Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural selection as negative principle only

Categories
Natural selection
News
Philosophy
Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to note what philosopher of science, John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), had to say about natural selection:

The principle of natural selection is indeed an important contribution to biology. But it is a negative, not an architectonic, principle. It does not explain why variations appear, why they cumulate, why they assume an organization in the way of more successful adaptation. Organisms must, of course, be able to maintain themselves in their life environment and in the physical environment, in order to leave descendants and determine the character of the race. But that is all natural selection tells us. It does not explain the traits and organization of organisms nor why they become well or badly adapted to their specific environment.

Can’t seem to find this online, but it’s consistent with something we did find:

Even in such fields as science, where reason is supposed to be most at home, we drift invariably into traditions and schools. Darwin’s hypothesis of chance variations and natural selection has not merely become a dogma of science, but has been erected into a philosophy of the universe; and the limitations of the hypothesis and the empirical spirit of its creator have been lost sight of in an intolerant tradition which has had serious consequences, not only for the development of natural science but for the social ideals and progress of the race. This is only one instance where mysticism has supplanted reason in science and where the authority of facts has been forced to yield to the authority of tradition. In every field of science we are haunted by ghosts of the past to which lesser minds pay superstitious reverence and by which even greater minds are misled into false assumptions. And the most dangerous ghost of all is that mechanical materialism which, while it has no scientific credentials but is simply a false dogma tacked on to science, has become fashionable among scientists. If science is always in danger of subordinating reason and experience to dogmas, the danger is even greater iii philosophy and art where the emotional element naturally plays a greater part – John E. Boodin. “The Law of Social Participation”, American Journal of Sociology, 27, 1921: 22-53.

Imagine, 1921… Well before Mencken on the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) and Buck v. Bell (1927). Also:

The modern point of view which finds its typical expression in Darwinism emphasizes change, history, mechanical causes, flux of species, determination of the higher by the lower. History runs on like an old man’s tale without beginning, middle, or end, without any guiding plot. It is infinite and formless. Chance rules supreme. It despises final causes.

More on Boodin’ approach here. See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Comments
Gary The article teaches us nothing about self assembly.
You are either utterly delusional, or trolling. By the way: I wrote that classroom self-assembly demonstration.GaryGaulin
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
The egg came first? Who laid it?
The non-chicken that came before the first chicken laid it.GaryGaulin
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel I know the universe is structured and ordered. Why are you trying to preach to the converted? What is wrong with you?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Andre: Are you claiming sunlight poofed itself into existence? The question was whether the environment was randomized. Regardless of the source of order in the environment (sunlight appears to be the result of the collapse of a molecular cloud), the environment is not randomized.Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Gary The article teaches us nothing about self assembly. Want to know why? You are firstly using someone else's materials and they already have pre self-assembly instructions. You are going to have to do better. Where is your own stuff that can self assemble?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
The egg came first? Who laid it?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
The egg. Seriously.GaryGaulin
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Gary Seriously? What came first the chicken or the egg?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Zachriel Are you claiming sunlight poofed itself into existence?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Andre, Are you claiming that sunlight is random? That is doesn't have a regular cycle and direction?Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Zachriel What is wrong with you?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Andre:
Disorder does not make its own order no matter how much time you give it.
Self-assembly: https://sites.google.com/site/garysgaulin/home/NSTA2007.pdfGaryGaulin
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Andre: unstructured can not make itself structured. Nature is full of structures that constitute the biological environment. For instance, the Earth's rotation results in a regular day and night pattern.Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
The genetic environment is highly ordered, the environment is highly structured.... who tinkered with this stuff to make it so?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Zachriel.... You really ought to stop the nonsense coming out of your orifice..... unstructured can not make itself structured. Disorder does not make its own order no matter how much time you give it. What is wrong with you?Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Andre:
I am absolutely gobsmacked by the superstition on display here.
Verse and music: Stevie Wonder - Superstition [Lyrics] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qf9Jh-_9hYGaryGaulin
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Origenes: So the Berkeley site states that adaptations are produced by natural selection. They are referring to evolution by natural selection, which entails a source of novel variation. Silver Asiatic: The genetic environment is random. That is incorrect. The genetic environment is highly ordered, and represents billions of years of evolution. Mutations are random, however. Silver Asiatic: That’s where traits are selected and where evolution occurs – with random mutations in a randomized environment. No. Traits are selected by phenotype, not by genotype. The environment is not randomized by any means, but highly structured. For instance, if you receive a photon of solar energy from, let's call it "up", then it is likely that another photon will soon be forthcoming from "up".Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Our opponents sure are religious people. Nothing made and betters everything. NS does not choose no matter what. I am absolutely gobsmacked by the superstition on display here.Andre
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Z
Silver Asiatic: At the genetic level, the presence of new traits beneficial, neutral or negative Zach: Random.
The genetic environment is random. That's where traits are selected and where evolution occurs - with random mutations in a randomized environment.Silver Asiatic
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
Origenes: As I understand evolution, there is no “adaptation”.
Zachriel: That is incorrect. Take a simple case, tallness. If tallness provides a reproductive advantage (think of eating tree leaves), then those variations within the population that entail tallness will become predominant. That is adaptation.
So “adaptation” is a change in composition of the population; merely a redistribution of what is already there. First there are only a few tall organisms, later there are many. It is not adaptation in the sense that a new adaptive feature is being introduced. OK.
Zachriel:
Origenes: So kindly explain how you use the term “adaptation”, and explain the relationship between natural selection and adaptation.
see the Berkeley website.
An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. [Berkeley]
Let me see ... a new feature, produced by mutations, provides some improved function. It provides reproductive advantage and becomes common in a population. We call such a feature an “adapation”. Ok got it.
Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection. [Berkeley]
Whaaat???
Adaptations can take many forms: a behavior that allows better evasion of predators, a protein that functions better at body temperature, or an anatomical feature that allows the organism to access a valuable new resource — all of these might be adaptations. Many of the things that impress us most in nature are thought to be adaptations. [Berkeley]
So the Berkeley site states that adaptations are produced by natural selection. For instance proteins, is said to be the product of natural selection. This is utter nonsense. Proteins are the product of mutations. Natural selection can only act on what is already there. Natural selection can redistribute the composition of the population but is not creative at the level of an organism.Origenes
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Origenes #52
Thanks to culls present in the wild. So, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. See?
Natural selection, as it exists in the wild, produced wolves in the first place!! Wolves didn't just poof into existence, we share a common ancestor with them. What happened between the time of that common ancestor and the arrival of wolves was down to natural selection and some other processes acting on random variations.
Nope. Because, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. Which illustrates the point I have been stressing all along: natural selection is not creative and only hampers evolution.
Then where did wolves come from? Are they limited versions of some uber-animal from the deep and distant past? You never addressed that when I brought it up before. A bit too close to your designer notions which you'd rather not bring up?
Obviously, breeders create an artificial environment for dogs, where natural selection, as it exists in the wild, does not exist.
Human breeders (so called 'artificial selection') work in the same way as 'natural selection'. Some members of a generation survive and the genetic line leans towards an outcome. Natural selection is much slower but it works. But you refuse to address my question of how you think wolves and whales and such came into existence. You might as well just bring out the designer claims and be done with it. Natural selection (helped) bring about all the diversity of life we see today. You won't want to admit that 'cause you've staked your claim on 'culling' being a negative influence. Which means you're probably a front loading believer or a tweaking designer believer. Which is it?ellazimm
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Ellazimm,
Ellazimm: In the wild wolves never became dogs.
Thanks to culls present in the wild. So, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. See?
Ellazimm: Dogs would even exist without culling because they’d all still be wolves.
Nope. Because, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. Which illustrates the point I have been stressing all along: natural selection is not creative and only hampers evolution.
Origenes: Dogs arose because natural selection, as it exists in the wild, was suspended.
Ellazimm: Un huh. And your academic support for that idea is what exactly?
Obviously, breeders create an artificial environment for dogs, where natural selection, as it exists in the wild, does not exist.Origenes
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Me_Think: Nature obviously doesn’t know if sight is better! It doesn't have to think any more than a natural sieve has to think in order to sort. Origenes: You remain unresponsive to my argument. I have argued that without the cull those new morphologies would also be created by mutations. If every possible organism that could live lived, then life would encompass the sun in a few thousand years, and the galaxy in a few thousands years more. In the real world, though, there are restrictions on resources, including space. Origenes: limited resources implies that there is a cull. Limited resources and the ensuing cull constitute a negative principle which hampers evolution. Consider tallness @39. Origenes: So, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. The mutations that lead to dogs get weeded out in nature, but lead to successful reproduction when in the human environment. We have two broad lineages that diversify within their own niches. Silver Asiatic: Temperature changes Not random. Silver Asiatic: Availability of water Not random. Silver Asiatic: Food supply Not random. Silver Asiatic: Number of existing competitors within species Not random. Silver Asiatic: Number of new competitors arising through adaptation Not random. Silver Asiatic: Number of predators outside of species Not random. Silver Asiatic: Number of non-competitors that are obstacles to survival (more or less trees, for example) Not random. Silver Asiatic: Disease Not random. Silver Asiatic: At the genetic level, the presence of new traits beneficial, neutral or negative Random.Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Origenes: "Nope. Elimination is never creative. Not a single round and not multiple rounds. Those new morphologies would also be there without the cull(s)." then how do explain Michelangelo's David? It was created through an elimination process. Although, I guess it could be argued that he destroyed the rock.Indiana Effigy
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Origenes #47
You remain unresponsive to my argument.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
I have argued that without the cull those new morphologies would also be created by mutations. IOWs all a cull does (and culls do) is restrict the number of new morphologies. Yet IOWs there is not a single new morphology that exists because of a cull.
And I say: that is not true. Dogs would not exist except for selective culling. Humans would probably not exist if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out. Brussels sprouts . . . again, the result of successive culling.
A general thought: limited resources implies that there is a cull. Limited resources and the ensuing cull constitute a negative principle which hampers evolution. Strangely Darwin tries to sell it as some positive force labeled “natural selection”.
You continue to misunderstand (on purpose). It's the combination of culls and new variation that creates.
Yet that’s what I’m saying. Without elimination those new breeds would also be present. IOWs elimination did not contribute.
But they wouldn't! They didn't arise naturally before men starting selective culling. AND, if you let dogs go feral they return to an 'average' state. You are arguing but you're ignoring the data and the history.
I take it you mean “in the wild”. Well, the culls that exist in the wild would eliminate the chiwawa variation.
Clearly. And if you eliminated all culling (an impossibility since it would be impossible to provide an environment where all wolves were allowed to interbreed without lack of resources or living space) you STILL wouldn't get all modern breeds of dogs due to interbreeding. It just doesn't work that way.
Thanks to culls present in the wild. So, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. See?
Dogs would even exist without culling because they'd all still be wolves. You armchair arguers are pretty funny sometimes.
Nope, dogs arose because natural selection, as it exists in the wild, was suspended.
Un huh. And your academic support for that idea is what exactly? I get what you are doing. You are trying to knock out evolutionary theory one thread at a time in hopes that you can, eventually, sever the whole rope. But that won't work. Especially when the knife you are using is dull and unfit for purpose.ellazimm
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Z
While there are random elements to environmental change; overall, the environment is highly structured.
Some of the aspects of the environment include: Temperature changes Availability of water Terrestrial/Geological changes Food supply Number of existing competitors within species Number of new competitors arising through adaptation Number of predators outside of species Number of non-competitors that are obstacles to survival (more or less trees, for example) At the genetic level, the presence of new traits beneficial, neutral or negative continually changes the environment. Disease Most of that is highly random and non structured.Silver Asiatic
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Ellazimm, Sifting through your rubble I would like to address the heart of the matter one more time.
Ellazimm: The combination of sequential cull and variation, repeat creates the new morphologies. Just like it does with breeding programs.
You remain unresponsive to my argument. I have argued that without the cull those new morphologies would also be created by mutations. IOWs all a cull does (and culls do) is restrict the number of new morphologies. Yet IOWs there is not a single new morphology that exists because of a cull or a series of culls. A general thought: limited resources implies that there is a cull. Limited resources and the ensuing cull constitute a negative principle which hampers evolution. Strangely Darwin tries to sell it as some positive force labeled "natural selection". Let's return to your dog example:
Ellazimm: But you can’t say a breeder can’t develop new breeds via successive rounds of elimination.
Yet that's what I'm saying. Without elimination those new breeds would also be present. IOWs elimination did not contribute.
Ellazimm: And, you can’t say that those variations would have arisen naturally either.
I take it you mean "in the wild". Well, the culls that exist in the wild would eliminate the chiwawa variation.
Ellazimm: In the wild wolves never became dogs.
Thanks to culls present in the wild. So, natural selection, as it exists in the wild, hampers the evolution of dogs. See?
Ellazimm: Dogs arose from lots and lots and lots of culling acting on lots and lots of successive randomly occurring variation.
Nope, dogs arose because natural selection, as it exists in the wild, was suspended.Origenes
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Mung #41
Both selection and genetic drift remove diversity from the population.
Are you sure about genetic drift? Random mutations introduce new diversity at every incident of reproduction. As I said to Origenes, it's obvious that successive rounds of 'selection' and variation can introduce wide, permanent variation in body plans. Breeders have been do it for millennia. You are trying to take apart two separate aspects of evolution: selection and random variation. First you say that randomness rarely comes up with something viable or worthwhile. And then you say that culling takes away information and diversity. But you ignore what happens when the two are linked together over many generations. It's like taking a three-legged stool, considering each leg on it's own and deciding they're all unstable but never looking at the whole picture. I can't blame you for trying, what else have you got to use to attack the process?ellazimm
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Origenes @ 33
Lastly, there is no “selection”, there is only the elimination of normal birds due to lack of resources.
Silver Asiatic @ 42
Natural selection not only doesn’t create better sight, it doesn’t care or know what is better or worse anything. It doesn’t define what fitness is for any organism. That’s all driven by the environment.
Origenes as SA says, Natural Selection is just the differential survival and reproduction due to differences in phenotype. Nature selects the birds with better eye sight due to differential survival in the local environment- that's it. Nature obviously doesn't know if sight is better! . What ever adapts better to local environment has better chance of surviving and dominating over the next few generations. There is no elimination - if the left over 'normal' birds develop some better phenotype then they will be selected over the next few generations. Nature doesn't select like a 'Designer'- it is not a decision-making process.Me_Think
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: The mutations occur randomly and the environmental conditions change on a random basis. While there are random elements to environmental change; overall, the environment is highly structured.Zachriel
March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply