Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural selection as negative principle only

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
See, Zachriel claims natural selection is both the cause and the effect. What a wonderful opportunity for him to equivocate any time it's convenient to do so. And no wonder then so many people think it's a tautology.Mung
March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Origenes: Suppose a mixed population of anaerobic and aerobic bacteria exposed to an environment without oxygen. If they are different strains, then they aren't a single population, even if they share a space. Let's restructure your example somewhat. Let's have a single population of E coli living in a standard broth. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html As the bacteria grow within the flask they use up the glucose. At that point, they are transferred to a new flask. By chance, a series of mutations occur which give the ability to a bacterium to metabolize the citrate chelating agent. Due to selection, this bacterium then begins to become predominant in the population. The population now consists of a mixed population; those that can only metabolize glucose, and those that can metabolize glucose and citrate. Silver Asiatic: I can’t see NS as a cause, and therefore it’s not a mechanism. Selection is the mechanism that causes the citrate metabolizing E coli to become dominant in the population. Selection is the result of fecundity and differential reproduction due to heritable differences. Silver Asiatic: Evolution assumes that every organism has the same strength of survival instinct. In a competition, it is believed that all organisms give 100% effort to survive. Evolutionary theory makes no such assumption. Fierceness or competitiveness are just other traits to make up the whole organism. There are many survival strategies, not all of which entail fierceness or competitiveness. http://opossumsocietyus.org/images/opossu1.jpgZachriel
March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Mung
And people who tout the creative power of natural selection can’t say whether it’s the cause or the effect, or they say it’s both the cause and the effect.
I can see it considered an effect. It's a pattern in the data - whatever is left over from a competition for resources. That is the supposed effect. The survivors were all "selected". But there's no creative power in that. I can't see NS as a cause, and therefore it's not a mechanism. Reproductive rates, competition, food supply, other environmental changes, longevity, death ... those are causes. Natural selection doesn't create any of that. It is caused by those things, in the same way that a puddle becomes distinct after rain evaporates. Something is removed and a puddle is left (the puddle was 'selected'). We don't need new terminology to describe that process. Natural selection is negative that way. After organisms have been removed, what is left is claimed to have been selected. All the inputs to the natural selection process are random also - except one. The only non-random aspect (it is assumed) is the survival instinct in living beings. That survival instinct gives the term 'fitness' its meaning. Since organisms have this non-random 'desire' to survive, the reductionist belief is that any physical feature that makes them more fit to survive, will necessarily cause them to be selected. This assumes that every organism has the same strength of survival instinct. Interesting, isn't it? We know that assumption is false (as far as we can see) among human organisms. It's not merely physical characteristics that enable one human competitor to out-survive another. The physical fitness traits for one group of humans may be far superior to another and yet they lose in a competition. Human history is full of those examples - in sports, warfare, business -- almost every area of competition has this. The smaller, weaker, less-fit team, army, company - can out perform the bigger, more-evolved, smarter, more fit one. The driver or mechanism to this is a differential in survival instinct. Or in other words, it's a "will to survive" or a "will to win". The team that wants it more will win, even with less-fit traits for victory. We see that among mammals as well. Smaller, less physically capable animals defeat larger, more powerful, more fit animals. A mother defending babies has a stronger "will to win" in a fight. Thus, the smaller, weaker animal can win on the basis of this drive for survival. Some dogs are more fierce and want to survive over others who surrender and give up quickly. This is true even among young and old animals. Younger, with the same genetic traits, fight harder to survive than old. Evolution assumes that every organism has the same strength of survival instinct. In a competition, it is believed that all organisms give 100% effort to survive. Like most evolutionary claims, there's no data to support that conclusion. We have no idea what the survival instinct is (or is it a "will to survive") and therefore how strong or weak it is in various organisms. Here's a case where the Old Testament gives an illustration. The ancient Israelites often faced armies that were far superior in size, armaments, resources, strategy and other military advantages. But those opponents often gave up and quit the battle. They lost the will to win, even though they were more fit for survival. It may be that through Intelligent Design, certain organisms are given greater impetus to win in competitive struggles -- or even more clearly -- given the desire not to fight at all. Thus a biosphere maintains an equilibrium. No evolution occurs and none is needed. Thus we have stasis which is evident everywhere.Silver Asiatic
March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of adaptive evolution (...)
Suppose a mixed population of anaerobic and aerobic bacteria exposed to an environment without oxygen. Obviously only the anaerobic bacteria survive. Natural selection in action. ------ Q: what has been formed or modified? A: the composition of the population of bacteria. Q: is it a creative process? Does it make the improbable probable? A: Nope. On the contrary, there is nothing new. Natural selection acts on already existing entities. After the cull we have less variety. Information has been lost. "Natural selection" is a destroyer of information, a destroyer of variety. Q: Do we explain anything additional when we call the death of aerobic bacteria due lack of oxygen "natural selection"? A: No. When we do know the cause it is entirely unnecessary to invoke the term "natural selection" to explain anything. The term comes in handy to mask our ignorance in cases where we don't know why something happened.Origenes
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Mung: And people who tout the creative power of natural selection can’t say whether it’s the cause or the effect, or they say it’s both the cause and the effect. Natural selection is a cause or mechanism of adaptive evolution, the effect of fecundity and differential reproduction due to heritable differences.Zachriel
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
SA: Natural selection is a powerful-sounding term. It sounds like it is an active process that selects outcomes, or it’s a mechanism that creates evolutionary changes. And people who tout the creative power of natural selection can't say whether it's the cause or the effect, or they say it's both the cause and the effect.Mung
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Natural selection does not cause organisms to become taller or shorter, stronger or weaker. It doesn’t cause them to become more fit or less fit. What natural selection does is select from the available distribution of traits. Silver Asiatic: In fact, mutations alone do not cause organisms to become more fit or less fit. That is incorrect. A mutation may very well make an organism more fit. Silver Asiatic: Changes in the environment can do that. What was less-fit at one time can become more fit merely through a change in environment. No mutations required. That's correct. Sometimes an existing trait may become beneficial if the environment changes. Silver Asiatic: {Natural selection} didn’t change or modify any organism. No. However, natural selection does modify the distribution of traits in a population.Zachriel
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Natural selection does not cause organisms to become taller or shorter, stronger or weaker. It doesn't cause them to become more fit or less fit. In fact, mutations alone do not cause organisms to become more fit or less fit. Changes in the environment can do that. What was less-fit at one time can become more fit merely through a change in environment. No mutations required. Natural selection is a term that describes the process whereby in a competition for resources needed for survival, whatever is left over are the winners. The survivors won. Natural selection didn't cause any organism to survive. It didn't change or modify any organism. It didn't create parameters for survival or fitness. It's not a force that changes or moves anything. At best it can be said to 'remove the losers' but losers are removed by starvation or lack of fertility. Those are caused by random environmental changes or mutations. Natural selection is a powerful-sounding term. It sounds like it is an active process that selects outcomes, or it's a mechanism that creates evolutionary changes.Silver Asiatic
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Origenes: It’s important to note that “the strongest” are not created by the process of elimination of the weakest. It's not the difficult. If taller makes one more fit, then those variations (existing or novel) that lead to greater tallness will become more prevalent in the population.Zachriel
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic "It is THAT easy to disprove evolution. And it’s not a question of stupidity, but rather of intellectual blindness, which is a spiritual disorder. A person may have a very high IQ and yet still arrive at very stupid conclusions about important matters." Discussions with evolutionists/atheists remind of quote from a movie; "Theist 1: I'm just trying to get to the truth! Reasonable Theist: I get it! But what you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, there's what people want to believe, there's everything else, THEN there's the truth! Theist 1. And since when it's that OK? I can't even believe you are saying this to me! The truth means responsibility! Reasonable Theist: Exactly! Which is why everyone (evolutionist/atheist) dreads it!J-Mac
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die. — Charles Darwin,
The “let the strongest live and the weakest die” part refers to natural selection — ‘the elimination of the weakest’. Colin Patterson describes natural selection as a “weeding out process”. It’s important to note that “the strongest” are not created by the process of elimination of the weakest. Patterson again: “The stronger progeny must be already there; it is not produced by natural selection…selection is made from already existing entities.” The strongest are those who stayed under the radar of the weeding out process. They are the ones who got away. They are neither created nor preserved by it. All we can say is that they are untouched by “natural selection”.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances (…) , could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd (…) — Charles Darwin.
My dear Charles, it is indeed absurd. Not only because of the complexity and specificity of the eye, but also because natural selection — the elimination of the weakest — is simply not a process that forms organs.
“I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.” — Charles Darwin
Charles, a weeding out process — the elimination of the weakest — is not creative and is incapable of modifying even one single part of an organism.
“Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability.” — Ronald A. Fisher
Mr. Fischer, you are dead wrong. All that the elimination of organisms accomplishes is that potentially valuable information is lost. So the opposite is true: if evolution is a search for information, then natural selection hampers that search. Two more quotes from Ernie and Bert:
“Natural selection is not only a parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable alternative to chance that has ever been suggested. — Richard Dawkins
????
“Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive life form – perhaps a self-replicating molecule – that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. ” — Jerry A. Coyne
Origenes
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
About a Bike Lock: Responding to Richard Dawkins – Stephen C. Meyer – March 25, 2016
That was worthwhile reading. Dawkins is quoted:
Meyer was terrible, not because of his migraine but because of the content of his speech, which was written down BEFORE his migraine. When will these people understand that calculating how many gazillions of ways you can permute things at random is irrelevant. It's irrelevant, as Lawrence said, because natural selection is a NONRANDOM process. You'd think they'd realise that if it were THAT easy to disprove evolution no scientist would take evolution seriously. Do they really think we are so very stupid? Or are they cynically playing to the gallery, dazzling the naive audience with big numbers like 10^77, while knowing full well they are irrelevant?
It is THAT easy to disprove evolution. And it's not a question of stupidity, but rather of intellectual blindness, which is a spiritual disorder. A person may have a very high IQ and yet still arrive at very stupid conclusions about important matters.Silver Asiatic
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
The Epicurean Escape Hatch -- Richard Dawkins Responds to Stephen Meyer Paul Nelson March 24, 2016 Excerpt: Here is a natural selection primer for anyone who has forgotten the basics of the theory. Selection operates only after a functional advantage occurs in some randomly arising variation. Until that happens, any search of sequence space necessarily will remain undirected -- meaning that the small probabilities cannot be escaped. No functional variation, no selection. This unsolved problem has spawned an enormous literature within evolutionary biology, and represents one of the main reasons many biologists have quietly, or not so quietly, abandoned neo-Darwinian theory for more promising shores. Recently, Chatterjee et al. (2014) calculated the time required for the evolutionary process to search sequence space. Here's how they formulated the problem: “Throughout the history of life, evolution had to discover sequences of biological polymers that perform specific, complicated functions. The average length of bacterial genes is about 1000 nucleotides, that of human genes about 3000 nucleotides. The longest known bacterial gene contains more than 10^5 nucleotides, the longest human gene more than 10^6. A basic question is what is the time scale required by evolution to discover the sequences that perform desired functions.” Their model shows that, as the length L of the target sequence grows, the search time required grows exponentially, and quickly becomes intractable. As they conclude: “We show that adaptation on many fitness landscapes takes time that is exponential in L, even if there are broad selection gradients and many targets uniformly distributed in sequence space. These negative results lead us to search for specific mechanisms that allow evolution to work on polynomial time scales.” Whether their solution works, I leave as an exercise for the reader. But nota bene: natural selection is no help. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/the_epicurean_e102719.html About a Bike Lock: Responding to Richard Dawkins - Stephen C. Meyer – March 25, 2016 Excerpt: Moreover, given the empirically based estimates of the rarity (of protein folds) (conservatively estimated by Axe3 at 1 in 10^77 and within a similar range by others4) the analysis that I presented in Toronto does pose a formidable challenge to those who claim the mutation-natural selection mechanism provides an adequate means for the generation of novel genetic information -- at least, again, in amounts sufficient to generate novel protein folds.5 Why a formidable challenge? Because random mutations alone must produce (or "search for") exceedingly rare functional sequences among a vast combinatorial sea of possible sequences before natural selection can play any significant role. Moreover, as I discussed in Toronto, and show in more detail in Darwin's Doubt,6 every replication event in the entire multi-billion year history of life on Earth would not generate or "search" but a miniscule fraction (one ten trillion, trillion trillionth, to be exact) of the total number of possible nucleotide base or amino-acid sequences corresponding to a single functional gene or protein fold. The number of trials available to the evolutionary process (corresponding to the total number of organisms -- 10^40 -- that have ever existed on earth), thus, turns out to be incredibly small in relation to the number of possible sequences that need to be searched. The threshold of selectable function exceeds what is reasonable to expect a random search to be able to accomplish given the number of trials available to the search even assuming evolutionary deep time. ------- (3) Axe, Douglas. "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds." Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295-1315. (4) Reidhaar-Olson, John, and Robert Sauer. "Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor." Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16; Yockey, Hubert P. "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977c): 377-98; Yockey, Hubert. "On the Information Content of Cytochrome C," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67 (1977b) 345-376. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/about_a_bike_lo102722.html Stephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable" Illustration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8 Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1140536289292636/?type=2&theater 4-Dimensional quarter power scaling in life and the impotency of Natural Selection to explain it https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-does-machine-learning/#comment-601295bornagain77
March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply