James Shapiro’s book is scaring at least one Darwinist

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 9, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution}

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

In “Yet another “post-Darwinism,” Evolving Thoughts complains about Shapiro’s Evolution:/a> A view from the 21st century thusly:

Over the years there have been many books that purport to “radically revise” or “supplant” Darwinian evolutionary biology; they come with predictable regularity. Usually they are of three kinds: something is wrong with natural selection, something is wrong with inheritance, or something is wrong with phylogeny. This book, by geneticist James A. Shapiro, exemplifies all three.

Shocka!

I shall presume that the science is correct, and the choice of apparent counterexamples to the ruling paradigm (which seems to be far more fluid than many of these books expect. Lateral transfer, endosymbiosis and jumping genes are many “post-Darwinian” ideas that have been easily inserted into the consensus) is illuminating. What is the illumination thus gained?

Not Darwinism. After many historical ruminations, Evolving cannot recommend the book. In consequence, Shapiro has gone into grief therapy. 😉

Comments

Mung:
You’re belief that HGT occurs by breaching the cell membrane was a big clue that you hadn’t read the book.
whut? Mung, as a general guiding principle: if you think you know what I've said, it's something else. OK?Elizabeth Liddle_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

junkdna: "The problem is, (and atheists know this), is that once the first premise changes from1. No God. to 2. A God. The Judeo-Christian argument then becomes more persuasive. And this cannot happen. Better to cling to premise 1 at all costs." Perhaps you are right. The problem then is that they shut down too fast and throw out the baby with the bathwater instead of investigating their spiritual options until they are comfortable. I see it as a problem in which both sides are wrong.avocationist_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

PaV (#23)
Wouldn’t you consider engineering as a kind of ‘applied’ science? I favor this definition. Engineers use scientific principles to build things—such as a suspension bridge.
Yes, sure. I agree with that. However, your earlier comment particularly mentioned Faraday and Maxwell. But what Faraday and Maxwell did is not close to engineering. As best I can tell, Shapiro is pointing out that his use of teleological language is more limited than that used in engineering. Wilkins is not agreeing that there is a difference. Yes, the review is all about teleology talk. Wilkins does not like the use of teleological language, as he has made clear in earlier posts. However, that kind of language is deeply entrenched in biology. Even "The Selfish Gene", although intended as a metaphor, is nevertheless a teleological metaphor. And, for that matter, describing a mutation as a copying error presupposes a purpose of copying.Neil Rickert_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Neil @ 14:
However, that statement was about engineering, so I think you are making a mistake by taking it to be about science.
Wouldn't you consider engineering as a kind of 'applied' science? I favor this definition. Engineers use scientific principles to build things---such as a suspension bridge. Again, it's hard to understand exactly what Wilkins was trying to say, but I think a fair inference would be that he is saying that engineers use science in a trial-and-error way, and that the very science they employ is gained through a trial-and-error fashion: thus, his comment, "No engineer has some cognitive “noetic ray” that allows them to see into the future; they are using the tested results of the past." It's sort of a Humean argument he employs; that is, causes and effects are no more than connections that we've assembled in our minds through past associations. My suspicion is that Wilkins, in this way, wants to empty science of the necessity of the mind (for, of course, NS is 'mindless'). And this explains the thrust of my prior post. That is, you cannot have science without the operation of the mind. If true---and I see no reason for this not to be true---then the 'natural genetic engineering' operations of the cell betray a kind of prior knowledge. Or, put another way, "final causes". Hope no one faints!PaV_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

You're belief that HGT occurs by breaching the cell membrane was a big clue that you hadn't read the book. IOW, I had a reason to believe that what I was saying was in fact the case, unlike some folks around here who will just say anything.
Your insistence that I lack integrity remains unfounded and unsupported.
I don't insist as a matter of course that you are being dishonest, but apparently it happens often enough that as I call it out when I see it it probably seems that way. Not sure I can be blamed for that.Mung_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Why? I’d wager she hasn’t even read the book.
You lost your last wager, remember, Mung? When you said I hadn't read Sanford's book? And do you remember when you thought I was being snarky about Todd Wood, and it turned out I wasn't? But FWIW, I have not read Shapiro's book. I have, however, read several of his papers. It was on the basis of those that I made my comment. Your insistence that I lack integrity remains unfounded and unsupported.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

"So this leaves a very open conception of God, and why would this scare any one?" It generally doesn't. If I had a nickle for every time an atheist said something along the lines of, "ok that may be considered evidence for a god, but not the god of the bible etc..." The problem is, (and atheists know this), is that once the first premise changes from 1. No God. to 2. A God. The Judeo-Christian argument then becomes more persuasive. And this cannot happen. Better to cling to premise 1 at all costs.junkdnaforlife_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Even Behe thinks everything could have been frontloaded at the big bang. And Denton thinks of a very unified cosmos that is organically guaranteed (by a mind to be sure) to produce life. So this leaves a very open conception of God, and why would this scare any one?avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

avocationist, Sure, I can understand how the JudeoChristian God could drive people away, but it’s not like it’s the only choice. Because if design of that kind is treated as a live option, then - on those terms alone - the Judeo-Christian God becomes a live option. The muslim God becomes a live option. Many other God(s) and gods become live options. This can be emotionally inconvenient (Thomas Nagel's "I don't want to live in a universe like that"), politically/socially inconvenient (These people with these religious beliefs I detest may possibly be right), or otherwise. I'm not saying every design skeptic thinks like this, but you asked why would anyone embrace some kind of utterly materialist/atheistic worldview given the range of possibilities. My response is, because possibilities can scare the hell out of people, theist and atheist. With the Cult of Gnu, I think it's pretty clear why they do the dance they do.nullasalus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Ilion, I'm not even sure what you mean by this. There is Hinduism. There is Michael Denton's take on things. In my opinion, most of Judeo Christian dogma is man made and anthropomorphizes God. I can find the real God in the Christian scriptures, but you have to dig. If by the living/existing God you mean a self-existent entity that is the cause of all things, I can agree, but that is leaving off all sorts of story lines about this entity. Jews and Christians don't even agree as to the number of deities!avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Avocationist: "There is an emotional attachment to this view and an aversion to the possibility of a God, a disappointment even. Sure, I can understand how the JudeoChristian God could drive people away, but it’s not like it’s the only choice." Any logically coherent understanding of 'The Creator' is going to be at least broadly similar to, and fully consistent with, the Judeo-Christian conception of 'The Living/Existing God'. There really aren't that many 'Gods' on offer, nor can be.Ilion_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus, "The one thing Wilkins has correct is that Shapiro’s talk of teleology in evolution is ultimately philosophical. Here’s the problem: So is Wilkins’, and other’s, denial of teleology in evolution. But recognizing that guts what is, for Dawkins and many others, the most precious part of evolution." That's the nail on the head. And I have tried asking, and will try again, why some atheists prefer this type of universe. There is something very beautiful and fascinating, something they adore, in the contemplation of a mindless and accidental universe that nonetheless spews out galaxies and worlds and life forms. There is an emotional attachment to this view and an aversion to the possibility of a God, a disappointment even. Sure, I can understand how the JudeoChristian God could drive people away, but it's not like it's the only choice. How is it possible to love the empty and accidental universe so much that one even sacrifices one's own consciousness?avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

PaV (#8)
I’m supposing he’s saying something like this: science is constructed from trial and error experience.
I still not sure quite what Wilkins intended in the statement you quote, nor whether I agree with it. However, that statement was about engineering, so I think you are making a mistake by taking it to be about science.Neil Rickert_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Mung, Of course, the Darwinists will proclaim this is what their theory predicted all along, and it does not in any way change Darwinian theory. Naturally. And really, what couldn't be stuffed into the 'Darwinian theory' skin? What's important there is to dig in one's heels and insist "This is all compatible with Darwinism!" no matter what the data, so long as the data looks true at the time. Throw in a full-blown hopeful monster situation and hey, if it looks true, we'll just say that this is just a novel form of variation - entirely compatible with Darwinian theory.nullasalus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

What would that be? Unguided, mindless, purposeless nature. Pay Liz no mind when she starts talking like this, which is pretty much always. There's no substance to the words other than quaint redefinitions, vagueness and cutesy language. As for Shapiro, the reason he has Wilkins spooked - and yeah, I'd say spooked given his tone - is that if evolution is conceived as a process with either Aristotilean final causes, or an end-directed process in general (there are goals and intentional results of evolution, rather than strings of unintended outcomes), then evolution is vastly more friendly to an ID analysis. Evolution as a teleological or purposeful process, evolution as a tool used towards particular ends by a mind, etc. That's why you have Wilkins shuffling in the inane direction of saying that engineers don't 'accomplished defined functional goals' and implying that they'd need to have perfect knowledge of the future to do so. To hear him talk, you'd think that if someone uses their knowledge to build a device for a task and said device manages it's a huge surprise. How in the world could they have known the device would do what they thought? Some kind of crazy magic! The one thing Wilkins has correct is that Shapiro's talk of teleology in evolution is ultimately philosophical. Here's the problem: So is Wilkins', and other's, denial of teleology in evolution. But recognizing that guts what is, for Dawkins and many others, the most precious part of evolution.nullasalus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, "But unlike most ID proponents, I am extremely interested in the nature of the designer – or rather of the design process, because it seems to me obvious “who” the designer is." What would that be?avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Clipped this from Amazon reviewer:
The implications of this new paradigm are going to upset many people. Shapiro draws a parallel between how human engineers operate and `natural genetic engineering:' "Although they may go through many trial-and-error steps, human engineers do not work blindly. They are trying to accomplish defined functional goals. Can such function-oriented capacities be attributed to cells? Is this not the kind of teleological thinking that scientists have been taught to avoid at all costs? The answer to both questions is yes." (Page 136).
junkdnaforlife_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

I agree with Elizabeth.
Why? I'd wager she hasn't even read the book.Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Wilkins wrote:
"Engineers do not accomplish defined functional goals. Instead they employ the results of prior experience on the presumption that what worked in the past will work now (and that includes the choice of goals themselves)."
First, someone help me with the logic. This sentence doesn't make sense to me from beginning to end. Second. I'm supposing he's saying something like this: science is constructed from trial and error experience. Let's apply this to electricity/magnetism. Of course, EM is the result of many upon many trial and error experiments on the part of Michael Faraday. But then came along James Clerk Maxwell and "systematized" the data collected from Faraday's work into his famous four equations. This 'systematization' was based upon mathematical laws, preeminently Gauss' Law (and, IIRC, Green's Law). Will Mr. Wilkins now tell us that, e.g., Euclidean Geometry is the result of "trial and error". Or, look at what Faraday did. He used various shapes, sizes and arrangements of metallic and non-metallic, all of which gave different measurements. Now simply ask yourself: what guided Faraday in what shapes, sizes and arrangements he used for any particular experiment? Was it "trial and error"? But, then, what exactly constitutes an "error". Only the discriminating mind of Faraday could determine this. Only the discriminating and abstracting mind of Faraday could guide his choices as he painstakingly pursued the laws he would eventually discover. Take away the minds of Maxwell and Faraday, and what do you have? Nothing. But, of course, every good Darwinist knows that "nothing" can produce "something". It's magic, you see.PaV_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Pg.145-146. "A shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems is a major conceptional change. It replaces the 'invisible hands' of geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification." To bad Stephen Jay Gould didn't live to see this book! Shapiro is very much in the saltationist camp. However, he has empirical evidence from the lab to support Gould's field observations.smordecai_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

OT: The machinery for recombination is part of the chromosome structure Excerpt: "The more we learn about meiosis, the more mysterious it becomes", says Franz Klein from the Department for Chromosome Biology of the University of Vienna. "It is surprising that maternal and paternal chromosomes find each other at all. Because at the time of interaction all chromosomes have generated a sister and are tightly connected with her like a Siamese twin. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-machinery-recombination-chromosome.htmlbornagain77_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

My view, for what it's worth, is that evolutionary processes, together, form a highly intelligent system. Indeed, in many respects they resemble the systems that underlie intelligence in things-with-brains. And that's why I think that living things look like the product intelligence design. Because they are. But unlike most ID proponents, I am extremely interested in the nature of the designer - or rather of the design process, because it seems to me obvious "who" the designer is. Except that it's not a who, it's a what.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

I agree with Elizabeth. That is to say, I have some sympathy with Shapiro's view. As I understand it, Shapiro is saying that evolution itself (biology and population dynamics) is, in some sense, intelligent. John Wilkins (the reviewer) did not seem at all scared. Evidently, he does not share my view of Shapiro's work.Neil Rickert_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

The reviewer doesn't sound very "scared" to me, though. Nor am I,though I am much more in sympathy with Shapiro's approach than the reviewer. And if you think it supports ID, then I subscribe to ID.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Well, if true, it's very interesting,because it supports what at least some of us have considered possible (including Darwin) but was controversial for a while, which is that Darwinian processes can operate at the level of the population as well as at the level of the phenotype. At the level of the Extended Phenotype if you like, which you probably don't :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

It's looking more and more like organisms, rather than surviving by the luck of the draw, engineer their own survival and evolution. Of course, the Darwinists will proclaim this is what their theory predicted all along, and it does not in any way change Darwinian theory.Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply