A Darwinian tries to coopt the Gaia hypothesis

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 20, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

You know, James Lovelock’s idea that the whole Earth is a living being? A Darwinian tells us that some prominent biologists are beginning to agree, provided Darwinism is allowed to co-opt the idea:

The notion that the Earth itself is a living system captured the imagination of New Age enthusiasts, who deified Gaia as the Earth Goddess. But it has received rough treatment at the hands of evolutionary biologists like me, and is generally scorned by most scientific Darwinists. Most of them are still negative about Gaia: viewing many Earthly features as biological products might well have been extraordinarily fruitful, generating much good science, but Earth is nothing like an evolved organism. Algal mats and coral reefs are just not ‘adaptations’ that enhance Earth’s ‘fitness’ in the same way that eyes and wings contribute to the fitness of birds. Darwinian natural selection doesn’t work that way.
I’ve got a confession though: I’ve warmed to Gaia over the years. I was an early and vociferous objector to Lovelock and Margulis’s theory, but these days I’ve begun to suspect that they might have had a point. So I’ve spent the past five years trying to ‘Darwinise Gaia’ – to see widespread cooperation as a result of competition occurring at some higher (even planetary) level. I can see a few paths by which a Darwinian might accept the idea that the planet as a whole could boast evolved, biosphere-level adaptations, selected by nature for their stability-promoting functions.
W. Ford Doolittle, “Is the Earth an organism?” at Aeon

Well, once you Darwinize Gaia, it’s just Darwinism. That’s true of everything, of course.

The essay is worth a read. On reflection, if Darwinism weren’t failing, wouldn’t Darwinians just continue to scorn Gaia? Imagine them having to look for places to be now…

See also:

Michael Le Page , Colin Barras , Richard Webb , Kate Douglas and Carrie Arnold, Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature, New Scientist (September 23, 2020).

and

Kate Douglas, We’re beginning to question the idea of species – including our own, New Scientist, (December 11, 2019)

Comments

All science starts with observations, JVL. And yes when we observe something that we know of only one possible cause, we have a right to infer that cause until someone can demonstrate otherwise. Science 101- cause-and-effect relationshipsET_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

JVL you are also entitled to your opinion and it also is not scientific It’s painfully amazing to me how the unguided process produced living systems that seem to only be able to replicate them selves but we can’t reconstruct them in a lab and make them go mechanically Darwinism explains anything It Is a God of gaps I mean that’s the whole purpose of God of gaps which is To explain all the gaps There’s nothing absolutely nothing evolutionary theory cannot explain Those aren’t opinions, those are facts, and that is why the theory is not scientific it’s God of gaps evo-psych is literally that practice gone wild So you are entitled to your opinion too nice chatAaronS1978_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978:I’m sorry that you failed to change my mind I wasn't trying to change your mind; I was trying to answer your question. I mean one of the things that you just mentioned above which is a creature that out of place in the era that it was in was mentioned in the thread before. But if you think about it is exactly what you would expect from Darwinism I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying. Darwins examples of refuting him have been shown multiple times (From particular fish to the Flagellum of a cell) however there is nothing evolution cannot explain it is a God of gaps As all examples given are exactly what you would expect to see from evolution I think it is important to be very sure that you have done as much as you can to check on what unguided and natural processes are capable of. I would say that we have not yet explored all of that realm yet. I would say that it's too early to pull the plug on what unguided processes are capable of. That is just my opinion. Intelligent design looks for more than just dots arranged in the pattern of a triangle It’s about seeing a pattern that has a function and has impact. It’s more than just a pattern it’s a functional impact that affects other systems that in it self is part of another system and that system could not have gotten there because of enough time and a process of elimination But it starts with seeing something that matches what you think must be created by an intelligent being. It matches some pattern in your mind. It’s god a gap’s that makes everything selfish and horrible and steals freedom from everyone Including yourself It’s honestly not scientific You're entitled to your opinion but that's not the same as a scientific analysis.JVL_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Oh and let’s talk finding complexity and design in nature! it’s a little bit different from connecting the dots and finding patterns And yes we do use that to find intelligent design you’re right and you’re also wrong Yes we have a psychological need to find patterns and to connect the dots and it’s both helpful and not helpful. In the example of the triangle There’s no actual triangle there but you think there’s a triangle because the dots are arranged in that pattern but the reality is there’s only dots arranged in a pattern of a triangle. The docs will not carry the function of that triangle and will not be a triangle if arranged any other way. You only see the triangle because of the fact that the dots resemble an object that you find familiar Intelligent design looks for more than just dots arranged in the pattern of a triangle It’s about seeing a pattern that has a function and has impact. It’s more than just a pattern it’s a functional impact that affects other systems that in it self is part of another system and that system could not have gotten there because of enough time and a process of elimination DNA holds a structural pattern that has digital code encrypted in it This is more than just connecting the dots this looks like a programmed pattern that offers information that actually has affect in a cell The connected dots pattern has no affect nor does it prove that there’s a triangle on that sheet of paper Now initially when we found DNA we did think that it was intelligently designed nothing screams an intelligent designer more than a program and programmer However here comes Darwinian evolution Through millions of years of trial and error this DNA slowly built itself and every single program there is No intelligence required In fact I didn’t really have to explain it that much DNA went from being a sign that there could possibly be a God to a mindless program that strips everybody of their free will, puppeteers your entire existence because evolution designed this program over millions of years of trial and error and everything you do is subconsciously pre-programmed into you by this DNA. It’s exactly what you would expect to find with evolution. DNA became the calling card of natural selection because natural selection can work on that I mean trial and error, it doesn’t matter it’s literally the same thing And Given enough time anything can happen! wow that sounds like God of gaps And what do you know DNA is one of the most complex structures we’ve encountered code wise it’s actually more complex than the toaster in my kitchen And Darwinian evolution can explain my toaster to It’s god a gap’s that makes everything selfish and horrible and steals freedom from everyone Including yourself It’s honestly not scientificAaronS1978_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Jvl I’m sorry that you failed to change my mind I mean one of the things that you just mentioned above which is a creature that out of place in the era that it was in was mentioned in the thread before. But if you think about it is exactly what you would expect from Darwinism Darwins examples of refuting him have been shown multiple times (From particular fish to the Flagellum of a cell) however there is nothing evolution cannot explain it is a God of gaps As all examples given are exactly what you would expect to see from evolution It’s a God of gapsAaronS1978_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

JVL is still confused. Neither Darwin nor anyone else has shown any biological structure or process that could have come about via small, incremental steps. And neither Darwin nor any evo can account for the existence of rabbits. There isn't any edifice of unguided evolution. There isn't any way to test its claims. Evos are liars and bluffing cowards.ET_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978: Humans like to find patterns and things even when there is no pattern at all. Darwinism gives them a scientific excuse to do it all the time that’s why you can explain a toaster with it Good year 1978. For me at least. Isn't some part of detecting intelligent design in nature also a form of pattern recognition? Looking for digital codes, etc? Go ahead change my mind, show me a Reasonable Way Darwinism can be disproven without invoking God coming down and saying evolution isn’t true, give me an actual way The two classic ways mentioned by Darwin himself are: find a biological structure or process that could not have come about via small, incremental steps (the irreducible complexity gambit) or find a fossil that is manifestly out of place (rabbits in the PreCambrian for example). You wouldn't expect the vast edifice of Unguided Evolutionary theory to crumble immediately; if you managed one of the above you'd have to be ready to defend your position. (Apparently Einstein's Relativity was very much scorned and ridiculed for a number of years before it was accepted.) No widely supported field of study is going to give up the ghost quickly which is as it should be really. But those kind of things is where I'd focus my energies if I were trying to topple unguided evolution.JVL_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Egos do not exist in nature, yet exists within people.BobRyan_{December 21, 2020
December
12
Dec
21
21
2020
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

It’s funny because if you really look at it Darwinism is innately selfish except when it’s altruistic. Then suddenly altruism has a survival benefit that somehow out weighs the selfish portion of it. But who declared that the selfish portion is actually less affective then the altruism portion of it We did because we’d like to connect the dots so whatever we have Darwinism can explain it, doesn’t matter what it is, it explains everything. All the mistakes and all of the successes. there’s nothing it can’t explain and that’s why it’s a shotty bullshit theory There needs to be a major push back against that for that reason all, nothing can disprove it As they all classically say when some contrary comes up “it’s what you would expect” Go ahead change my mind, show me a Reasonable Way Darwinism can be disproven without invoking God coming down and saying evolution isn’t true, give me an actual way If you can’t then it’s a god of gaps theory And you should toss it out like god of gaps garbage. And if you don’t then you’re just hypothetical trash like the theoryAaronS1978_{December 20, 2020
December
12
Dec
20
20
2020
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

It Allowed people who like to connect dots habitually to be intellectually fulfilled Humans like to find patterns and things even when there is no pattern at all. Darwinism gives them a scientific excuse to do it all the time that’s why you can explain a toaster with itAaronS1978_{December 20, 2020
December
12
Dec
20
20
2020
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Sure. And when you ‘Darwinise Gaia’ you can Darwinise General Motors, and Darwinise voting fraud ..... You can do it, you know. Darwinian evolution predicted Hitler, chewing gum, beach parties, the Great Depression, Covid and World War 3.Belfast_{December 20, 2020
December
12
Dec
20
20
2020
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply