The Pre- and the Post-Darwinian Eras
by MikeGeneFreeman Dyson wrote:
The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.
Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer.The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago, when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. Cultural evolution is not Darwinian. Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, as Homo sapiens domesticates the new biotechnology, we are reviving the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.
And what has moved us into the post-Darwinan era? Intelligent design. In this case, the intelligent designers are human beings, whose rationality and foresight have not only brought culture into existence, but has enabled them to decipher the machinery and coding of life. Wouldn't it be very interesting if there is indeed a deeper symmetry in the pre- and post-Darwinian eras?
January 26th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Again, I thought the the gist of ID is to identify objects that were designed, not to design objects using intelligence. Am I wrong here?
Do you truly believe that in order to reverse engineer anything, it is necessary to know anything about how that object you are reverse engineering came about?
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 11:47 am
January 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Hi hrun,
Nope.
Nope.
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Mike, if your answer is 'Nope.' to both questions, then it seems to be somewhat misleading to state that 'Intelligent design.' moved us into the post-Darwinian era. Why not call it 'human design' or 'reverse engineering' or something other than 'Intelligent design.' in order to avoid confusion?
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
How is human design or reverse engineering not intelligent design? If this were represented by a Venn diagram intelligent design would be the large circle within which reverse engineering and human design would be found represented by smaller circles. That does not mean there is not room for more circles.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hi hrun,
I'm not sure why any informed, rational person would have been confused. After all, I clearly specified what I was talking about: "In this case, the intelligent designers are human beings, whose rationality and foresight have not only brought culture into existence, but has enabled them to decipher the machinery and coding of life."
Dyson brings up some very interesting food for thought - why is it that the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species. What is it about this species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere?
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
OK. I googled "intelligent design" to get a rough idea of what is commonly understood by this term — especially in the context of a blog that deals with 'teleology' and 'intelligent design'.
That seems to be one of the most commonly used definitions of the term intelligent design in this context.
Note that it does not say something like: Intelligent design is the assertion that human beings reverse engineer stuff. Or Intelligent design is the assertion that human beings are intelligent and build things.
Also note that I did not say that what Mike posted was wrong. I merely said that it was misleading. It leads people to the conclusion that somehow the identification of certain objects as designed in some way aided the endeavor scientists altering organisms by the use of biotechnology.
But I may be wrong. It might be that for you 'intelligent design' does not have a specific meaning other than what is literally spelled out by the term. I do have to say, though. That makes things imminently confusing.
Especially since Mike apparently agreed with me that 'intelligent design' in this context is concerned with identifying objects as designed by an intelligence. What do you, Bradford, think of when you hear the term 'intelligent design'? Do you think of me building a bookshelf in my garage or do you think of attempts by folks like Mike Gene or Bill Dembski to come up with ways to identify objects that could not have come about by chance alone?
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I can easily see why an informed, rational person still could be confused, because next to humans designing stuff, the term 'intelligent design' has a very specific meaning, namely that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It appears you are NOT using the term 'intelligent design' with specifically this meaning here. I am wondering why. Especially since there are other terms that would describe this process equally well without the possibility of this confusion.
Take this for example: Bill Dembski goes on a speaking tour and say 'Intelligent Design' helps every single person in this world to lead a better, longer, healthier life.
Apparently you would say: True. Objects designed by an intelligence do such a thing. Bill is being completely accurate.
I would say: Huh? How in the world does the assertion that certain features in this world are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an unguided process, have an impact on my day to day life at all.
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Of course it did not mention these particulars. What is the definition of biology? There are a lot of biological systems and functions not specifically named in any definition. Many particulars that would signal to an onlooker "that's biology."
I think that any approach used by Dembski, Gene or any IDist must have a rational basis which explains why an intelligent cause is the best option. If you are going to do that without looking into common denominators for observed intelligent causes you are ommiting a likely indicator of clues for intelligently generated causes.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
As an aside: If intelligent design is really that encompassing (to included all design endeavors by human beings) then I don't really think that anybody can claim the study of intelligent design being suppressed. Every single person I know in academia proudly displays intelligent design every single working day. Every single publication in academia contains intelligent design. And every single grant given in academia funds intelligent design.
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Oh. It did not mention them, but it should include them?
Ok. I work in biology. Do you know what I do: I work in the financial system. There are lots of biological entities that are part of the financial system, so I work in biology.
My friend works in finance. Do you know what he does: He works in a biology lab, but since they have to buy stuff to do their work, he works in finance.
Bill Dembski works on intelligent design. Do you know what he does: He baked a cake yesterday, since that required intelligence and it designed something, he works in intelligent design.
Do you see how ridiculous to use the term 'intelligent design' (in particular on a blog that deals specifically with ID) in such an all encompassing manner?
Of course they have to have a rational basis. What does that have to do with using the term 'intelligent design' in such a diluted manner that it is completely devoid of meaning.
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
You're creating your own caricatures. When one studies how an intelligent mind goes about designing and then constructing a highly complex item and then finds parallel entities in the natural world, he has a comparative basis on which to assess mechanisms said to have generated such entities with respect to whether or not they too evidence the same design patterns.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
How is it a caricature? You apparently think that the term 'intelligent design' should encompass any and all design performed by intelligent agents on top of identifying structures that could not have come about by chance alone. How is baking a cake not 'intelligent design'?
And do you think that the work of Mike Gene or Bill Dembski had any effect on the creation of GM organisms or Craig Venters attempts to create 'new life' or on any of the stuff that Freeman Dyson wrote about? If so, how?
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi hrun,
Since you think my words were misleading, we should point out that you are offering a subjective judgment call rooted in perception. You write:
Don't agree. This looks more like a conditioned response. An informed, rational person knows that the words in the English language almost always have more than one meaning and the meaning is deciphered from the context of those words. After all, you yourself show us this to be true with your own interpretations of intelligent design. First, you think it means a method ("the gist of ID is to identify objects that were designed") and then about a hour later, it suddenly becomes a conclusion/position ("certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection").
Thus, rather than stop reading after seeing the words "˜intelligent design,' doing a google search, and making a subjective judgment about the most common usage of the words, the informed, rational person would continue reading to determine the context. And here, the meaning of the chosen words is clearly illuminated by the very next sentence. If unclear, the informed, rational person would simply ask for clarification rather than immediately assume something sinister is at play.
Neither did you, in your first question to me. So what?
The term "˜intelligent design' does not elicit negative, knee-jerk reactions in me, thus I don't view its use as always being part of a sinister socio-political agenda.
You mean like when you asked, "Why not call it 'human design' or 'reverse engineering?" Which is essentially what I wrote: "In this case, the intelligent designers are human beings, whose rationality and foresight have not only brought culture into existence, but has enabled them to decipher the machinery and coding of life."
Look, design is something humans do when they impose their conceptual word on the physical world. Humans change their world through design and Dyson's post-Darwinian era is just one example. "˜Intelligent' is the adjective, after all, not all human design is intelligent design.
I'm wondering why, too. I'm wondering if you are trying to derail this thread from the truly interesting issue brought up by the OP. I will raise it again:
Dyson brings up some very interesting food for thought - why is it that the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species? What is it about this species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere?
Comment by MikeGene — January 26, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
So… we can no longer use the word "evolution" to describe a sequence of events or the development of ideas or the sequential changes over time? Darn. Somebody really ought to inform the world. Right after they succeed in removing the word "bright" from adjectives describing light or objects that emit or reflect light and forbidding anyone from describing art or engineering as "intelligent design."
Sheesh!
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Mike, if that was the 'truly interesting issue' brought up by the OP, then why even inject a term like 'intelligent design' into the post which does have these multiple meanings and in general is used in a different meaning on this blog?
(And your distinction between my two different usages of ID method vs. conclusion are marginal (since supposedly the conclusion follows from applying the method), while the distinction of 'baking a cake' is intelligent design (ala Bradford) or ID (ala Dembski) appear to me to be radically different).
But of course the 'see, you understood the difference, thus what I said can't be misleading' argument as always holds. As soon as something is discovered by anybody as misleading, it is no longer misleading. I understand if you want to get back to what your original intent of this post was and I can leave it at that.
Comment by hrun — January 26, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Just to comment on the OP: I agree utterly with Dyson. Whatever one may think of the history of biological evolution on this planet, humanity has managed to (singularly, it would seem) surpass it. We no longer need survival and reproduction to see drastic changes and adaptations in ourselves as organisms, even biological ones. Whether the past was designed or not is its own argument, but the future looks easier to predict. Design, design, design.
Comment by nullasalus — January 26, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Hi nullasalus,
I agree. And the observation does deflate the "there's nothing special about humans" belief. Human beings are not just another twig on the evolutionary bush, now are we?
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2008 @ 12:44 am
January 27th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Actually, it's not genetic engineering or synthetic life that makes me agree with Dyson's gist. I think humans 'won' the Darwin Award Derby the moment they determined to engineer the means to defeat both life and evolution in one fell swoop.
Life and evolution said 'Uncle!' and now we can do whatever we want with it - so long as the threat still stands.
Comment by Joy — January 27, 2008 @ 12:57 am
January 27th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Why one? One species will tend to crowd out another species that competes for the same niche.
We can consider it from an information perspective. Genomes can only store so much information. A nervous system can store quite a bit more, and with minimal consciousness can adapt to a local environment more quickly and efficiently than biological evolution. The advent of abstraction and language led to culturally shared knowledge. Finally, writing and more advanced forms of information processing can store more and more knowledge with an enhanced capability of rapid updating and sharing.
Comment by Zachriel — January 27, 2008 @ 1:08 am
January 27th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Huh? So you are trying to sell the notion that Dyson's description of the post-Darwinian era is just another example of one species crowding out another species that competes for the same niche?
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2008 @ 1:35 am
January 27th, 2008 at 3:44 am
I'm struggling to understand these topics. I was making some headway through these posts. But now I'm kind of slipping again. Are you and Mike talking about the same thing? Zachriel would you explain this for me. I'm not correcting you, it is just that I don't see how this flows from what Mike was commenting on Dyson. Regarding this post-darwinian era being ushered in by one species.
Comment by BrainyLack — January 27, 2008 @ 3:44 am
January 27th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Are there two different types of evolution? Isn't evolution darwinian evolution. How does evolution carry on for the first 100 million of years, then Darwinian evolution carries on for the next 2 to 3 billion years, and then back to this 1st type of evolution.
Comment by BrainyLack — January 27, 2008 @ 3:48 am
January 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Huh? You asked two questions. The first was why the post-Darwinian era is being ushered in by one species. Species tend to crowd out other species that compete for the same niche, especially when populations rapidly advance. For instance, humans crowded out Neanderthal are even now crowding out other closely related ape species.
Your second question concerned the characteristics about the human species that is so radically changing the entire biosphere. And that is primarily due to language and cultural evolution.
Don't forget, though, that bacteria still rule to roost; and even among metazoa, insects far surpass humans in biomass and effect on the biosphere.
Dyson is using the word "evolution" broadly to refer to changes across time. The first few millions of years of biological evolution are posited to be due to natural horizontal mechanisms. Then biology entered the darwinian age of natural vertical evolution for the next few billion years. Now, Dyson posits that evolution is entering a new phase of artificial evolution. This is all generally correct.
Keep in mind that Dyson considers the natural evolutionary descent of humans from fish to be rather slow; and it is, when compared to what may be possible with artificial evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — January 27, 2008 @ 10:02 am
January 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hi Zachriel,
What does Dyson say?
You are describing Darwinian evolution; Dyson is telling us something new is on the horizon. So why is it that only one species is ushering in the post-Darwinian era?
So why have no other species developed a language and culture that allows them to usher in a post-Darwinian era?
Comment by MikeGene — January 27, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
January 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Because that one species arose through darwinian evolution.
Because Homo sapiens crowded out its competitors. It's not just humans: species tend to crowd out other species (including parent species) that compete for the same niche. This effect is an important mechanism of evolutionary diversification.
Comment by Zachriel — January 27, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Is there hard proof for this? Zachriel I am not saying that you are wrong. II believe I had read that this idea was overstated. That there is more different species living in the same niche. That one species crowding out another *as a rule* is not entirely correct.
Comment by BrainyLack — January 29, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
January 29th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Notice the word "tend" in my statement. Rarely will two species competing for the same niche remain in a stable relationship. But what species will often do is diverge in their behavior or microhabitats to avoid direct competition. For instance, in just thousands of years in Africa's Great Lakes, Cichlids have diversified into hundreds of species through adaptive specialization.
A recent paper by the Grants on Darwin's Finches reports direct evidence of character displacement. Amazing work. It takes great patience and persistence to observe evolution in the wild.
Speaking of Darwin's Finches, Darwin made a conjecture that Galápagos finches, a classic case of adaptive radiation, most likely arrived as immigrants from the South American mainland. Genetic studies have proven Darwin's conjecture to be correct.
In the case of humans, their closest relatives live in trees.
Comment by Zachriel — January 29, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
January 30th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Hi hrun,
Yet I just explained to you, "The term "˜intelligent design' does not elicit negative, knee-jerk reactions in me, thus I don't view its use as always being part of a sinister socio-political agenda."
Perhaps you also overlooked that I had previously read the transcripts of Church. He explains it like this:
So maybe the OP should have read like this:
And what has moved us into the post-Darwinan era? According to Church, intelligent design.
I keep warning critics about the pitfalls of relying on their stereotypes.
Comment by MikeGene — January 30, 2008 @ 8:06 am