Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural selection as negative principle only

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to note what philosopher of science, John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), had to say about natural selection:

The principle of natural selection is indeed an important contribution to biology. But it is a negative, not an architectonic, principle. It does not explain why variations appear, why they cumulate, why they assume an organization in the way of more successful adaptation. Organisms must, of course, be able to maintain themselves in their life environment and in the physical environment, in order to leave descendants and determine the character of the race. But that is all natural selection tells us. It does not explain the traits and organization of organisms nor why they become well or badly adapted to their specific environment.

Can’t seem to find this online, but it’s consistent with something we did find:

Even in such fields as science, where reason is supposed to be most at home, we drift invariably into traditions and schools. Darwin’s hypothesis of chance variations and natural selection has not merely become a dogma of science, but has been erected into a philosophy of the universe; and the limitations of the hypothesis and the empirical spirit of its creator have been lost sight of in an intolerant tradition which has had serious consequences, not only for the development of natural science but for the social ideals and progress of the race. This is only one instance where mysticism has supplanted reason in science and where the authority of facts has been forced to yield to the authority of tradition. In every field of science we are haunted by ghosts of the past to which lesser minds pay superstitious reverence and by which even greater minds are misled into false assumptions. And the most dangerous ghost of all is that mechanical materialism which, while it has no scientific credentials but is simply a false dogma tacked on to science, has become fashionable among scientists. If science is always in danger of subordinating reason and experience to dogmas, the danger is even greater iii philosophy and art where the emotional element naturally plays a greater part – John E. Boodin. “The Law of Social Participation”, American Journal of Sociology, 27, 1921: 22-53.

Imagine, 1921… Well before Mencken on the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) and Buck v. Bell (1927). Also:

The modern point of view which finds its typical expression in Darwinism emphasizes change, history, mechanical causes, flux of species, determination of the higher by the lower. History runs on like an old man’s tale without beginning, middle, or end, without any guiding plot. It is infinite and formless. Chance rules supreme. It despises final causes.

More on Boodin’ approach here. See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Comments
KF: "WD 400 et al, tangents on tangents" Your unsubstantiated claim is duly noted. It was you that said that coyotes are more fit than dogs. When it was pointed out that fitness cannot be compared between species, and not even between different populations of the same species.Indiana Effigy
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
WD 400 et al, tangents on tangents. The evidence is that dogs can and do interbreed with wild cousins leaving fertile offspring. At the same time, these cousins show themselves to be fitter in the wild to the point where they prey on dogs. KFkairosfocus
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Origenes, Germanic us Thanks a lot for your responses and suggestions. Much appreciated.EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
IE are you aware coyotes can interbreed with dogs? cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog there are behavioural issues etc but the pattern is a sign that artificially selected dog breeds are not on par with the wild varieties in a natural envt, which was the point you are pulling away from on a tangent. KFv
Coyotes interbreed with wolves too. In the natural envt and everything. Are we to conclude that wolves are degenerate?wd400
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
EugeneS, Thank you for your interesting response. One quick follow-up idea: A coherent controlled suite of responses by an organism to an event it never (could have) encountered in its evolutionary history may constitute proof of the existence of ‘improvisational rules’. The problem is what kind of event fits the bill? Here I would like to propose that surgery does:
Surgery is war. It is impossible to envisage the sheer complexity of what happens within a surgical wound. It is a microscopical scene of devastation. Muscle cells have been crudely crushed, nerves ripped asunder; the scalpel blade has slashed and separated close communities of tissues, rupturing long-established networks of blood vessels. After the operation, broken and cut tissues are crushed together by the surgeon’s crude clamps. There is no circulation of blood or lymph across the suture. Yet within seconds of the assault, the single cells are stirred into action. They use unimaginable senses to detect what has happened and start to respond. Stem cells specialize to become the spiky-looking cells of the stratum spinosum; the shattered capillaries are meticulously repaired, new cells form layers of smooth muscle in the blood-vessel walls and neat endothelium; nerve fibres extend towards the site of the suture to restore the tactile senses . . . These phenomena require individual cells to work out what they need to do. And the ingenious restoration of the blood-vessel network reveals that there is an over-arching sense of the structure of the whole area in which this remarkable repair takes place. So too does the restoration of the skin. Cells that carry out the repair are subtly coordinated so that the skin surface, the contour of which they cannot surely detect, is restored in a form that is close to perfect. [Brian Ford 2009]
Origenes
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Origenes #177
What I meant to convey was that, while it is scientific to conclude that an intelligent teleological cause must be involved in the coming into existence of life and its many forms, it’s a matter of personal opinion how to envision such an intelligent cause and its method of operation.
But surely it's not a matter of opinion of when new genomes were introduced. That happened at certain times (by your way of looking at things). Asking questions and looking for answers can't just stop with the design inference.ellazimm
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
EugeneS@182 I suggest you to read e.g. the book “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” of Sean B. Carroll. It is already 10 years old, but it can give you an interesting insight of what we know about how an organism is “built”. It is well suitable for not biologist like you (and I, so it is why I recommend it to you). It will explain you what Zachriel@184 summarized for you.Germanicus
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Thanks! That adds to the picture.EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Origenes 181 In addition to my earlier comment... Regarding irreducibility, I was talking exclusively about the 'mechanistic' side of biological systems, leaving agent consciousness out of discussion. Decision making need not be conscious, of course. In the sense I am using, an autopilot is an example of a decision making agent while obviously not being conscious. Overall, I think that intelligent (choice contingent) causation is a separate kind of causation in nature and that it is not reducible to combinations of chance and necessity. I believe, ultimately intelligence causally depends on consciousness and therefore cannot be explained naturalistically.EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
EugeneS: Surely, DNA does not have every instruction there is to build an organism A lot of research has been done on embryogenesis. While there's still a lot to learn, there is some understanding of the process. Changes are coordinated through highly conserved signal molecules which tell the cells which genes to activate and which to deactivate. It's a tree-like process, which starts with very broad changes, such as the division of cells into endoderm and ectoderm, and the formation of the anterior-posterior axis, then refines those choices during further development.Zachriel
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, My pleasure.EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Origenes 181 I kind of see what you mean but I am not a biologist, so the answer is I don't know. The organism surely reacts to environmental cues. Judging from various discussions I had or read on the net, e.g. a majority of mutations are non-random responses of the organism so neo-Darwinists get it wrong anyway ;) In the literature there are striking examples of intelligent choices some organisms make depending on the parameters of the environment. Some species do such radical things as 'go asexual' in order to survive or something like that, switching back to normal when the emergency is over. Clearly, this is an example of some built-in logic. I only know that the interpreter(s) of those 'improvisational rules' must be sitting somewhere in the system. The logic of 'IF-THEN-ELSE' should be present in some form or another. Surely, DNA does not have every instruction there is to build an organism, but is rather a template akin to a quick set of instructions of a couch for a sportsman before the race (the issuer and the receiver kind of know what they are talking about, all they are interested in is key points). The knowledge what to do with this template (e.g. splicing) must be elsewhere in the organism. On the other hand, epigenetics is only developing, so... But I am sure the knowledge is somewhere distributed in the organism. In terms of irreducibility, agency stands at the outset of life, that is for sure. However, all organisms possess in varying degrees the decision making capabilities depending on their own complexity (chemotaxis is probably the simplest example). At least some organisms can develop new rules of behaviour. But I believe the ability to develop new rules is somehow bounded by the built-in intelligence they are given (by 'intelligence' I mean basically decision making and learning). E.g. the amount of paths through of a computer program execution grows quickly with its size. Hence the more complicated the organism is, the more it can do in terms of decision making but it is basically bounded from above.EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Z are you aware coyotes eat dogs? Are you aware that coyotes eat rabbits? Origenes: Okay, that didn’t turn out to be conclusive, to say the least. This is not a "degenerate" wolf, or a "loss of information": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Bichon_Fris%C3%A9_-_studdogbichon.jpgZachriel
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
EugeneS #174, Is there an argument to be made for the existence of "improvisational rules"? Decisions made by an organism/intelligence that are not reducible to genetic or otherwise instantiated code?Origenes
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
EugeneS -- good explanation. Thank you.Silver Asiatic
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
KF: "IE are you aware coyotes can interbreed with dogs?" Yes. And so can tigers and lions. But they are still considered to be separate interbreeding populations because it is not all that common.Indiana Effigy
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Ellazimm: Well, it should just be a matter of historical record, when things took place.
Sure it is. What I meant to convey was that, while it is scientific to conclude that an intelligent teleological cause must be involved in the coming into existence of life and its many forms, it's a matter of personal opinion how to envision such an intelligent cause and its method of operation. There are several options to choose from, for instance atheist Prof. Nagel proposes that "principles of a different kind may also be at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic." and Francis Crick proposed directed panspermia — intelligent aliens who seeded the earth. IOWs God is just one of several candidates.Origenes
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
IE are you aware coyotes can interbreed with dogs? cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog there are behavioural issues etc but the pattern is a sign that artificially selected dog breeds are not on par with the wild varieties in a natural envt, which was the point you are pulling away from on a tangent. KFkairosfocus
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Origenes #173
The answers to your questions are “more than one” and “sequentially.” However, these answers reflect my personal opinion. We are stepping outside the realm of science.
Well, it should just be a matter of historical record, when things took place. But if you're not sure then that's that. I can never get anyone to try to estimate when such things took place. You'd there'd be some notion. It's not a matter of faith, it's just part of the past.ellazimm
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Silver, Yes, you are right in saying that contexts differ. However, what is common is the pragmatic aspect of a function. E.g. consider the accuracy of a missile strike. Obviously, the launching system is composed of physical parts subjected to the laws of nature (constraints in David Abel's terminology). However, the launching system itself does not care if it hits the target at all. In other words, the laws of nature will admit a continuum of missile trajectories. It is then the decision maker's responsibility to restrict the continuum to include only those trajectories that meet his/her quality criterion (whether the target is hit, in this case). From the point of view of the laws of nature, these quality criteria are arbitrary (in the same sense as the shape of a sculpture is arbitrary as different sculptures may come out from the same lump of gypsum under the guidance of a sculptor). In Abel's work this sort of criteria are labelled as rules to be distinguished from the constraints of the laws of nature. So pragmatic utility is about quality. And as soon as we have a system with rules in addition to constraints, we know that they are a result of intelligent decisions. Nature does not choose, nor decide. It is always exclusively intelligence that decides between certain physical states in order to satisfy a pragmatic criterion. In the biological context we have multiple codes and its interpreters. The best known example is, of course, the genetic code. The codon-amino acid associations are rules, not laws. These associations are formal by nature even though they are implemented in chemistry. As one of my correspondents said, design cries out of there!EugeneS
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
Ellazimm #172, The answers to your questions are "more than one" and "sequentially." However, these answers reflect my personal opinion. We are stepping outside the realm of science.Origenes
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
Origenes #171
The genome and its information came into existence by intelligent design.
Was there a single, original genome or more than one? If more than one were they introduced at the same time or sequentially?ellazimm
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
ellazimm: I’m kind of curious . . . where do you think the wolf genome came from?
The genome and its information came into existence by intelligent design. Evolutionary theory can explain neither the existence of the genome nor the information. Random walks combined with continued rounds of information loss (a.k.a. "natural selection") performs worse than a blind search.Origenes
April 1, 2016
April
04
Apr
1
01
2016
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Origenes #167
Okay, that didn’t turn out to be conclusive, to say the least. Why don’t you point out some of the many other unique features of the dog genome?
I'm kind of curious . . . where do you think the wolf genome came from? Is it a degenerate version of some other mammal genome? Where did the 'first' mammal genome come from?ellazimm
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "Z are you aware coyotes eat dogs? That should show the relative fitness, even before the many health problems come to bear. KF" Relative fitness can only be looked at within an interbreeding population. Your statement has no more meaning than me swing that my relative fitness is greater than a lobster's because I eat lobster.Indiana Effigy
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Z are you aware coyotes eat dogs? That should show the relative fitness, even before the many health problems come to bear. KFkairosfocus
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Zachriel: The dog genome has many features not found in wolves. Take dog coats, for instance. Three genes have been identified, RSPO2, FGF5 & KRT71 (…)
Okay, that didn’t turn out to be conclusive, to say the least. Why don’t you point out some of the many other unique features of the dog genome?Origenes
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: dogs that go feral and survive form populations that degenerate to mongrels that tend to move towards wolf-like or similar traits. That contradicts Origenes's claim that "Not one of the dog races can survive in the wild". It also shows the effect of evolution on the domestic dog in a changed environment. And granted that they become more wolf-like, it shows that they are not merely degenerate wolves.Zachriel
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Z, dogs that go feral and survive form populations that degenerate to mongrels that tend to move towards wolf-like or similar traits. KF PS: Wiki: >>The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a wild dog found in Australia. Its exact ancestry is debated, but dingoes are generally believed to be descended from semi-domesticated dogs from East or South Asia, which returned to a wild lifestyle when introduced to Australia. Both dingo and dog are classified as a subspecies of Canis lupus in Mammal Species of the World.>> and of course this illustrates the tendency.kairosfocus
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
SA, we are talking about functionality based on systemic interactions of correctly organised components (which is vulnerable to significant perturbation of organisation), starting with strings and structures specified through strings or WLOG reducible to such. We then may specify a quasi-space or virtual space with distance metrics based on number of edits to transform string A to string B, e.g. replacements/substitutions, deletions, additions, reorderings, thus also leading to the concept islands of function in seas of non-function in a configuration space omega [cases E from zones T in spaces W], cf Damerau–Levenshtein distance -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damerau%E2%80%93Levenshtein_distance as an extension of Hamming distance. I have repeatedly used the Abu 6502 C3 fishing reel as a paradigm. The Ribosome and its protein assembly system, the mRNA control tape, ATP Synthase and many other examples come to mind. KFkairosfocus
March 31, 2016
March
03
Mar
31
31
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply