Is “Directed Evolution” Darwinian? [with addendum]

_{William Dembski

April 11, 2007

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I posted a reference the other day to a peer-reviewed paper by two Finnish ID-supporters that I claimed supported ID. The paper highlighted that evolutionary methods work to the degree that they are directed. As is typical with our detractors, whenever a pro-ID paper by pro-ID scientists comes out in a peer-reviewed biology journal, they try their best to show that it doesn’t actually support ID. An example is the following post at PT by Steve Reuland:

pandasthumb.org…the_proid_paper

In reading Reuland’s critique, try to keep track of “rational design,” “directed evolution,” and “Darwinian methods.” Reuland conflates the last two. In so doing, Reuland completely misses the boat. So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED. I’ve been saying this now for close to a decade (see ch. 4 of my book No Free Lunch). Just because the word “evolution” is used doesn’t mean that homage is being paid to Darwin. “Directed evolution” properly falls under ID.

[Steve Reuland, commenting at the Panda’s Thumb on this post, claims that I’ve misrepresented him and the paper. If he but were to read the paper closely, he would find that it distinguishes between Darwinian evolution as an “inspiration” to directed search and “Darwinian blind search” as inherently limited. Darwinian evolution, which is blind, is the inspiration for evolutionary computing, which employs well-crafted fitness landscapes to achieve ends and therefore is not blind — and therefore is properly a branch of ID and non-Darwinian. Yes, we’re playing a turf war here. But it will not do to have Darwin discard teleology and then to claim teleological processes as Darwinian. This is an abuse of language. Leisola and Turunen skirted the edge yet nuanced their views adequately; but Reuland is guilty of it.]

Comments

By the way, as a filter or even 'force' isn't a better name for Natural Selection simply 'death'? This use would get Dawkins out of his circularity when he says that Natural Selection (allelic frequency in surviving populations) is guided by Natural Selection (removal of alleles from reproducing population). It can't be both the cause and the effect, so it should be limited to one or the other.Charlie_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Ken Miller is a weisel hahaDanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

DaveScot,
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Thanks. It was exactly the Weisel 38 I had in mind when I said 'random' was a metaphysical concept to Darwinian defenders. Oh, and pre-Dover Ken Miller biology textbooks.Charlie_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

"In most of these situation you can analyze what it is about the allele that lets the organism fit better into the niche such as longer fur. Some differences may not be obvious and actually be due to drift. Ã¢â‚¬Â Why did you leave that out? It answers the question you asked.
I am sorry for leaving that out. I left it out because it is also circularly defined, as I thought I made clear. What about longer fur defines it as beneficial? It allows an organism to retain heat, which allows it to survive better. Suvival is included in "reproduction" as a necessary step in it. Increased survival is unimportant if it simultaneously causes sterility, for example. What matters is the net effect. So increased survival, in as far as it matters to NS, is only important in what results it has for net reproduction. So the definition of a "beneficial trait" still boils down to "that which in the end allows an organism to out-reproduce".Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

motthew, thank you, I am redefining and sharpening my ideas on NS in the process as well. I like your bullet analogy. It has a "tendency" to fall, which we label "gravity". Actually, we label the FORCE which CAUSES the falling of the bullet "gravity", not the falling itself. Or else we'd have a useless tautology: "the falling of the bullet causes the falling of the bullet." No, we say "the bending of spacetime/graviton exchange(different and separate from the falling of the bullet) causes the falling of the bullet." We have a cause logically separate from the effect in the case of real forces. In the case of NS, we say the "tendency" causes the "tendency." Differential reproduction of differentially fit traits, which are defined as the differentially successful alleles, leads to differential reproduction of differential alleles. This differential reproduction "leads" to a differential population of alleles. But "a differential population of alleles" is what differential reproduction is/describes.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Atom, Please! Here is what you said "In a cold environment, organisms with alleles better suited to the cold will end up reproducing more." This is an excerpt from my comment that you used and then you said: "What makes you say that their alleles Ã¢â‚¬Å“better suitedÃ¢â‚¬Â to cold? Is it not because they survive/reproduce better than those without those alleles? (Is there any other way to assess fitness, other than by net results?)" You left out "In most of these situation you can analyze what it is about the allele that lets the organism fit better into the niche such as longer fur. Some differences may not be obvious and actually be due to drift. " Why did you leave that out? It answers the question you asked.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

I'm not trying to attribute purposeful action to the environment. I'm trying to point out that something can bring about a specific result simply because it is what it is. Let me use an analogy. If you fire a gun, no matter which direction, according to physics, the tendency of the bullet is to hit the ground (it won't necessarily hit the ground, but it is the tendency, which we label "gravity"). Likewise, in a desert, no matter what kind of organisms live there, the tendency of the population is to be dominated by those that require the least water. So in both artificial and natural selection scenarios, there is a tendency toward a certain result (or a certain subset of results). That is not to say the scenarios are more similar than dissimilar, though. This is a fascinating thread. I think I've refined my thoughts on natural selection more in one afternoon than I have in years. I'm not sure I'm helping the conversation progress, though, so I'll hold off commenting any more until some inspiration hits. Thanks for the great conversation, Atom and others!motthew_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Matthey Tan, I do not know what Dembski is exactly. He is not a YEC and he supports an old earth. That does not mean he isn't friendly with the YEC's or doesn't think they have been very helpful to ID. What does it mean to be a creationist? People have different definitions of the term. I found reading the Dover documents helpful because in it he deals with invalid criticism of his beliefs in science. I doubt that no one would have asked a YEC to testify at Dover. That would have been insane. They were trying to distance themselves from YEC. He didn't testify for reasons having nothing to do with religious beliefs.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

jerry, please don't get frustrated with me. I'm pressing only because I want straight, simple, answers.
In a cold environment, organisms with alleles better suited to the cold will end up reproducing more.
What makes you say that their alleles "better suited" to cold? Is it not because they survive/reproduce better than those without those alleles? (Is there any other way to assess fitness, other than by net results?) There is not some "platonic ideal" that we compare organisms against and say "this one is fitter"; no, fitness is determined soley by results, which leads to all the problems discussed thus far.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Charlie https://uncommondescent.com/education/can-38-nobel-laureates-be-wrong/
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
This excerpt from a letter to the Kansas school board by the Wiesel 38, a group of 38 Nobel prize winners, echoes the position of NAS and AAAS on evolution. Natural selection isn't really a guide. It's a filter that works really well at conserving the essential aspects of species by killing anything that wanders too far from the norm. Geneticist Guiseppe Sermonti, in his book "Why is a Fly not a Horse" points out that NS, based on actual observation of what it does instead of what the chance worshippers wished it did, is a conservative mechanism that operates to conserve the essential characters that define a species. One needs to keep in mind that as far as can be determined from the fossil record approximately 999 out of every 1000 species that ever lived became extinct without splitting off any new species (an evolutionary dead end) after an average span of 10 million years. They appear suddenly, remain essentially unchanged for millions of years, then die off suddenly. RM+NS handily accounts for the unchanging period and sudden extinction. Extinction occurs as recessive deleterious mutations accumulate in any species with obligatory sexual reproduction until there are so many of them the genome is no longer robust. This can be seen in most purebred dogs where natural selection has been thwarted and artifical selection allows deleterious mutations to rapidly accrue. Purebred dogs are prone to a litany of genetic disorders that would quickly make the breeds become extinct in the wild. The sudden appearance is what begs for a credible explanation. This is summed up in the commonly heard phrase "The question isn't about survival of the fittest but arrival of the fittest."DaveScot_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

"And y is not a real cause in that case." - meaning, if we invoke y to explain y, we haven't really added anything to our dicussion. It is like saying "blindness causes blindness". Would we call blindness a "causal force" in that case? I think that is analagous to the situation we have been outlining. Differential reproduction against a bacdrop does the "selecting" which has a result of "selected organisms", which really means differential reproduction.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Atom, I give up. Natural Selection is such an obvious process. It is neither circular nor tautological. It is not completely analogous to artificial selection but so what. In a cold environment, organisms with alleles better suited to the cold will end up reproducing more. Substitute warm, wet, dry, mountainous, etc and you will get examples of natural selection. In most of these situation you can analyze what it is about the allele that lets the organism fit better into the niche such as longer fur. Some differences may not be obvious and actually be due to drift. NS is not circular or tautological. It is common sense. Now maybe some people use it in circular fashion but I do not think population geneticists do. There are obviously zillions of more factors than I have named including other species that will affect what alleles get passed on because some of the population possess them. It is a simple process and there is nothing mysterious about it. In such things as malaria the array of alleles may be complicated and hard to tease out but the basic process is in evidence.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Ok, let's see if we can't analyze any differences we may have.
So youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re saying that the environment sets a tendency for which organisms will be successful in it.
The environment is the backdrop of constraints, but it does NOT set any tendency; the "tendency" is the result of the differential reproduction against this backdrop. (Both taken together). And once we include differential reproduction in the "cause", we defeat ourselves, since we also say that it is the effect. So we say that y + z causes y, which is a tautology, but useless. And y is not a real cause in that case.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Again I ask my original question, what does Natural Selection cause? More specificially, what does it "cause" that isn't a part of the process itself or a simple translational restatement of the initial definitions (ie "It causes organisms that survive/reproduce better to survive/reproduce better")?Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Atom: Forgive me, I'm confused as to where we disagree, now that I think about it. You're saying that "natural selection" can be defined as:
Those organisms with traits that allow them to effectively reproduce better will reproduce better.
I agree with this. As for the ramifications of it, I think we might have some differences. But you agreed with my statement:
The environment plays a factor in which ones die.
So you're saying that the environment sets a tendency for which organisms will be successful in it. And I say that this is somewhat (though far from entirely) analogous to dog breeder providing a tendency for which organisms will be successful in his breeding program. Where do we differ?motthew_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Thank you motthew. Let me attempt to analyze your ideas.
The tautology argument hinges on the idea that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no reasons for which organisms dominate in reproduction.
I agree, there is a reason that some organisms dominate in reproduction. It is because they have those traits which allow them to dominate in reproduction. You gave the example of needing less water in the desert as such a trait. What about needing less water is advantageous? It allows an organism to survive better. What about surviving better is advantageous? It allows an organism to dominate in reproduction. In other words, traits are only advantageous ("fit") in as far as they help an organism dominate in reproduction. Which is the same as saying the following: Those organisms with traits that allow them to effectively reproduce better will reproduce better. The "reproducing better" is the differential reproduction I've been discussing, and it is where all the "action" takes place.
The environment plays a factor in which ones die.
Yes, as the backdrop of constraints. The organisms self-select against this backdrop by differential reproduction (which includes survival, of course). See my comments above.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Dana, I know. Banter doesn't always blog well, I guess. Honestly, living in the land of medicare I have some left-leaning tendencies myself.Charlie_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

"How much evidence is there really against Intelligent Design? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m asking this in complete and utter seriousness. And donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t give me that bad design equals no design bit." What elese do they got Dana? How about "ID = religion/theocracy/the end of western civilization"? ;)Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

The ultimate question here, as I see it, is this: Can the environment act as a predetermined "goal" in natural selection, and so be analogous to an intelligent agent working toward an intended goal?
NS is a description of differential reproduction which only Ã¢â‚¬Å“leadsÃ¢â‚¬Â to itself, differential reproduction. And because of differential reproduction, we have the very real fact that more organisms with Ã¢â‚¬Å“fitÃ¢â‚¬Â traits will exist than those without them. But that is a tautology.
The tautology argument hinges on the idea that there's no reasons for which organisms dominate in reproduction. If organisms that die before reproduction die on a completely random basis, then the tautology argument would be valid. But they don't. The environment plays a factor in which ones die. For example, organisms that need very little water are going to thrive in a desert whereas organisms that need a lot of water won't. So, the environment is not an intelligent goal per se, but there is a tendency toward an end result. But it is a clumsy tendency, and one I don't have faith in the way many evolutionists do.motthew_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

I'm only kidding.DanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Hi Dana, I'm not even a socialist.Charlie_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

How much evidence is there really against Intelligent Design? I'm asking this in complete and utter seriousness. And don't give me that bad design equals no design bit.DanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Charlie are you some kind of Darwinist or something?DanaMcgee_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Apollos I just happened to see a couple of your comments in the Akismet spam bin. I'm not sure why Akismet is flagging them as spam. I approved them right away. You're not being moderated so if a comment of yours doesn't show up right away that's what happpened. Most days lately there's way too much spam (1000 or more) to sort through it looking for mistakes so some could get lost. Are most or all of your comments showing up right away?DaveScot_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

You all have an excellent discussion going here. I almost hate to gum up the works, but here is a quote on natural selection from the expert. I like to see it repeated as often as possible just for fun.
Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.
Richard Dawkins. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.html Natural selection is guided after all - by natural selection. As for 'random', I have a simple vision of how the word is used. Darwinist's mean unguided, undirected, atelic, unintelligent, unplanned, dependent upon chance, etc. when they say "random". That is, until somebody calculates the improbabilities of such processes resulting in given features or increasing information. At which time "random" becomes "unpredictable given what we know now". But they don't tell the public this (and they don't mean this) when they are using the word to /describe/support the theory. They don't offer it as an admission of ignorance but as a claim to metaphysical knowledge. My two cents.Charlie_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Is Dembski a creationist? Re: 42 and 43 Thanks for the link given. But they are so many articles. So, I chose the more obvious one talking about Henry Morris. This is from the concluding para: Dembski: "Toward the end of my visit, John noted that ID fell short of a full CREATION MODEL, but then commended ID for conclusively showing the bankruptcy of Darwinism. HE WAS RIGHT. As a limited tool for dislodging materialism, developing the concept of design, and applying it to biological systems, ID is the best thing going. I would therefore like to encourage Henry Morris and all young-earth creationists to view intelligent design as a FRIEND in the destruction of Darwinian materialism and in developing the scientific understanding of design in nature." From these words, Dembski appears to be a creationist, though not in the sense of "biblical" creationist. By "creationist", I mean not believing in evolution. Am I right? I am aware the Michael Denton, Michael Behe, and Mike Gene are (non-Darwinian) evolutionists. So, I still have not got the answer to the question: have Dembski ever proclaimed that he "would remain committed to creationism regardless of what the evidence showed."MatthewTan_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

BTW, I hope you guys don't think I'm trying to be difficult or play naive. I honestly want to understand what is at the root of NS and if the concept can be framed in a non-circular, or even causal way. If so, great, we all gain in understanding. But until then, I am convinced that the current framing is unimpressive, non-causal and even highly circular. That is why I mention that when people start saying "But NS can do this and that..." I step back and say "Really? Can NS do anything?" I hope we can come to an agreement on whether or not it can.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I agree, it may seem like a quibble, but I don't think it is. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. But I think people ascribe to NS what it is incapable of, because they envision it as an agent, when it is not. You wrote...
But in natural selection, conditions in the environment act to affect the passing on of certain alleles
So, environmental constraints exist. Organisms either fulfill them (which means they reproduce in greater numbers, since that is the only net effect we care about) or they do not (under-reproduce). Those that do fulfill them reproduce more, which is another way of saying they pass on more of their alleles. But what is the defnition of those that fulfill them? Those that reproduce more. Differential reproduction in full circularity. Now, you can focus in on the "fulfillment" aspect of the constraints (which I believe you equate with "selection"). How does this fulfillment occur? By differential reproduction. Those organisms that fulfill those constraints are by defition those out-reproduce their competitors. What else would it mean to fulfill constraints? How would that be measured, except by effective output? This is the circularity inherent in thinking of NS as a force. NS is a description of differential reproduction which only "leads" to itself, differential reproduction. And because of differential reproduction, we have the very real fact that more organisms with "fit" traits will exist than those without them. But that is a tautology. True, of course. But useless. And definitely not causal.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

motthew, Thank you for your critique of my post. I will try to explain better. You wrote:
Thus, nature prevents those with Ã¢â‚¬Å“undesirableÃ¢â‚¬Â traits from reproducing, just as a human prevents dogs with undesirable traits from reproducing in a breeding program
Preventing some from reproducing and allowing others to reproduce more are two sides of the same coin, or rather, of the same equation. We are talking about a "difference" between two quantities; I can create the difference by either giving more to one side or by taking some away from the other side. It is the same thing. So again, we have a process of differential reproduction, where some organisms are prevented from reproducing due to accidents or whatever. The environment is the backdrop: some organisms thrive (out-reproduce) and some don't (under-reproduce). The environment doesn't do the selecting, the differential reproduction does the selecting, or rather, it is the selecting. If the environment stays the same and the organisms either produce more or produce less from personal choice, the "selection" has changed yet the backdrop has not. Thus it wasn't the environment that did the "selecting", it was the act of differential reproduction itself. As things out-reproduce they are "selected", remember that. Their differential reproduction is their selection.Atom_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

gpuccio, I assume that in the case of the finches and moths there was no mutations at all but just a change in frequency of existing alleles due to some environmental change and over time the environment will change the frequency back again or alter it differently. Technically this is natural selection and evolution but it is trivial. It is interesting that this is all they have.jerry_{April 12, 2007
April
04
Apr
12
12
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply