The debates and questions raised regarding evolutionary theories is a welcomed aspect and questions and debates are essential for progress in any and every field of science. Since QM was again raised in these exchanges, I will point out one vast difference when people compare Darwinian thinking with the way chemists considered the changes brought about by QM treatments of atoms and molecules. Chemists did not hesitate in “dumping” the previous paradigm (often explained in text books as models of balls and sticks) when discussing molecular structures (even though X-ray crystallography provide mountains of evidence for such a pictorial representation) – I do not sense a similar “open minded” approach to Darwinian thinking, even though the same people who cling to Darwin constantly show the inadequacies of such thinking. I see this as a commitment to dogma in science (as the banal quote about making sense through such thinking shows). The Academies openly acknowledge that no-one has come up with a “better” paradigm – my question is, has anyone in biology really tried to go past Darwin? When some are willing to seriously make such an attempt, the field of biology will be free from scientism, evolutionism, or whatever nonsensical terms apply to this area.
I note that you are basing your statement on what you think is the case and I am basing mine on reported instances of attempted intimidation. For instance the friends of Richard Dawkins called a conference in Europe to repudiate Niche Construction Theory as an alternative to his understanding of the gene’s eye view of evolution.
The issue as I see it is Ecology. When de Chardin wrote ecology was practically unheard. It was only after The Silent Spring and the work of Lovelock and Margulis in the second half of the last century after de Chardin lived and wrote that ecology has emerged as the primary discipline in the area of biology, surpassing I would submit the discipline of evolutionary biology.
The scientific question about evolution is not does it exist, but how it works, just as the scientific question about gravity was, Does gravity work as attraction from a distance as per Newton, or curvature of space and time per Einstein.
SET offers only one explanation for how natural selection works, which is “survival of the fittest” selection by conflict. The problem with this is that no one has been able to scientifically demonstrate how this works. On the other hand ecology has demonstrated scientifically how species change and develop.
EES in the form of Niche Construction Theory would bring a huge difference in the way evolution is understood to work. It would also strike an important blow to Dawkins’ Selfish Gene view. It would bring ecology into the relationship with evolution as it should be.
I do not think that Niche Construction Theory is playing along the margins of evolution thought and I don’t thank that Dawkins and other think that way either.
No, it does not mean that evolution is wrong and Creationism or ID is right. We must stop thinking in these either/or, black or white terms. We must demonstrate leadership in exploring new ideas and possibilities that can bring reconciliation and renewal to both science and theology.
Good stuff. Interestingly, a friend brought this related article to my attention today: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/descendants-of-holocaust-survivors-have-altered-stress-hormones/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook
3/4/15
groovimus,
You seem to have missed those two little words “in biology,” which results in your comment about the Dobzhansky quote being nonsense. For what it’s worth, the Dobzhansky statement isn’t banal but it’s only half right. Biochemistry, physiology, ecology etc. make a great deal of sense about how things work now, but they don’t account for how things got the way they are. Whenever people use that statement, I want to say that the other foundational thing in biology is Watson’s (and no doubt many others) dictum that living cells obey the laws of physics and chemistry. Fundamentalists wish that that was all there was to biology, but it isn’t.
Who’s talking about materialism here?
The RMNS paradigm may be regarded as failed by the kibitzers at UD and the DI, but not by anyone who actually does research in the area. Referring to RMNS as “failed” is just bluster, which is the usual tactic of amateurs who have no training or experience in a field. For every hint that some mutations may be loosely targeted towards adaptive ones, there also this kind of thing:
On the sequence-directed nature of human gene mutation: the role of genomic architecture and the local DNA sequence environment in mediating gene mutations underlying human inherited disease.
(I didn’t realize this editor would insist on importing the abstract.)
Unpredictable to us doesn’t mean unpredictable to God. So no, He wasn’t surprised. The Biologos writers can speak for themselves, but I think most of them would agree with me. The trouble is that you are trying to answer a theological question using a scientific argument, the same kind of thing a materialist would do.
The banality of the responses to Dr Burdett’s piece must be discouraging. Thank you for a sliver of light.
I thought the piece offered a chance for BL readers to consider some of the many topics—some new, all interesting—that are contributing to an expanded understanding of evolution. Some of the themes outlined by Dr Burdett suggest that concepts similar to teleology are not as batty as many biologists would claim. Concepts like innovability (cf. A Wagner), facilitated variation, induced mutation, phenotypic buffering (cf. S Lindquist and the Hsp90 field) are all either new additions to evolutionary thought or are ideas resurfacing in the presence of new data. Materialists like me don’t see these things as magical or even mysterious, but believers might reasonably point to them while discussing purpose, guidance, and the like.
It doesn’t seem that BL readers are up to that task.
I’m not very pleased with the tone of some of the comments here, on all sides. Please refrain from ad hominem comments and large generalizations, or I will be forced to delete comments or take further action. The comments on this thread should be focused on the content of Dr. Burdett’s article.
For instance, phenotypic plasticity might help lead evolution by
providing an immediate advantageous trait in a given environment,
helping to select and funnel the underlying genetic code in a particular
direction towards the advantageous trait expressed by phenotypic
plasticity. This phenomenon has often been referred to as genetic
assimilation, and it has a very under-represented scientific heritage.[6]
It “leads” evolution because the phylogenetic variation and selection
occurs without genetic congruence. These extra-genetic mechanisms lead
the evolutionary process and are causally prior to the change in the
genome. Might we say other extra-genetic mechanisms can also “lead
evolution”?
I agree that phenotypic plasticity is important and interesting. I think it was Kirschner and Gerhart in the mid-90’s who invented the term and put it on the map (cf. Cells, Embryos, and Evolution in 1997), and genetic assimilation is one part of that line of thinking. I would say that these ideas are now very well represented in the literature, and that canalization was well established (if neglected) a long time ago. As you correctly write, no one in the professional debate disagrees.
I think it’s a bit off to think of phenotypic plasticity and canalization as “extra-genetic.” (I don’t think you intended to say that, but the paragraph gives that impression.) My preference is to apply concepts of robustness and evolvability (and/or innovability) to attempt to understand why evolution works. These concepts are not “extra-genetic,” though they are certainly far too complex to yield to basic Mendelian description. I think the ideas of Andreas Wagner are useful here.
My chief point is that I agree that these ideas usefully expand evolutionary theory, and offer interesting opportunities for everyone (believers and otherwise) to discuss evolutionary directionality.
Thank you everyone for your comments.
Let me respond to Roger’s comment about teleology and his quotation from the piece. I am not making any normative argument about teleology but rather pointing out that there has been some very interesting psychological work done in this area that suggests normally functioning adults do not simply outgrow what scientist Deb Keleman has called in children ‘promiscuous teleology’, the preference for teleological explanations for natural phenomenon. Rather, it remains a default cognitive bias throughout adulthood (please read the articles I cited). What these cognitive scientists have found is that we are naturally biased towards these kinds of explanations and that these cognitive biases can obfuscate scientific understanding (it even affects trained scientists, see Keleman, Rottman, and Seston 2013). So, I was not making any normative claim about teleology but pointing out how humans are cognitively primed to see purpose-based explanations in the natural world.
The issue it seems to me is whether teleological explanations for natural phenomenon ought to be considered scientific explanations or whether they ought to be treated as metaphysical. This is indeed a fascinating question and one which has been at the heart of scientific enquiry since Francis Bacon rejected ‘final causes’ in the 16th century. I don’t have a response here to that but I think Humeandroid’s responses in this direction are very interesting. In other words, do the mechanisms that motivate the EES open up the issue of teleology in a new way? As I stated at the beginning of the essay, a lot of what goes on in these conversations revolves around what to call things and the implications derived from this naming. This is definitely true in the exchange between Laland and Gardner on ultimate vs proximate causes in the journal Biology and Philosophy. So, the issue is alive and well.
Michael,
Thank you for your response.
I think that we are talking on two levels, one is the philosophical, where science has felt the need to deny the teleology of Aristotle in order to understand nature better. To say that eyes have the purpose of seeing does not explain how the eyes see, which we still do not understand.
On the other hand we have “common sense” or scientific teleology. The purpose of eyes is to see, there is no question about that. Different creatures have different kinds of eyes but they all see in one way or another. Again the question is not what eyes do, but how they do it.
The confusion and problem comes about when some people deep in the scientific tradition have tried and largely succeeded in driving purpose our of scientific thinking for no good reason. I am talking about Monod and his book Chance and Necessity which “proves” that the universe is not rational and therefore has no purpose or meaning. On the contrary the universe is rationally structured and therefore does have purpose and design.
Scientists make their argument against teleology ad hominem by labeling it as childish. However children are learning much more about their environment every day than adults are. Children are curious and looking for answers. Simplistic teleological answers do not satisfy, but can lead to deeper reasons for why things are as they are, which science cannot offer.
Dennett (or was it Dawkins) confessed that he love the adolescent teleological song par excellence, Tell Me Why. Life does have a purpose. The role of science is not to define this purpose, but if it denies this fact, then it is false.
There is no need for science if life has no purpose. Also humans could go the way of the dinosaurs if we do not use our knowledge of ecology to stabilize the environment of our world. God has given us life in the Creation meaning and purpose and we will lose both if we are not good stewards of both.
If ecology does not guide evolution, then it is a very remarkable coincidence that fish happen to live in water, that birds fly in the air, that zebras live on the savanna, and that humans live in communities.
Darwin (and Wallace) themselves were a big break from the previous ideas which had their roots in the Biblical accounts. Darwin and Wallace made their hypothesis based on a large number of observations of a lot of species in a lot of environments - in other words a lot of new data, just as those who proposed quantum mechanics did.
You tell us over and over that evolution is “inadequate” but every biologist you encounter here concludes that it is your understanding that is inadequate. You don’t tell us what you think would be a better hypothesis, but it’s hard for me not to guess that your “better hypothesis” is special creation, which is what was rejected 150 years ago. (What other option is there for where species came from? It was either gradually or rapidly. They didn’t fall out of the sky.)
Evolution was not accepted in a blind rush. There was a lot of argument in the 19th century about it, and it was only when it was combined with the early genetics and the math developed by some brilliant mathematicians that it became the accepted theory. Hardy, famous for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in population genetics, was actually a world class mathematician who did many other things. The accumulation of a huge amount of data in biology culminating in comparative genomics has confirmed that Darwin and Wallace were right, even more conclusively than biologists could have imagined. My impression is that they were amazed, when sequencing began back in the '70s, at how similar the chimp and human genomes were, and much greater understanding of the events that formed the genomes (and can be observed to happen today) has just made the story stronger. You may think that biologists are dummies compared to chemists and physicists, but with regard to our own subject, we aren’t. I worked with a good number that were brilliant by any standard. If you are holding your breath waiting for biologists to see it your way, I have to predict that is never going to happen.
For biology to go back to special creation now would be the equivalent of trying to take atomic physics back to classical continuous dynamics.
PGarrison,
I confess that I smile on the occasions that people such as you say, “…but it’s hard for me not to guess that your “better hypothesis” is special creation, which is what was rejected 150 years ago.” I think you do not bother to read my comments let alone look at any of the papers I occasional refer to (all of which have been selected BECAUSE they are written by avowed Darwinists).
I am not any sort of “creationist” (whatever that means) – I have provided many comments that show I am an Orthodox Christian and to the best of my knowledge, the Church has never had a problem with any paradigm of the Sciences, including that of biology. So I cannot fathom the apparent hostility displayed at my comments.
The paper I referred to is a continuation of debate(s) that question natural selection as a law of science (this should be obvious to you since you claim to have the credentials needed to understand such debates). I quote,
“The topics of mechanisms and natural selection have been the subject of much recent discussion in the philosophy of science. Relatively little has been written, however, about the intersection of these two topics—whether natural selection can be characterized as a mechanism that explains the phenomenon of adaptation. An important exception is Skipper and Millstein (2005), which argued that existing conceptions of mechanisms fail to “get at natural selection” (2005, 341), while leaving open the possibility that a refined conception of mechanisms could resolve the problems that they identified.”
This paper defends NS by accepting that it lacks the determinism found in laws of science, but argues for a stochastic mechanism, in the hope that by adopting a different understanding of mechanisms in nature, NS may be considered a law of science. Any reasonable person can understand that within the confines of accepted notions of scientific laws, NS does not ‘stack up’.
You and others should try to leave your conflict culture regarding evolution, and simply see it as another outlook that will eventually be replaced by a better scientific outlook. It is not a matter of creationists vs evolutionists – it is rather an outlook that most scientists understand, that all paradigms of science eventually are replaced.
I accept that my outlook to the physical sciences is underpinned by scepticism, and others may prefer a different approach. I have at times given examples where a sceptical outlook served the discipline of Chemistry and old paradigms and theories been replaced, and this has greatly benefited our discipline. It astonishes me to find out such a defensive stance regarding Darwin and this in itself make me think such a stance may be there because many of you may, at some level, understand the inadequacies of Darwin’s outlook. If such matters were not intermingled with the outlook by those of the Christian faith, I really would not give a toss for Darwin or anything biology thinks is the theory of all things.
GD, I don’t mean any hostility, just puzzlement. I haven’t been able to figure out what you think might be a better hypothesis, so I was guessing. The subject of the post was some of the refinements that are being suggested, which is always a good thing, but these ideas don’t seem to me like rejections of basic Darwinian mechanisms so much as new variations on them.
There are suggestions from some that mutation may not be fully random as far as fitness is concerned - that some mutations may be at least loosely targeted to produce adaptive mutations. If that were true, it would be a fairly basic change, but I think the jury is still out on that. On another forum someone just asked why we refer to evolution as a theory and not a Law. I guessed that the reason is that there is no simple equation that describes the evolutionary process - there is the idealized math of population genetics, but since the specific nature of selection changes with time and the environment, the process isn’t smooth and regular. A forest fire, for instance could result in a group of genetically fit individuals dying without offspring. Anyway, if you have do have an idea for improvements, I’d like to hear it.
PGarrison,
I am forthright in that I address my concerns mainly at the claims that are (and have been) made for Darwinian evolutionary thinking. As a scientist, it is all I can do to make progress in my field, so on that level I have very little to add to other fields, esp. biology. Thus my criticisms are more in line with theological claims/synthesis that involve Darwinian evolution. I cannot say with greater clarity - random events without purpose or meaning cannot be founded on any scientific outlook, yet Darwinian evolution is used for this on a daily basis. THUS, if people do make such claims (in theistic or atheistic debates), the bar for assessing the adequacy of the science (Darwinian thinking) is raised - in this context, it is imo VERY inadequate - and I have given examples to illustrate my point. A current series dealing with a notion you support, that of so called common descent, is another example where many areas are based on supposition and workers openly state they cannot understand or explain numerous questions. This is not a problem for those who focus on the science, but it becomes a problem if people adopt such things as settled and fully understood, and decide to provide theological perspectives based on these inadequate ideas.
So, to summarise, I do not have any weighty views for biologists as long as they confine their opinions to biology - in most cases that I read, they express themselves as other scientists, in that we wish to understand things we may not know fully. You seem puzzled, from what I can make out, because you may wrongly equate the term “inadequate” with terms such as “false”, or “rejection”. Simple equations, if fully proven mathematically, are associated with scientific laws - I have stated that your paradigm may eventually be stated with greater clarity once NS has been replaced with some type of hierarchy of scientific definitions/statements (with accompanying equations). I cannot suggest what these may be.
Preston,
I think that you are on to something.
Lou pointed me to a book on population math as proof that natural selection is understood. However the author of a similar book that I was able to read on line (because the books cost more than $100. each, admitted that the math does not say why selection worked this way, only a picture of how it worked. Math model does not equal understanding.
You say that selection changes with time and environment, but thus far evolutionists have refused to look at environment as the key to natural selection as I have been urging. Symbiosis is the key to life, not competition as Darwin following Malthus.
Evolution is not simple as SET would have it because it is the result of two processes interacting with each other, Variation and Natural Selection. EES is taking on that task to some extent with Niche Construction Theory etc. exploring how Variation interacts with the environment, but until we understand this process with all its complexity we will be facing our environmental crisis with no sound theory for understanding it.
Dawkins has raised two ways of looking at evolutionary change, sky hook or “top-down” and crane or “down-up.” The horizontal option, or relational view, apparently does not exist for him or others, but it is the way that most of the world works. Try it. You’ll like it.
David,
Thank you for the information concerning some new trends in evolution. This helps to explain I think how evolution can take place, but not how and why it takes place. Only ecological Natural Selection does this and this is the source of the teleology of evolution.
Only ecological Natural Selection does this and this is the source of the teleology of evolution.
Hello Roger, one thing I appreciate about your posts is your emphasis on the involvement of habitat and ecology in evolution. These concepts are well known among biologists (and so you are wrong to assert that “evolutionists have refused to look at environment as the key to natural selection”) but nearly always neglected by laypersons and in basic outlines of evolutionary biology.
But unfortunately, you appear to believe that “ecological Natural Selection” is the only source of evolutionary novelty, and I think you believe that competition cannot drive evolutionary change. (Do correct me if I have misconstrued you on these points.) You are mistaken about these things. Competition is fundamental to evolutionary change, and Darwin correctly made it a linchpin of his theory. It is surely important to nuance this by noting the existence of cooperation and by generally acknowledging the complexity of real life. But competition is indeed utterly central to evolutionary biology, and “ecological Natural Selection” does not–cannot–explain everything.
I haven’t read enough of your comments to identify the source of your confusion, but I surmise that one problem is that ‘competition’ is envisioned as rams fighting for dams or baby animals struggling against their sibs to get a bite of food. Those things happen, and they are drivers of selection, but the ‘competition’ that Darwin described and that explains adaptation so well is simply the notion of differential reproductive success. The competitors need never specifically enter into conflict in any direct sense or in any observable instance. Adaptation is a straightforward consequence of differential reproductive success, which is the straightforward result of ‘competition’ broadly understood. More pointedly, I would say that there is no such thing as adaptation without differential reproductive success and the kind of competition that Darwin correctly described.
In short, adding emphasis to ecological thinking (and to other ‘new’ ideas as I mentioned above) is a very good thing for evolutionary biology and very important for curious people to understand as they think about evolution. But denying a role for competition (if that’s what you are attempting) or singling out ecological forces as the only ones that matter? Those are major errors.
David,
Thank you for your response. Your description of my position is accurate. I do believe that ecology and symbiosis are the proper basis for evolution as opposed to unrelenting struggle, which is the way Darwin described evolution and this seems to be the basis of neoDarwinian view of evolution.
Darwin called evolution the “war of nature” in his summary statement at the end of The Origin. Since evolution is not the war of nature against something else, it is clear that he meant the war of nature against itself.
I personally reject this understanding of how nature works, and so does Christianity. More importantly there is to my knowledge no scientific evidence to support the unrelenting struggle theory. I am not a scientist by profession, but what o appreciate about the scientific method is that it requires concrete evidence and verification.
You make a several claims in your statement, a) that ecology is compatible with evolutionary thought, and b) that Darwin was right to make unrelenting struggle the basis the development of life on this planet, but no tangible evidence supporting these views. The reason why Darwinian theory of Natural Selection fails is that it is not backed up by solid scientific evidence as to how it works.
On the other hand most people know the evidence for symbiosis as a common method of adaption and change. We have the pilot fish and sharks, the little bird that helps the rhino, and the billions of symbiots who live in our bodies. Thus it seems that the evidence points in favor of symbiosis , not struggle.
I had a similar discussion with PNG and later Bren last fall (See Nov. 18, 2014 "From the Archives: Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Pt.1 by Tim Keller.) Sadly the discussion was cut short on BioLogos, but it was continued through email, so contact me if you are interested in the rest of an excellent dialog.
Also there are other places where we are discussing this issue currently, so we can discuss there or here as you wish.
This topic is now closed. New replies are no longer allowed. I don’t see any evidence of a productive conversation continuing on this thread. As always, anyone is welcome to create new topics on our main Discourse page and continue the discussion there.