Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?

Faith & Science Conversation
43

We are clever apes, but we aren’t just apes. We are not merely clever apes. So where else do we see paradox in science? Frankly, almost everywhere. Consider embryology…

Also consider general relativity and quantum mechanics. We hold both theories to be “correct” in important and salient ways, even though they produce entirely contradictory predictions in important questions (e.g. dark energy). So we have, here, two mutually exclusive theories that we simultaneously hold to be provisionally correct.

If non-contradiction was science’s highest value, this would be impossible. Rather, it isn’t. Science holds mutually contradictory theories simultaneously if they both have strong explanatory power. This is almost exactly the definition of a paradox.

Also see how science thinks about truth…

theories in science are never accepted as absolutely true. During hypothesis testing, only two results are possible: the scientist can reject the hypothesis if it did not make an accurate prediction, or the scientists can fail to reject the hypothesis if it did make an accurate prediction. The important point is that the scientist cannot accept the hypothesis.
From the Archives: Evolution as a Scientific Theory | The BioLogos Forum

This again is a paradox. We place high confidence in “provisional truth,” in fact science ignores absolute truth to focus just on absolute truth. There is paradox here, because we place high confidence in scientific theories, even as we simultaneously admit that they are not correct. They are simultaneously true and untrue.

I could go on and on from here. Another great example is emergent phenomenon (complexity arising from simple systems) and also consciousness. Regularly, here, simultaneously “true” theories contradict one another. Science works so well because it doesn’t care. Non-contradiction is not the most important guiding principle of science. It embraces the paradox.

Paradox is everywhere in science.

44

The first point in this discussion is that paradox and contradiction are often interchanged - I have tried to follow your reasoning and I must confess that you are mixing paradox/contradiction with speculation. Scientists indeed speculate, but, eg, dark matter, is stated specifically as a “stop-gap” measure because there is NO scientific theory nor maths that can provide scientific understanding.

I want to avoid a lengthy exchange as most of the salient points in your response can be covered by a reasonable philosophy of science text book. My point may be better understood if I made it in the following manner:

  1. your claim is that common descent is scientifically proven and is the foundation of ToE.
  2. I point out an immense amount of clearly observable data that shows humans have very little in common with primates.
  3. You imply now point (2) may be paradoxical
  4. I state that no scientific theory would accept so much contradictory data by claiming some type of paradox - nor is QM a “way out” of this type of reasoning - for example, just look at the fantastic accuracy that QM computations provide. My work on DFT molecular models provides bond lengths that agree (at a high level of computation) to three decimal points with experimentally measured ones. This is a clear demonstration that QM is an accurate scientific theory as applied to molecular compounds - I would never contemplate a paradox with this.

Finally, emergence is not a scientific theory but an appeal to the difficulties experienced when faced by complex systems. Consciousness is the study of psychology - we do not doubt that we are conscious - we are examining it - we do not claim that consciousness is paradoxical - this would be absurd.

45

@Swamidass

In some sense you are right. Science doesn’t care, but people care. Indeed it is those contradictions which lead scientists like Einstein to new discoveries.

Also people are not just scientific beings, they are also philosophical and theological beings. This impels them to go beyond the contradictions to find the Truth. This is why there are New Atheists as well as YEC Christians.

Paradoxes and contradictions are enables by Western dualism. However Western dualism does not stand up to Einstein’s Relativity, which is based on a Relational universe. We need to go beyond Western dualism to relational world view to better understand the paradoxes of science.

46

I was referencing dark energy, not dark matter. Cosmological constant - Wikipedia Quoting wikipedia…

If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of {\displaystyle M_{\rm {pl}}^{4}} M_{{{\rm {pl}}}}^{4}. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!”.

Very true. Which is why paradox is a helpful framework, rooted in Christian theology.

Not really. I say that our best “provisional” understanding of biology is common descent. It explains almost everything we see at a genetic level, and resolves many puzzles we see at the phenotype level. This is true.

Phenotypically in humans, however, there is a big step change. At this level, nothing quite like this has happened before. Something emergent is going on here where the sum trancends the parts. This doesn’t render common descent false, but it does make it incomplete.

This, I feel, is not true. In physics, many scientists resist the notion of emergence, however, is on key place where their is strong agreement of emergence Phase transition - Wikipedia.

At a basic level in biology, the properties of biopolymers (e.g. proteins) are emergent. We understand the monomers in exquisite detail, but we struggle to understand even the most basic properties of proteins. But these properties, on a protein leve, are where the most important “action” is happening. So we have to, essentially, move away from first principles to model emerge properties directly to have any hope of understanding biology. While atomistic models of proteins are more “correct,” they are much less useful make different predictions than less “correct” emergent models of protein behavior.

I know there is a strong reductionist trend in physics, but biology counters this. Biology is all about emergence.

47

This also, I think, is incorrect. There are several maths and scientific theories that can explain dark matter (e.g. WIMPS or Axions). We just do not know which one is correct.

So on one hand, we have data that clearly contradicts our best theory of everything (Dark matter - Wikipedia), yet we resist revising it without further proof. Also, we do not entirely reject our best theory (even though it is in a sense falsified) because it successful explains so much.

Any how, I know you didn’t want a protracted argument, but I think evolutionary theory is going through the same progress as all theories. It is correctly explains a great deal of data, with no other alternative in sight, but it doesn’t explain everything. We slowly revise and improve and extend it, so it explains more (without loosing explanatory ability on what we already know).

I think this article is helpful…

48

I think you may concede that a great deal of the subject matter in these exchanges can be classified as speculation (and paradox would not be my preferred term). Speculation, questions, even educated guesses are part of the rich matrix we call scientific research and I cannot imagine it to be otherwise. My interest in participating on this blog from time to time, is mainly to point out the difference(s) between speculation from science (and other fields) and the tenets of the Christian faith. Central to this is the nature of human beings, which Christ took on Himself, to show us how we may be saved though faith in Him and by God’s grace. In this context, I do not share the enthusiasm for ToE displayed by some (well meaning) Christians who post here.

49

Our very faith rests in the Son of God, a paradox if ever there was one.

Ah, the greatness and wretchedness of man! A favorite theme of Pascal: “The greatness and the wretchedness of man are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us both that there is in man some great source of greatness, and a great source of wretchedness. It must then give us a reason for these astonishing contradictions. … ‘It is in vain, O men, that you seek within yourselves the remedy for your ills. All your light can only reach the knowledge that not in yourselves will you find truth or good. The philosophers have promised you that, and have been unable to do it. They neither know what is your true good, nor what is your true state. How could they have given remedies for your ills, when they did not even know them? Your chief maladies are pride, which takes you away from God, and lust, which binds you to earth; and they have done nothing else but cherish one or other of these diseases. If they gave you God as an end, it was only to administer to your pride; they made you think that you are by nature like Him, and conformed to Him. And those who saw the absurdity of this claim put you on another precipice, by making you understand that your nature was like that of the brutes, and led you to seek your good in the lusts which are shared by the animals. This is not the way to cure you of your unrighteousness, which these wise men never knew. I alone can make you understand who you are’… Adam, Jesus Christ.”

A true observation, but it helps the physicists that a large chunk of the popular audience isn’t religiously committed to denying the results of their research. Many, many people only read the authors who already agree with them, so only half of the story is getting out there.

3 Likes
51

It’s long overdue. They could do it as “Evolution for Dummies!” in Barnes & Noble, and re-brand it “Evolution for Christians!” in Family Christian Stores. (Joke! Joke!)

1 Like
53

@Swamidass
First, I want to thank you for the lengthy and cogent reply to my earlier post and for the link to the discussion with Dr Varki on Veritas.org. (I missed it earlier, because I needed to update my Adobe Reader. Small world: A very close colleague of mine and Prof. Corwin Hansch’s, Prof. Cynthia Sellassie, worked on the early QSAR research a a post-doc. She is a Christian and emigrated from the same part of India as you and Prof. Varki did. She has served on the Grants Review Board of the NIH, and is highly respected in the field of computer prediction of bioactivity including toxicity and enzyme inhibition.

@Swamidass )
This is precisely my point! Am I the only one that appreciates the importance of this fact when it comes to discussing the relationship between science and religion?? Our Material Nature is essentially animal. Displayed graphically, we are just an unassuming twig on a symmetrical bush. But we know that is not so. As you so aptly put it: "humans are truly exceptional and unique. Something very special and beautiful has happened in our origins." Obviously it is the human Mind that has enabled us to become Masters of the Planet. (Perhaps to the chagrin and regret of Gaia–tongue in cheek.) What biological mechanism(s) could have converted a primate brain into mind? Just size? More neural circuits? The evidence is against it. Elephants and many cetaceans have larger brains. Our brains and our computers have much in common; so why not examine some similes?

The 1,400 cc brain of Homo sapiens has (I am told) more potential circuits than the IBM Watson computer. But how is this “hardware” directed and managed? What (who?) provided the operating system and programming that directs it? Current evidence suggests that apoptosis plays and important role: use it or lose it. [quote=“Swamidass, post:35, topic:5494”]
And with the human mind comes explosive cultural evolution,
[/quote]
Teilhard de Chardin prophetically called this the birth of the Noosphere. Once the Noosphere existed, any human baby (but not chimps) born into it will have its brain ‘programmed’ (certain neural circuits established) so that it becomes truly human. Once a certain level of programming has been reached, many brain cells are, in a sense, redundant. You can check on the internet under ‘adult hydrocephalus’ and see the brain scan of a modern Frenchman coping with today’s society but possessing less than 10% of normal brain matter–less than the famous Lucy, the Australopithicus afarensis who lived some 3 million years ago.

I maintain that Noogenic evolution is at least as important to human future as bio-evolution. And whatever brain changes occur as the result of exposure to the Noosphere (human culture if you prefer), these changes can be passed on to future generations and are thus Lamarkian. The Noosphere is where evolution can be purposeful. I believe this hypothesis is worth following in future research into brain function.
Al Leo

1 Like
54

I should probably plead guilty here. I should have used the term: “Neo-Lamarkian”, but even that would upset you if you did not realize that I was NOT applying it to biological evolution. I have proposed that there is a real, operational evolution in the Noosphere (modern human culture, if you object to Chardin’s term). And Noospheric evolution is directed by lived experience, and to that extent is neo-Lamarkian.
Al Leo

55

I think a popular summary of the current state of evolutionary theory would do very well, particularly if it stayed above the fray. If any potential publishers happen to be listening in, I hereby volunteer to serve as Gunter’s ghost writer. (Volunteer for a fee, of course!)

1 Like
56

@Eddie
@Jay313

The other Wagner, Andreas, has a good book called “The Arrival of the Fittest”. Worth looking at.

57

That does sound interesting. It was always my gut feeling that even a 4+ billion year time span wasn’t long enough to produce the results we observe today. From the reviews, it sounds like Wagner set out to explain why and how that was possible.

58

The book addresses many of the issues you and Eddie raised. A. Wagner is a leading member of the EES group, and is a former student of the more senior Gunter Wagner (but not related).

59

I believe much of the work is worthwhile. I think mechanisms that facilitate evolution and response to environmental change have evolved (i.e. evolution of evolvability). But like much of the rhetoric behind the Human Genome Project, I suspect much is overblown. For example, I think the ‘epigenetic variation precedes genetic change’ arguments are being made well in advance of the data. I have serious doubts that ‘Natural Genetic Engineering’ can operate at the level of detail alluded to by Shapiro.

Regulation and feedback are complex. The interactions between the cell environment, the genome and the outside environment are complex. All these factors are determinants at various points in biological evolution. There is no single, ‘most important’ mechanism in evolution. This is what I think those (mostly in blogs and the popular press), get wrong when they promote ‘epigenetics’, ‘natural genetic engineering’, ‘symbiogenesis’, or ‘evo-dev’ as the ‘missing factor’ that biologists have overlooked. I am completely behind deeper synthesis in biological science but I’m allergic to rhetoric.

I don’t follow Coyne but it doesn’t appear Moran is trying to skewer efforts to expand evolutionary theory. He is taking those to task who get the scientific history wrong and forget how much of what was done or known previously that anticipated some of ‘novel’ breakthroughs cited. I haven’t seen Moran in his Sandwalk blog disparaging Wagner. Arlin Stoltzfus isn’t just a regular commentator at Larry’s blog but has written an extended set of articles describing his work to extend and refine evolutionary mechanisms on Larry’s blog. (People like Margulis and Shapiro don’t come off well there, but I understand why).

As for what constitutes ‘revolution’, I’ve found a paper from Peter Godfrey-Smith that I think reasonably covers the difficulty of discerning scientific ‘revolutions’.

1 Like
60

Argon

Thanks for that reply, it certainly clarifies your position, and I find myself in pretty much total agreement. I also find much of Shapiro’s writing over the top, and I have never cared much for Margulis. I also agree that Moran is far more reasonable (and knowledgeable) than Coyne or Myers. And of course the press and many blogs are what they are. My favorite headline from the popular “sciency” type online press is “Origin of life proven!!” which usually turns out to be a perfectly fine paper on something like chemical synthesis of glycine or the catalytic properties of some inorganic compound.

2 Likes
61

Sorry I wasn’t clearer earlier. Much of the noise that obscures the broader view may be like the parable of ‘blind men describing an elephant’. Many brought up through a developmental biology background see evolution as a developmental biology-centric problem. Others may see it from their own, limiting perspectives (e.g. Margulis, who never saw anything besides symbiosis). One can either bring in one’s particular expertise to contribute to a broader understanding or work in silos and assume their area is all that matters.

Aside: One interesting commonality between most models of next-gen evolutionary theory is some dependence on natural selection.

62

Yes, and this is where I think Shapiro goes off the rails, when he claims that natural genetic engineering replaces natural selection. That is simply not at all what NGE does, and I fail to understand how he gets there.

2 Likes