that "free riding" may itself be an adaptation. And that if you were a designer interested in "front-loading" certain features you may make them "free riders" upon other design elements. Maybe? E.g., you might piggyback onto a developmental module a switch or subroutine that arrests development when the system detects a rare set of conditions in which a neotonic state is the optimal state for the system to be in and maintain until operating conditions change.
Something like that maybe?
"According to adaptationism, organisms are simply passive players in evolution"¦"
And I share your impression and, as an adaptationist, I have vigorously disputed that idea in these discussions. Just as you might view creationism as completely unrelated to ID, or at best a very narrow version of ID, so I view that kind of "adaptationism" limited to the view of organisms as "passive players."
"This hardcore non-teleological view evolution places great restrictions on front-loading."
It places great, obfuscating, pointless, artificial, and unscientific restrictions upon adaptation and evolution too! Equating a "non-teleological view of evolution" with just about any form of biological adaptationism strikes me as a non sequiter. These theories are typically teleological. I have requested any information about "non-teleological" theories of adaptation and have never received any response to my recollection! Maybe such theories don't even exist!
(Somewhere Sir Ronald Fisher recounts how evolutionary biologists of his and the previous generation had purposefully neglected adaptation because the very idea had teleological connotations for them! I wonder where they got that idea?! And by just how many decades was science setback by that bit of nonsense?)
Comment by Rock — October 23, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Zachriel wrote:
So yes, if there was a-teleological front-loading, or no front-loading at all, we hypothesize no purposeful Telic Agent. From that hypothesis, we should be able to form specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. That is what is missing, though. Hence, a-telic evolution is at best speculation, or even wishful thinking.
Comment by stunney — October 23, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Frostman:
Eh? The article Allen cited is the one Fodor himself mentioned:
Allen's comment was an excercise in futility. It's also irrelevant with respect to the issues. Do any of the critics actually read the post?
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Zachriel:
This isn't an example of "incremental evolution", the complete set was already present in the common ancestor, assuming that there was incremental evolution beforehand is just an assumption. And by the way, thats the empirical distinction you're looking for.
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Frostman:
Zach:
Well, duh. Are we supposed to be impressed with this startling insight?
I can't imagine that anyone aware of this 'culture war' doesn't know that Intelligent Design hypothesizes intelligent design, thus at least one intelligent designer.
I keep wishing you guys could manage to come up with criticisms at least vaguely as interesting as the telic approach you're rejecting. But I'm always disappointed. Surely no one of average (or better) intelligence would insist in defiance of all reason and empirical evidence that life has nothing whatsoever to contribute to its own role in the struggle to adapt and survive into the future.
Except for Darwinian die-hards busy fighting a 'culture war', that is.
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Complex systems malfunction in the most interesting (maddening) ways.
In the case of Down's syndrome we have diagnostics that don't seem to be (obviously) related to the underlying cause (function).
Should hardly be a surprise that a malfunction may be completely unrelated to any function.
We would be making a significant mistake (and as biologists, maddeningly, often do; and designers too) in assuming that the diagnostics are in any way related to function. That they aren't shouldn't be surprising in the least from a perspective of designing complex systems. One of the ways complex systems malfunction is by the "creation" of spurious ":functional" linkages between previously functionally unconnected components. So malfunction (and maladaptation) are not simply the "flip side" of function and adaptation.
(As you may have surmised, a malfunction is still a function. LOL)
Just to remind, in another topic I suggested that Fodor's critique wasn't of any theory of adaptation, but a critique of a theory about maladaptation. I said the one is not the converse of the other. (And in another topic I suggested that the desire to eliminate teleology resulted in the anti-teleologist rejecting a possible explanation"”which is not even obviously teleological!)
Since dysteleological arguments play such a prominent role in these discussions we should get the concept of a malfunction or maladaptation right.
Right? Ya wanna win points against the creationists, right?
Comment by Rock — October 23, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Um, no. There are entire classes of homeodomain proteins that evolved from their more primitive forebearers. The conjecture is that related cells were loosely organized under the auspices of primitive homeodomain proteins then tighter integration evolved.
Frostman asked a reasonable and pertinent question. Thank you for the confirmation.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
nullasalus:
My comment was more along the lines of nature of randomness itself. If a certain process appears random, then a reasonable hypothesis is that it is random. In this case, an alternate telic hypothesis is not on equal footing, in my opinion.
Another route is to say that nothing is random, in our understanding of the term: that all outcomes are either predetermined or teleologically motivated. But that introduces another level of metaphysics which seems unusable. In practice, we would still be stuck with the conventional meaning of "random."
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Zachriel:
The finding is that (at least) two of the main classes already existed in the last common ancestor.
Zachriel:
No, the finding was that the common ancestor "was complex in molecular terms", not primitive, and already had many of the regulators involved in multicellularity.
Also, as you can see from here , distantly related common ancestors were not at all primitive
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
And the third route is to knowledge, Frostman.
Designers invest a considerable amount of energy and ingenuity into inventing "randomenss." They patent it. They horde it. And in, computer science in particular, there is no end to our fascination with this invaluable resource for design.
You got the wrong idea, Frostman.
Comment by Rock — October 23, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Joy,
Since I am new here, there was an initial confusion with regard to front loading and intelligent design. Doug and Mike made some comments which appeared to suggest that front loading did not depend upon intelligent design, or that the front-loader was somehow different from the intelligent designer. The quote you found was one of the clarifications I requested on the subject.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Frostman,
Well, naturally you wouldn't. But I don't see any reason to believe as much - "what appears to be random" doesn't get you to atelic. It's a repeated example, but casinos employ randomness (or 'what appears to be random') to their own gain, among others. Or, another way, "an aspect of nature that appears to be random" is not automatically atelic. Not even suggested as atelic.
But conventional meaning isn't much concern to me anyway, since people can and do (reasonably) equate random with indiscernable. And we're back to the dice rolling example, where it's hard to judge purpose or lack thereof in a system in serious flux/progression. When it comes to science you can argue "suggesting that evolution as a whole may be a telic process can't be proven and doesn't help with research" - and while I'm friendly and even encouraging to the endeavors of ID proponents, I'd accept that. I'd also accept that "asserting that evolution as a whole is atelic" doesn't help with research either. In a metaphysical fight, it's a different story, but then that's not what we're getting into here.
Comment by nullasalus — October 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Primitive in biology doesn't normally mean simple, but less derived.
Middle English primitif, from Latin primitivus first formed.
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Zachriel:
Sometimes it does, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Comment by Zachriel — October 23, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Yeah you missed this one:
Besides, if that wasn't your point, then your comment was irrelevant. I already knew that it was primitive.
Comment by Guts — October 23, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Rock:
Rock, I cannot decipher these comments of yours. That they are sandwiched between two bombastic sentences only heightens their incomprehensibility. If you wish to avoid being ignored, you will need to adopt a more accessible style of presentation.
Comment by Frostman — October 23, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Zach:
Hmmm…
Conjecture, noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Verb - To form an opinion about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.
[Oxford English]
My goodness, Zach. One might get the feeling from all this "incomplete information" that the conjecture you feel is an adequate explanation of the phenomena at issue is really just… er, conjecture. IOW, a guess, shaped to fit your guiding theoretic but not itself evidential or even rising to the level of hypothesis.
Meanwhile, as Guts has cited for your benefit, the actual empirical situation is that at least two of the classes pre-existed multicellularity.
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2007 @ 6:40 pm