Sex, sex, sex, that’s all they think about. – Mother of Brian of Nazareth (Monty Python’s Life of Brian).
1 Like
Well, this is how it’s done, boys. Perhaps you should try it down at the local night-club?
1 Like
Come to think of it …
Lamarck’s giraffe story was interesting, but wrong.
Darwin’s giraffe story was interesting, but wrong.
It’ll be a challenge for someone to produce a Kimura giraffe story that isn’t … well… just a little boring?
To be fair, Darwin did describe sexual selection.
His second book was: The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. I think it was initially proposed in “Origins” but Darwin described the mechanism in more detail in the later book: Sections II and III. Alfred Russell Wallace disagreed with Darwin on mating selection but the phenomena has been confirmed in numerous species. The dramatic plumage of Peacock males is probably the most famous example.
Added: Found some historical context regarding Darwin and giraffes here.
Sounds like a swell idea! I’d love to grow a pair of antlers first, though. And since even hair doesn’t seem forthcoming, that may be a problem.
Okay, then by what you say new need to change our common concept of evolution to Evolution by means of Natural Selection (and for good measure add) based on the population theory of Thomas Malthus.
Doers not make much sense to me.
The big question which has not been answered is: Is Natural Selection determinate and if so how is it determinate? The answer to the firs aspect is “Yes,” and since the answer is Yes, then evolution is determinate, and not random as is popularly believed and this error is not discouraged by many biologists, because the question has yet to be answered despite all of the evidence, “What is the determining factor in Natural Selection?”
Ruse is a bit out of date, scientifically. More to the point, I think the key phrase in that quote is “design-like”. Natural selection does indeed speak to this point, but to my mind that is only a superficial analysis of biology. One can easily see how natural selection would lead to an appearance of design. But the question remains as to why such an appearance exists. In other words, what is behind evolution? (I dont expect an answer. This is a different topic, and I am just throwing it out here).
Did somebody say giraffes? Why not watch Inside Nature’s Giants: Giraffe?
You’ll see a giraffe necropsy, learn about giraffe evolution, and much more from a whole panel of experts, including an evolutionary scientist, a comparative anatomist and a veterinary scientist. It’s all fascinating, and you’ll also learn about what those long necks are for. What’s not to like?
Argon - when I read Darwin (or anyone else) on sexuaI selection I never quite understood why the evolution of a female desire for eyes on tails, or big antlers on elks, or long necks on giraffes was any less of a problem to explain than the evolution of the features themselves.
There are species where mating preference for such traits have been demonstrated and such features reduce when preference for those traits are diminished. Some of the extravagant traits carry a significant cost, e.g. increased likelihood of predation. So, the phenomena / mechanism is real. How or why any particular trait would become subject to mating selection is going to be case and species specific.
I doubt that the exact mechanisms behind the evolution and fixation of most specific traits seen today will ever be determined. In most instances, that would require understanding the contexts in which the traits arose (plus an understanding of biology we currently don’t possess), although descent with modification seems a common thread. The necessary information is probably lost in most cases. Still, there will be some instances where enough of the original state can be determined that could allow testing of specific paths or cases where studies of sister species or sub-populations can ‘catch some changes in the act’. This is induction, where scientists work from the specific to the general. It carries some risk but in many the studies of the real world, it’s about the best we can do.
1 Like
Hi Roger.
I don’t understand what you’re talking about. We must be talking at cross purposes. Sorry.
You said that evolution really was not evolution as Darwin defined it, but common descent.
Thus if we are going to talk about Darwin’s Theory, we need to specific what we are talking about, which is Common Descent based on Variation and Natural Selection based on the population theories of Thomas Malthus. Not as catchy as ToE but it does the job of making clear what we are talking about which is important, right?.
1 Like
There’s no accounting for aesthetics.
If birds only mate with other birds that sing a song they like … do you really think one song is evolutionarily superior to another song? This is an excellent topic for DRIFT … where genes drift … while preference for colors, songs and other trifles affect populations for generations.
I got this confused with “spam, with spam, and served with spam …”
“Spam Song” was based on African-British composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor’s 1911 “Viking Song,” which was recorded by baritone Emilio de Gogorza in 1918 on the Victrola label, and by the Associated Glee Clubs of America in 1926 on the Victor label. There was also a 1940s recording of the work on British Decca. In the Python song, “Spam” replaced the original lyric “clang” (as in, “Clang, clang, clang on the anvil”). Now we know the reason for the presence of Vikings in the Python sketch! The original tune concerns British ships; the Norse gods Thor and Odin are mentioned. Coleridge-Taylor was very famous in England in the early 1900s. His most popular work was “Hiawatha.”
Hi Sy,
I am happy to leave leading edge discussions on biology to you and other experts - however I try to understand the trends and am obviously interested in “what is behind evolution?”. I at times quote from “A. Barberousse et al. (eds.), Mapping the Future of Biology, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 266, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9636-5 1. I find this volume instructive as it consists of a number of scientists who work in this area, and provide a wide range of views (including a chapter that discusses areas relevant to BioLogos).
In Chapt 1, the Introduction provides the following:
“When trying to articulate molecular and evolutionary approaches to find out the solution of a given problem, several types of difficulties may arise. Some are of a general theoretical nature, for instance the question of whether evolution by natural selection is constrained by principles of self-organization. Others are conceptual: some concepts play a key role in today’s biology but are in need of a precise and rigorous definition. A first example is the gene concept: molecular and evolutionary biologists seldom use the same concept of a gene. Another example is the organism concept, a sort of blind spot in today’s biology, since only few explicit definitions of this concept are available. In the next subsection, we review three domains of molecular biology in which difficulties of both types are experienced and we indicate how the contributed papers relate to these “awkward” domains. In Section 1.2, we show that contrary to what we were expecting before this volume was planned, it is when they try to solve the difficulties of the second type in each relevant domain that biologists and philosophers do invent future biology: the papers gathered here testify that research generated by the exploration of some well-chosen concepts is probably more fruitful than attempts to erect brand new theoretical alternatives to neo-Darwinism.”
This outlook is healthy as it is scientific, and does not seek to impose a dogmatic approach, and is conducive to asking questions.
Do you see what a depth of mystery there is in that statement, scientifically speaking, George?
Sy
It seems that 7 years is a long time in biology (and if Ruse hasn’t shifted his ground, he might consider the jury has not finally returned its verdict even now). It’s certainly likely that many TEs stilll have his work on the faith-evolution question on their shelves and in their minds.
George has broadened this thread from the definition of evolution to its relationship to faith - quite a shift, it seems to me, but relevant to Ruse and the development of “Evolutionary Creation”.
Over at The Hump of the Camel we’re persuaded that any theory of evolution (carefully restricted to its scientific content, as per Joshua’s comments), though worthy of discussion in its own right, is compatible with the historic content of Christian faith, and specifically the traditional Evangelical doctrine and approach to Scripture as God’s word to us. We try to understand why that should be so.
But as soon as one asks, “What can evolution teach us about God?”, the answers will be highly coloured by the particular stages of a ToE that is itself evolving, and how it is understood (ie including any philosophical or metaphysical baggage commonly attached). The result is the danger of hitching ones theological cart to a shape-shifter.
Example: “Common descent with modification” is pretty innocent in that respect, but even so one might recall that because it was generalised to a principle of everything in 19th century critical theology, Judaeo-Christianity was no longer seen as a unique revelation by the true God, but as a stage in religion’s evolution from shamanism. The wise man would anticipate the next evolutionary stage.
A more specific example: Darwin’s original theory had a strong streak of natural selection as a “trajectory towards perfection”, especially once Spencer’s global evolutionary philosophy got popularly attached to it. Theologians like B B Warfield accepted the science, but critiqued the baggage severely, whether it came from his followers or Darwin himself. However, Tielhard de Chardin built an entire theology about that idea of natural selection as the ubiquitous perfecter of species, with the whole Universe evolving towards the Omega Point of God. You can’t imagine de Chardin’s system growing out of near-neutral theory.
Likewise, it’s easy to see how Dawkins’ “blind watchmaker” adaptationism influenced a number of TEs to ask whether there might even be theological advantages to seeing God as a kind of blind watchmaker, distancing himself from the process of evolution by giving it “freedom to create itself”. Faith (including the very doctrine of God) could be updated to match scientific truth. Hence Francisco Ayala’s “Design without a Designer”, which he insisted was compatible with belief in God, and which solved any problems of theodicy by blaming the appendix or parasites on the blind process. Unfortunately, the “selfish gene” concept is rapidly on the wane, so what happens to the self-givingly-blind divine watchmaker?
I could cite a number of similar examples.
The NSCE webpage discussing definitions of evolution is rather scathing about how religious people tend to cling on to evolutionary concepts long after they’ve been superceded, which of course only matters much if they used them to deduce “eternal truths” about God and his ways.
It’s maybe too early to see what theological influence near-neutral theory might have as a dominant theory - my instinct is that in a popular form it could be made to sit fairly easily with postmodern ideas that there is no real progress or truth, just a myriad of equally messy viewpoints, like mildly deleterious alleles. That would be useful for justifying progressive views on morality in terms of “God’s own diversity” or some such notion.
So I hope we’re wise enough here to avoid that kind of trap, and not to try to learn about God and Christian doctrine from theories of evolution, but to stick (as I think Dr Swamidass is advocating, if I’m not mistaken) to seeing them as useful scientific approaches to understanding, and marvelling at, the workings of the world God has made.
1 Like
Yes, of course I do. Which is why I freely confess that God could easily be participating in the entire process. But this is not the same thing as saying aesthetic issues PROVE God’s existence. It merely makes sense to me, and it helps me have confidence in the hybrid position that BioLogos has staked out:
Natural law, directed by God, with or without non-lawful miracles, in the creation of life on Earth as we know it.
The only real dispute is how long God took to make this life. The witness of our eyes and ears tell us that it was MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years …
1 Like