Jerry Fodor: Natural Selection Has Gone Bust

_{Paul Nelson

October 13, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

Jerry Fodor

In a provocative article in the latest London Review of Books (18 October 2007), philosopher of science and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University argues that “the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds.” As he elaborates,

The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice.

Fodor has long been a critic of the use of natural selection in explaining human cognitive architecture. I recall as a graduate student hearing him lecture (as a visiting professor) on the topic, and was stunned by his blunt dismissal of adaptive accounts of human psychology. Now, Fodor doesn’t think much of intelligent design, and he isn’t challenging common ancestry: see, for instance, the last couple of paragraphs of this paper.

But lately his critique of Darwinian reasoning has expanded well beyond the boundaries of cognitive science, where he mainly policed runaway adaptive storytelling in the old days. Nightstick in hand, Fodor has recently been bopping heads right in biology itself:

In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted….The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.

Bop. Solid ash nightstick, glossy black finish.

Comments

Oops. In my comment #8 above, I incorrectly wrote "Mannon" when I, of course, meant "Mammon." Methinks I type too fast sometimes.professorsmith_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

I believe the gradualists all tout the forrest animal to whale scenario. In fact I have seen that used as the best example of a fossil transition supporting gradualism. There were no hippos or hippo like creatures in that picture. It was based I believe on bone structure not genetics. Hippos I believe come from a genetic analysis. Correct me if II am wrong.jerry_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, For your clarification, you said: "Are you now saying that evolutionists now don’t believe hippos can turn into whales?” What this Darwinist may mean (if they are not ignorant of their own theory as so many of them are) is that hippos and whales share the same ancestor which is posited to be a large hippo-like creature. The evolutionist in question may comment that you sound ignorant for not knowing what they meant, when in actuality they are really saying what you are, just that instead of hippo, they mean hippo-like. I wouldn't let them go on this, but would clarify that you intended "hippo" to mean a large land animal that supposedly went back into the seas. HTH.professorsmith_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

I believe evo devo fits just nicely into the NDE paradigm so using it does not do anything to change anything. Evo Devo just says there is an underlying regulatory part of the genome that controls formation of the the organism during gestation and beyond. It is this regulatory section that is affected by random variations and thus produces the changes in the offspring to drive natural selection. Most people were used to discussing protein coding sections of the genome and all evo devo does is shift the location where the random variation happens. The real question is how did the regulatory sections arise.jerry_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

My understanding of Fodor's article is that he---as MacT points out---has a predilection for some form of 'innate' tendencies (nature, for lack of a better word). He therefore sees "evo-devo" as a solution to the problem that Darwinism (=adaptionism) presents. "Evo-devo" seems to provide some 'endogenous' structure, leading to a kind of 'channeling' of phenotypes, thus being the greater determiner of final form. I see this as his basic argument. The good news, IMHO, is that this retrenchment away from Darwinism to 'evo-devo' represents an undermining of the accepted paradigm (Darwinism), and, hence, a major re-thinking of evolutionary knowledge. Ultimately, it would seem to me, the question would have to be asked, "Whence this underlying 'endogenous' structure?" This would likely represent the next step leading to the larger question of the origin of 'information'. I put information within quotes because Fodor himself uses this language in his article. Any such discussion of 'information' would, IMO, logically lead ultimately to a more-or-less ID position. Thus the good news. Finally, I think it was a little over a year ago when we were having our discussion with our Princeton PhD, whose name eludes me, wherein our Princeton PhD basically said that NDE was dead, he being an 'evo-devo' devotee. I think we should salute this transition taking place in mainstream evolutionary circles.PaV_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

There is a debate going on over here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK36ZEH0HZZXVX4 About Dr. Behe's book; Since it relates to this thread, I just want to point out one of my post and a response; Smokey:stated: Only an ignorant or dishonest person could misrepresent that as "hippos can turn into whales." Are you now saying that evolutionists now don't believe hippos can turn into whales?" If so then you are not only lying to me but more importantly lying to yourself... And that makes you the dishonest one! This is Just another example of the smoke and mirrors that evolutionists use... Evolutionists see evolution where they want to see it, in the dark murky shadows of cutting edge molecular biology, or suggestive similarities of molecular sequences, and once this evidence is fully clarified in favor of ID, they move on to some other murky area that can't be seen clearly and claim proof of evolution! I've seen this pattern repeatedly!!! You see evolution for Higher Organisms, is defeated in the first order through the vast amount of slightly deleterious mutations that have been proven. (Sanford Genetic Entropy 2005) If you really want to see some smoke and mirrors, ask any evolutionists what happens to all the numerous "slightly detrimental" mutations to DNA that are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a individual before they spread throughout the population. The plain fact of Behe's book, that people with common sense for this issue can clearly see, is that something with far more mutational firepower, than any higher life forms even come close to having, is producing exceedingly trivial results with far greater opportunity for developing the impressive complexity you see! To which this response was given to my post: Cunningham: "Evolutionists see evolution where they want to see it, in the dark murky shadows of cutting edge molecular biology, or suggestive similarities of molecular sequences, and once this evidence is fully clarified in favor of ID, they move on to some other murky area that can't be seen clearly and claim proof of evolution! I've seen this pattern repeatedly!!! " Dark murky shadows? There is nothing dark and murky about molecular biology. What is dark and murky is your understanding of it. Suggestive similarities in DNA sequences is not the primary evidence for common descent. It is the common errors in sequences (eg. in pseudogenes) and the common mobile elements that can be traced through lineages to establish evolutionary branch points. If this is dark and murky to you, then you need to learn some molecular biology. Education is the cure for what ails you. "If you really want to see some smoke and mirrors, ask any evolutionists what happens to all the numerous "slightly detrimental" mutations to DNA that are far below the power of natural selection to remove from a individual before they spread throughout the population." This is an oxymoron. How does one define a "slightly detrimental mutation that is far below the power of natural selection to remove"? What about it is detrimental if selection has nothing on which to act? If mutations are below the power of natural selection to remove them, they ultimately either disappear by drift, or are fixed in the population by drift. In other words, they are neutral. If mutations are detrimental, by definition, they are removed from the population by selection. You like to talk about smoke and mirrors, but it is you and the other intellectually vapor-locked religious fanatics from the "anti-Discovery Institute" and "Uncommon Descent into Irrationality" who are masters of deceit and misdirection. "... something with far more mutational firepower, than any higher life forms even come close to having, is producing exceedingly trivial results with far greater opportunity for developing the impressive complexity you see! " The evolution of HIV from a simian form is in no way "trivial". It allowed the jump of the virus into humans. Nevertheless, a virus is not an appropriate for the evolution of cellular life forms. Viruses have size contraints because they must be packaged and sent out of the cell. Does anybody but me see the sleight of hand?" As this is pertinent about a paper I'm attempting to write, I would like some good feedback on this controversy.bornagain77_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

I think the use of the term random variation rather than random mutation should be the standard phrase since random mutation seems to imply a SNP which obviously is not the paradigm these days. Give them all they want and they still can't show the new variation showing up in the offspring to drive natural selection in multi-cellular organisms which is what Fodor is discussing. He is discussing pigs with wings not bacteria. HGT and bacteria is I believe a whole other issue.jerry_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

I'm assuming you're using "RV" to encapsulate lateral gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and other potential mechanisms that are possibly the mechanisms for creating complex genomes. Don't want to give the impression to readers we're not aware of these proposed mechanisms.Patrick_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

The problem with genetic drift and neutral mutations is that, whatever their relevance in the real world, they remain random events. NS is the only part of darwinian theory which is supposed to bring a "non-random" contribution to evolution, and even that is not true unles one admits that the changing fitness landscape which is the driving force of NS be non-random in respect to the potentialities for life, which has no reason to be true unless one admits design at the level of the fitness lamdscape. In any case, if darwinists "renounce" to NS, completely or in part, they are left with pure random events. And maybe they should read Dembski, or rehearse their mathematics. By the way, has anyone noticed that the "featured article" about ID on Wikipedia (a couple of days ago) boldly restated, without a trace of shame, the ludicrous argument of the "unlikely hand of cards" as a rebuttal to Dembski? Here is where my tolerance really starts to fade...gpuccio_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Fodor is a philosopher, not a scientist. He may be a genius, but he has never done an experiment (other than thought experiments), and actively eschews consideration of data. He lined up behind Chomsky about 30 years ago to inveigh on an issue he had never studied -- child language acquisition -- because Chomsky (who was also not a developmental psychology or biologist) suggested that linguistic universals must be innate, and that explanation apparently appealed to Fodor. When that edifice crumbled under the weight of data, Fodor didn't defend his earlier position. He simply dropped it, and his views play no role in the field of child language acquisition today. His lack of appreciation of the difference between philosphy and empirical science is clear in his comment: "In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted…" Empirical scientists don't take the theory of natural selection for granted. They require evidence. That is not the same as provisionally accepting that a theory is currently the best explanation for the data, and a good source of new and testable predictions.MacT_{October 14, 2007
October
10
Oct
14
14
2007
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

wikipedia has a short but good discussion of genetic drift and its relationship to natural selection. Each is involved in determining changes in allele frequencies in a population. When there is no natural selection benefit for an allele, genetic drift will eventually drive an allele to either 0 or 100% frequency. But it may take a long time. New alleles can only come from variation in the genome of an offspring and thus starts the natural selection and genetic drift process rolling in a potentially different direction or as in most cases eliminates the new allele.jerry_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Jerry, genetic drift is just a simple variant of natural selection. With genetic drift, the selection quotient is 0, an allele is neither being selected for or against. The frequency of the allele follows the wind of change. There is no technology here for producing anything new, any new alleles. GilDodgen's wisdom, "The notion that natural selection ever produced anything or has any creative power is simply absurd on its face" applies equally well to genetic drift. There are only two proposed forces in the Modern Evolutionary Theory -- Random Variation and Natural Selection. Everything else is an observed or proposed phenomenon of these two forces. That's the beginning and end of the theory. The problem with the theory is that natural selection cannot possibly create anything new, no matter what the selection quotient. Random Variation does produce new stuff -- new garbage. That's pretty much all. What we are is not the product of RV+NS, not in a million years!bFast_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Natural selection could be the driving force of evolution quite easily if only the variation was there to drive. The achilles heel of NDE is not natural selection but the lack of diversity in the genome to drive anywhere. That is what the Edge of Evolution was about, no new variation develops to allow natural selection to go anywhere. That is why we say natural selection is a conservative force, not because it cannot drive novelty but because it doesn't have the resources on which to actjerry_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

So you, the shapiros and koonins and fodors, please have a little bit more courage and honesty, and at least try to “address” and recognize the point of view of other scientists, like Dembski and Behe, who have been having more courage and honesty than you, before you, and have never tried any final, desperate evasion from truth.
Film critic and social commentator Michael Medved tells of attending a pre-release screening of the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" by a group of critics, including himself. The group left the theater gasping at what an aweful piece of work they had been forced to sit through. He fully expected the film to be panned the next day. But when the reviews came out, they were all glowing. When he challenged a colleague on the inconsistency of his post-screening comments and his actual review, the critic responded something to the effect of not wanting to be on the same side as the Religious Right, Jerry Falwell, etc. Perhaps these scientists are in the same position. They would rather keep their mouths shut, and even perpetuate falsehoods, rather than be associated in any way with opponents of materialism.russ_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

bfast, No, that is not my actual name. I chose the pseudonym "Smith" for its generic qualities. I supposed I could just as easily chosen "Doe" or any other pseudonym, but I figured "Smith" would make it obvious that I was hiding my identity. And, your point is well taken about paying homage to the Materialist god. In their zeal to affirm their ideology, they readily welcome any nod towards their faith. The problem, however, is that I have too much integrity to kneel before "Mannon". Instead, I will bide my time, continue my research, then reveal my ID sympathies when I have established my tenure position. I'm three years away and I'm not going to screw it up. But, once I've attained some security, I will have the freedom to finally come out in full force for ID science. In the meantime, I'm doing my part to bring up the next generation to see through the Materialist lies. I have a couple students that I know are ID friendly, and some others that I suspect are. There's more of us than the Materialists say there are, and if they knew how many they would be afraid.professorsmith_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

bfast, you really have a point: "I bet you can speak out now, just hedge your comments with a nod to the materialist god" Indeed, aren't we beginning to get tired of such a strange group of scientists, all of them intelligent and brilliant people, who are suddenly realizing the deep flaws of darwinian evolution theory, and have the courage to declare that, and yet are quickly dismissing intelligent design "just because it is intelligent design", without even considering it, or at least acknowledging that there are people in the world who have been saying the same things for years, before they did, reaching different conclusions? What right have these people, so detailed and lucid in their critics to the existing paradigm, to desperately stick to new absurd proposals and reasonings, which make the same darwinian arguments they criticize look quite reasonable and simple in comparison, and yet simply ignore or self-sufficiently condemn the impeccable model of ID? So you, the shapiros and koonins and fodors, please have a little bit more courage and honesty, and at least try to "address" and recognize the point of view of other scientists, like Dembski and Behe, who have been having more courage and honesty than you, before you, and have never tried any final, desperate evasion from truth. Just for curiosity, I only hope that Fodor may be successful in convincing everybody that natural selection "isn't" the driving force of evolution (which, obviously, is perfectly true: design is the only observable driving force of anything which could be called evolution). After all, NS, with all its faults, is certainly the smartest obfuscating tool among the many not so smart concepts of darwinism, and I really wonder what kind of gimmick could take its place, if it were dismissed by its same inventors. Which weapon will they be left with? Genetic drift? Hmm... I would not like to be in their shoes!gpuccio_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

I am not sure Fodor includes random variation over time as part of the scheme. No one else seems to make this mistake. But the term natural selection was the chosen one to worship so is the one given most of the play in the Darwinist paradigm. He doesn't even discuss genetic drift which is what most evolutionary biologist believe causes most change. As a whole I found this mush. He is a clever writer but not one that seems to understand all the implications of NDE. This may be a result of the audience he is addressing to in this particular publication. He has to show off his literary skills as part of his bona fides. The fact that some traits come along for the ride just means they are tied to the same chromosome as the desired trait and if the parasitic trait is deleterious then the desired trait will not succeed. But random variation should take care of that according to NDE. I am not sure I see any clear thinking here, just attempted cleverness. The NDE advocates should tear this piece apart.jerry_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen, in defense of Dr. Fodor, I am sure that he percieves random mutation to be bundled into that which he refers to as "natural selection", or which he refers to as "adaptation". While you and I would both agree that the chance that random mutation produces anything valuable is minimal, it at least produces something different than existed before. When included, your blanket statement, "The notion that natural selection ever produced anything or has any creative power is simply absurd on its face" seems to be a slight exaggeration. Not much, but a little bit.bFast_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

The notion that natural selection ever produced anything or has any creative power is simply absurd on its face. Natural selection throws stuff out. New things are not created by throwing old things out. Natural selection is death, and death has never created anything new. It seems to me that this should not be difficult to understand -- except, apparently, for those who are philosophically committed to a certain ideology. Over the last three months at my job in the aerospace R&D field I've been tasked with learning and using a finite element analysis (FEA) program called LS-DYNA. I was warned that it would be tough, and indeed it has been. I've been on the steep part of the learning curve, and in the process of producing my first real-world FEA simulations I made a lot of mistakes. LSD (the computer program, not the drug, although they are both mind-altering) is so sophisticated that one must be something of an expert in order to get off first base. During this learning experience my failed or flawed LS-DYNA simulations generated many gigabytes of data that were cluttering up my hard disk, so once I figured out how to make stuff work I removed the clutter to free up disk space. Deleting junk from my hard disk contributed nothing to making stuff work.GilDodgen_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Off Topic: This is a cool Christian Music Video...It made me think of "Intelligent Design" all the way through it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bBxO37LE4bornagain77_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

ProfessorSmith, if that's your real name, I bet you can speak out now, just hedge your comments with a nod to the materialist god, such as
Nor I do suppose that the intentions of a designer, intelligent or otherwise, are among the causally sufficient conditions that good historical narratives would appeal to in order to explain why a certain kind of creature has the phenotypic traits it does.
bFast_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

We need more Jerry Fodors out there. It takes courage to stand up to the oppressive regime on Materialists that currently controls academia. We need to have more academics get fed up and speak out against the Darwinista and raise the public conscience about the travesty that is academia in this country. Once I'm tenured, I will also add my name to the list of those who are willing to speak the truth.professorsmith_{October 13, 2007
October
10
Oct
13
13
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply