Evolution: Objections to an Internal Mechanism

[DaveW]

Jorolat wrote:

Somehow you’ve managed to reverse what G and L actually say:

“But the important steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism.” (my emphasis)

Your emphasis, and your own meaning, too. The full quote around this sentence can be found in a post of yours earlier in this thread:

*In continental Europe, evolutionists have never been much attracted to the Anglo-American penchant for atomizing organisms into parts and trying to explain each as a direct adaptation. Their general alternative exists in both a strong and a weak form. In the strong form, as advocated by such major theorists as Schindewolf (1950), Remane (1971), and Grassé(1977), natural selection under the adaptationist programme can explain superficial modifications of the Bauplan that fit structure to environment: why moles are blind, giraffes have long necks, and ducks webbed feet, for example. But the important steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism. We believe that English biologists have been right in rejecting this strong form as close to an appeal to mysticism. *

It is quite clear that G&L are summarizing people like Schindewolf, Remane, and Grassé. It is they who theorize, to use your words, that “Natural Selection can’t account for formation of the bauplan in the first place, Natural Selection’s role is secondary.” G&L conclude that this is to be rejected “as close to an appeal to mysticism.”

(So, no, Firx, Gould isn’t discussing the Cambrian Explosion.)

In other posts:

I had the same trouble trying to locate any further information regarding the caterpillars despite starting a thread here, talk origins, and other places. On the other hand I’m sure many other examples are available, its just a question of tracking suitable candidates down.

Don’t assume. Go find a primary source. If the hypothesis is the least bit correct, someone else besides you is working on it today.

The implication in the secondary source was that the willow moth caterpillars always used the tips (else there would be no cause for comment).

I don’t believe you can safely assume that without reading the primary source. I can think of three or four reasons for doing such research that do not depend on the caterpillars always using the tips of the leaves.

Its the potential significance of the results that interests me and from this perspective the sample size, in terms of numbers, isn’t important but the percentage exhibiting the change is.

I understand that, but if you base your research on an effect that does not exist it is dooming yourself to failure, ridicule, or both.

Despite the subsequent controversy I can’t remember anyone dismissing “Mitochondrial Eve” simply because, as only one member of a population, she was statistically insignificant.

Because that’s not the way the research worked. “Mitochondrial Eve” was not the sample - she was the conclusion. Based on thousands of samples from real, live human beings.

It’s not a question of believing in an internal mechanism it’s a question of the fact that if one exists it would be testable.

Right. And none of your current “evidence” tests it, as I believe you’ve admitted.

Natural Selection does not exist outside of the human intellect, there are only individual organisms.

You’ll need to better define what you mean by “natural selection” before going further on this point. I, for one, see natural selection as a driving force behind evolution, acting upon individual organisms to produce changes in alelle frequency in the population as a whole. To say that it doesn’t exist outside the human mind is tantamount to claiming that evolution is an illusion. It’s been tested, by the way, but I think Firx already brought that point up.

If such a mechanism exists part of the reason it hasn’t been found is because of the conditioned response “Internal Mechanism? Oh you mean Lamarck - nawwww!”.

I doubt that very much. You appear to be denying that biologists any original research (instead of just “spouting the party line”). Yet the journals are replete with new findings.

Part of what I’m saying is if organisms are integrated wholes then when you look at the nature of that integration you’ll find it is homeostatic.

No, you denied, above, that there is anything other than the individual organism. For anything to act homeostatically, there must be populations and offspring.

As I wrote before, I don’t see any need for anything other than natural selection in order to create a homeostatic situation. Apparently, you do.

ps The experiment on the rats was appalling but once again no specific mechanism was being tested for, it was a shot in the dark that appears to have been lucky - wish I could get my hands on the original source!

No, it appears to be waaay off the wall. I wish you could find the original source, too, just to find out what was really going on, and whether anyone has ever successfully repeated that experiment. The fact that nobody on the Web (besides you) is discussing “Griffiths’-Rats Effects” tells me that the effect wasn’t real. Ever heard of N-rays?

I would argue that the geocentric theory was once very intellectually/emotionally satisfying else why did they place Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life?

Sigh. It was that satisfying because it had support from the Church. Saying that the Earth was the center of the universe was not heresy to those in power.

A homeostatic mechanism would be indirect and if no upset to equilibrium exceeded, or failed to meet, existing thresholds then no evolutionary changes would occur (eg the shark)

How is this qualitatively different from natural selection? Oh, it comes from “inside” instead of “outside.” But guess what? Any upset to equilibrium comes from outside the organism, “intregrated” or not. As such, I cannot see any difference between the mechanism you propose and natural selection, except that your mechanism is unknown, while natural selection is fairly well defined.

There. If I’ve understood you well enough, then that’ll count as an “objection.”

[DaveW]

Firx wrote (seems like ages ago, now):

Fair objections, DaveW.

They weren’t so much ‘objections’ as they were a desperate attempt to understand what, exactly, we were talking about. I was groping for definitions in a sea of ‘maybes’.

I only made the foot remark to illustrate that structures which are functionally analogous may not be related from an evolutionary standpoint. As a different example I might cite the platypus, which, if I remember correctly, was the subject of much confusion when first discovered. Just because it lays eggs doesn’t mean that it’s related to birds. As for beeing “many steps away from the foot of the tree”, the vast majority of organisms are far from the foot of the tree. How does it help us to get too general? All vertebrates are similar in that they have backbones, but there are lots of other differences that come into play after that.

This whole thing hinged on the defintion of a “body plan.” I’m beginning to think that Jorolat’s ideas fall into neither the “strong” nor “weak” version of what G&L were discussing, and so the point is mostly moot.

Had he been talking about an “internal mechanism” similar to the one discussed, though, then the ‘distance’ from the root of the tree at which a “body plan” becomes “fixed” (and all other changes are just “superficial”) becomes important. The closer to the root of the tree, the easier it is to challenge the theory based on the fact that we haven’t seen any truly new body plans for many millions of years. In other words, if “vertebrate” is a body plan, then no internal evolutionary mechanism has been functioning in any vertebrate since that particular body plan became fixed.

I’m sorry about the ‘integrated organism’ bit. I think you are right about G and L meaning it as a way of thinking about organisms. I would add, though, that they mean it as a way of explaining that not every part of an organism is the direct result of natural selection, and that there are limitations in the way an organism can change imposed by the entire body (i.e. some changes are precluded by other elements of the bodyplan).

No need to apologize, but I’m still not sure that I get it, completely. The “limitations” part, yes - dogs born with gills instead of lungs will likely die very quickly. It’s the “not every part of an organism is the direct result of natural selection” bit that’s getting to me. I feel like it’s right there in my grasp, but I can’t quite get a handle on it. Some examples (other than feet ) might help, if you’d be so kind.

[Firx]

Originally posted by Jorolat:

The point in mentioning the geocentric theory was that “Natural Selection” is our perception of what happens whereas an internal mechanism may be the reason it happens. Natural Selection only exists in the intellect whereas an internal mechanisms may exist in all the organisms outside of the intellect.

Do you realise what you’re saying here? If I understand correctly, you are saying that some “internal mechanism” causes natural selection to occur. How can that possibly be? If we agree (and I know I’m going out on a limb here) that, as Gould states, “In nature, Darwinian evolution is also a response to changing environments…[and] certain morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer’s criterion of a good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread”, then no “internal mechanism” can “be the reason” natural selection happens. Unless, of course, there is some way for the “mechanism” to anticipate a change in the environment; something for which I challenge you to create a feasible explaination.

Furthermore, your reference to geocentric theory here doesn’t make sense. Again. The analogy you’re trying to make fails due to the fact that heliocentrism won out over geocentrism because heliocentrism fit the facts better. In case you hadn’t noticed, the “internal mechanism” theory, a) has been rejected, in the form of “irreducible complexity”, in favor of darwinian evolution (and natural selection) before, and b) doesn’t demonstably fit the facts better. Also, geocentrism is a theory, and natural selection (in spite of your suggestions to the contrary) is generally held to be a process; thus, although the “mechanism” might, for the purpose of argument, be the ‘cause’ of natural selection, heliocentric theory isn’t and can’t be the cause of geocentric theory. I really wish you’d stop trying to form a link twixt GT and NS.

In the interest of decency I won’t even go into your feeble response to Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium.

[Firx]

Originally posted by DaveW:

(So, no, Firx, Gould isn’t discussing the Cambrian Explosion.)

My mistake. I though (for some reason), that Jorolat would use a reference from the same text I was referring to: “Wonderful Life”. I guess that would have been too straightforward. I should have checked, though.
Damn!

Thanks for setting me straight.

[Firx]

I hate to post three in a row; but here goes, DaveW.

Two suggestions:
1- Think of two or more traits as “linked”. For example, let’s say a mutant human is born with thick brown hair all over his body, like fur. After a while he grows up, and BAM, an ice-age hits. The little bugger is now better equipped to survive than any other human, so he survives and lives longer than most, giving him a more than average-sized set of progeny. Natural selection at work, right? Right, but only for the hair, since nothing else changed, and furthermore, NOT for the hair color. So brown hair gets propogated (as opposed to say, blonde), although it wasn’t ‘selected’.
2- Remember that multiple mutations may occur at once. So, if in the above example, the kid also sprouted a tail, then the tail would also be propogated even though there is no connection between the fur and the tail, and no ‘selection’ for the tail.

[DaveW]

Oh, shoot, Firx… I was just telling someone else a few short months ago about how a trait that has no overall effect on reproduction (either helpful or harmful) won’t be selected for or against, naturally. I believe the discussion centered around the premise that psoriasis should have been bred out of the gene pool long ago, since people are less likely to mate with people who’ve got nasty-looking skin. Answer: the median age for psoriasis symptoms first appearing is over twice that of puberty, so it probably has had little historical bearing on the rate of reproduction, since the majority of child-bearing years (for women, at least) will have been with clear skin.

I knew I knew what you were talking about, I just needed to have my memory jarred. Thanks again.

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by Firx *
**Originally poster by Jorolat:

Sorry about the brevity but there are a number of posts to catch up on.
quote:

I think the “weak” form says something more like ‘once the entire body plan is put together no really large changes can occur, and the process by which the body plan forms is guided by natural selection’. This would seem to be consistent with many of the ideas Gould expressed in “Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”.

Somehow you’ve managed to reverse[/] what G and L actually say:

“But the important steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism.” (my emphasis)

In other words Natural Selection can’t account for formation of the bauplan in the first place, Natural Selection’s role is secondary.

Jorolat

I don’t have my copy on hand, so I can’t quote right now, but (correct me if I’m wrong; or better still, put the passage up here for us to see) isn’t Gould referring to the Cambrian Explosion here**

I was going to check if Gould and Lewontin made any reference to the Cambrian Explosion but I see people have made subsequent references to your post. I’ll email you a copy of the “Spandrels” paper anyway.

Jorolat

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by toadspittle *
**I think you’re attacking too many things at once here.

*Originally posted by jorolat *It’s not a question of believing in an internal mechanism it’s a question of the fact that if one exists it would be testable. Natural Selection does not exist outside of the human intellect, there are only individual organisms.

Seems to me that your major complaint with N.S. is that it doesn’t have a single, neatly wrapped cause. As in, “Oh, look, here’s chromosome 12, with the well-known ‘natural selection’ gene. If we remove it from the nucleus, then the organism’s offspring will never evolve.”

If such a mechanism exists part of the reason it hasn’t been found is because of the conditioned response “Internal Mechanism? Oh you mean Lamarck - nawwww!”.

I understand your logic. Perhaps you’re right, though I personally doubt it.

** It was only twenty years ago that Gould and Lewontin were arguing that organisms should be analyzed as integrated wholes! Part of what I’m saying is if organisms are integrated wholes then when you look at the nature of that integration you’ll find it is homeostatic.**

This is two separate issues–(1) organisms are integrated wholes (2) said integrated wholes are homeostatic–each of which is debatable.

I would agree that (1) is a fair assumption, although the degree to which you seem to want to carry it (that the genetic material of said integrated whole can be unconsciously altered by the life experience of the rest of the whole so that the offspring receive advantageous adaptations…) is more tenuous, IMO.

And (2) does not really follow from (1), at least not by anything I’ve seen you post here or on your site. **

Perhaps an analogy will convey part of my objection to certain aspects of current theory:

Imagine driving past a golf course soon after it has begin to lightly rain and noticing that a few umbrellas are in use.
It is still raining an hour later when you return but now there are far more umbrellas in evidence.

There are two ways of looking at this:

1. The population of umbrella carriers has grown

2. An increasing number of individuals, with similar capabilities, have found the same solution to the same problem.

Answer 1) is a convenient shorthand but I would argue that the actual reality is more accurately described by 2). The relevance of this to evolutionary theory is that it appears to be possible to become so intrigued by patterns (egocentric) that the actual reality producing them (and which is external to the intellect) is forgotten about.
I didn’t use the word unconscious, I spoke of equilibrium. Nor did I say that that integrated wholes are homeostatic, I said the nature of that integration was homeostatic. In developmental homeostasis there can be small differences in the genotype and quite large changes in the environment and yet the same organism will emerge. As a “mature” adult homeostasis is then often described by “set points” such as temperature.

from http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n05/mente/limbic_i.htm:

*Throughout its evolution, the human brain has acquired three components that progressively appeared and became superposed, just like in an archeological site : the oldest, located underneath and to the back; the next one, resting on an intermediate position and the most recent, situated on top and to the front. They are , respectively :
1 - The archipallium or primitive (reptilian) brain, comprising the structures of the brain stem - medulla, pons, cerebellum, mesencephalon, the oldest basal nuclei - the globus pallidus and the olfactory bulbs. It corresponds to the reptile brain, also called “R-complex”, by the famous neuroscientist Paul MacLean.

2 - The paleopallium or intermediate (old mammalian) brain, comprising the structures of the limbic system. It corresponds to the brain of the inferior mammals.
3 - The neopallium, also known as the superior or rational (new mammalian) brain, comprises almost the whole of the hemispheres (made up of a more recent type of cortex, called neocortex) and some subcortical neuronal groups. It corresponds to the brain of the superior mammals, thus including the primates and, consequently, the human species.

These three cerebral layers appeared, one after the other, during the development of the embryo and the fetus (ontogenesis), recapitulating, chronologically, the evolution of animal species (phylogenesis), from the lizards up to the homo sapiens. According to Maclean, they are three biological computers which, although interconnected, retained, each one, “their peculiar types of intelligence, subjectivity, sense of time and space, memory, mobility and other less specific functions”.*

If you equate the reptilian brain to the base of a standard lightbulb, the old mammalian brain to the narrow glass stem, and the new mammalian brain to the large glass bulb then it doesn’t matter if the bulb is on or off (the organism is awake/sleep), activity in the base of the light bulb is largely unchanged. It is in the areas of the base and the narrow stem that I am interested and from which many homeostatic functions are initiated.

Jorolat

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
**

*Originally posted by jorolat *
**

*Originally posted by toadspittle *
**Am I the only one who’s remembers seeing refrence to stress induced mutation here on the boards? **

I would be interested in reading this thread if anyone knows anything more about it. A search using “stress induced mutations” got zero hits on this message board.
**

Perhaps this thread?. Around the second or third page IIRC. **

I’ve browsed through the first three pages and will have another look soon but I’ve found two points of particular interest: the reference to the fibonacci series (a homeostatic mechanism could “generate” this series yet internally stay the same) and your own reference to prions (bottom of page 2):

*"Darwin’s Finch, I’m not attempting to defend Hiyruu’s position, but you are aware of the latest developments concerning the discovery of prion switchs that trigger fairly major phenotypic changes by affecting the functioning of stop codons? Since these prions have been shown to change form in response to environmental stress, and since they enable the transcription of pre-existing genetic material that isn’t normally utilised they do basically allow the genome to code for new phenotypes only in response to stress. Not exactly morphing from one form or another, but this is an new field of research whose implicatons for non-microbial lifeorms is largely unknown. It does provide a mechanism for allowing new life-forms to develop rapidly (inside one generation in fact) from old by acting on pre-existing but unutilised genetic diversity. Essentially what Hiyruu is talking about (I think).

It has been proven in yeast, and there has been some research done on insects, which suggest these prion triggers may result in heritable phenotypic changes in response to environmental stress imposed on the parents. Lamarckism isn’t quite as dead as you might think.*"

Jorolat

[jorolat]

Hey - I appear to have this place all to myself, don’t tell there are no objections to an internal mechanism!

Jorolat

[Firx]

Originally posted by Jorolat:

Hey - I appear to have this place all to myself, don’t tell there are no objections to an internal mechanism!

Haven’t you been reading everyone else’s posts? Why don’t you respond to the objections that have already been made, instead of making inflammatory remarks?

[DaveW]

Jorolat wrote:

Perhaps an analogy will convey part of my objection to certain aspects of current theory:

Imagine driving past a golf course soon after it has begin to lightly rain and noticing that a few umbrellas are in use.
It is still raining an hour later when you return but now there are far more umbrellas in evidence.

There are two ways of looking at this:

1. The population of umbrella carriers has grown

2. An increasing number of individuals, with similar capabilities, have found the same solution to the same problem.

Answer 1) is a convenient shorthand but I would argue that the actual reality is more accurately described by 2).

Number 2 describes natural selection very well. Number 1 is effectively the phrase, “survival of the fittest.” So, this doesn’t appear to be an objection to current theory at all - it is the current theory.

The relevance of this to evolutionary theory is that it appears to be possible to become so intrigued by patterns (egocentric) that the actual reality producing them (and which is external to the intellect) is forgotten about.

The fact that you apparently think everyone else has some sort of intellectual inertia which prevents them from understanding your ideas is completely irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

The key fact that you’re missing is that saying it’s “natural selection” is known to be a “convenient shorthand.” It does not explain the exact details of any particular case of natural selection that has happened. To do that, you need to examine the environment and genetics of the population of organisms in question.

Here’s an analogy for you: Saying that species evolve due to “natural selection” is like saying that a car goes faster due to pressure on the accelerator pedal. They both leave out a large amount of detail, and in both cases, the details will be different in different situations (the car could run on a gas engine, batteries, turbine, etc. - “natural selection” could be due to rapid environmental change, slow accumulation of beneficial mutations, etc.).

You appear to be accusing everyone of confusing the term for the numerous types of action that term implies, but that’s simply untrue. As such, it appears to be a straw man argument, in which you are claiming that current theory stops at saying, “it’s natural selection,” which is only the case on the very surface. Dig deeper. Learn what natural selection is all about. There are numerous examples to be found in which the selection pressures are well-known - even controlled experiments.

I didn’t use the word unconscious, I spoke of equilibrium. Nor did I say that that integrated wholes are homeostatic, I said the nature of that integration was homeostatic. In developmental homeostasis there can be small differences in the genotype and quite large changes in the environment and yet the same organism will emerge. As a “mature” adult homeostasis is then often described by “set points” such as temperature.

Now you are confusing a single organism’s homeostatic processes with a homeostatis of genotypes (I think I’d prefer the term “evolutionary inertia” or something similar). This, if I’m not mistaken, is the “weak” form that G&L discuss in your quote on page 1 of this thread.

If you equate the reptilian brain to the base of a standard lightbulb, the old mammalian brain to the narrow glass stem, and the new mammalian brain to the large glass bulb then it doesn’t matter if the bulb is on or off (the organism is awake/sleep), activity in the base of the light bulb is largely unchanged.

False analogy. When a lamp’s switch is off, no power is applied to the base of the bulb, and this changes when you turn the switch on. Besides which, whether a bulb is on or off, there is no change at all to any of the glass parts of a lightbulb. Photons go through them regardless of the state of the light switch.

It is in the areas of the base and the narrow stem that I am interested and from which many homeostatic functions are initiated.

Again, you must show that there does exist a mechanism or process through which signals from the brain stem change the genotype in the germ cells of higher animals. Don’t forget the differences between male and female germ cells, either.

Also, how does anything about the brain stem apply to the willow moth caterpillars? Or better yet, to E. coli bacteria? If your theory doesn’t account for all life, it is worthless as a ‘competitor’ to current evolutionary theory, which does.

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by jorolat *
Hey - I appear to have this place all to myself, don’t tell there are no objections to an internal mechanism!

There are many objections. However, I belive that the folks on this message board have now concluded that raising them would be an exercise in futility, since you are a clearly a zealot and not a scientist.

You will address the objections raised or I will start closing your threads. This forum is not intended for evangalism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
**

*Originally posted by jorolat *
Hey - I appear to have this place all to myself, don’t tell there are no objections to an internal mechanism!

There are many objections. However, I belive that the folks on this message board have now concluded that raising them would be an exercise in futility, since you are a clearly a zealot and not a scientist.

You will address the objections raised or I will start closing your threads. This forum is not intended for evangalism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. **

I could truthfully argue that other commitments have prevented me spending less time on this thread than would otherwise been the case. It would be more accurate, however, to say that I chose the GQ board rather than Great Debates because I only wanted to know if there were any other objections to an internal mechanism beyond those listed in the OP. Indeed I stated this in a later post and added that I didn’t even want to argue about what they may be.

I haven’t the time or inclination to find it but one reply began a sentence with the words “Natural Selection guides…” and in beginning this thread I was fully aware of the difficulties in communicating with mindsets who unconsciously see “Natural Selection” as a supernatural entity that acts on natural life without being part of it. It is a form of zealotry in itself.

Of course when called to account they will argue that this is not what they meant but a post or two later “Natural Selection does this” and “Evolution does that” will start to appear again and we’re back into the metaphysical.

I would argue that there are only individual organisms and their individual offspring. If all external supernatural agencies are discounted then that only leaves the organism and the answer to how evolution occurs must be internal. The “Spandrels” paper was written in 1979 and since that time both phenotypic plasticity and the Baldwin Effect are coming increasingly to the fore, the trend is towards recognition of an internal mechanism only this hasn’t been realized yet. Reality can only be denied for so long.

Another reason for not becoming overly involved, and part of the mindset mentioned above, is the tendensy to jump to erroneous conclusions. They are so tedious to reply to. One example in this thread was the assumption that I was comparing myself to Galileo whereas in actual fact I was simply employing the principle that “History never repeats itself but Psychology does”.

As to the charge of not being a scientist I would like to point out that natural life isn’t scientific either, the subject supposedly under discussion. This simply means if the nature of natural life isn’t taken into account then all you can do is generate modern day equivalents of the geocentric theory. Anyone who has read the “Spandrels” paper will recognize that this is Gould and Lewontin’s underlying argument in criticizing the adaptionist approach.

Religious zealots, particularly those who don’t realize that is what they are, do not like their conditioning disturbed. I have been accused of not being a scientist and as geocentrism was the science of its day I do not consider this a crime.

I have also been accused of being a zealot which is quite interesting. The appending of labels with a negative emotional content that has accrued under other circumstances and involving other people is often the precursor of punishment. The way it works is this:

1. You apply the label and then see the person to whom it is applied only in terms of that label (ie they become responsible* for the negative feelings the label has accumulated)

2. Once the victim has become responsible for those feelings then they can be righteously discharged upon that person with no subsequent feelings of guilt.

This is how mild forms of abuse are often rationalized. Neat trick huh?

Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for upsetting bad feelings that his peers weren’t born with and which neither he or the rest of the world were responsible for.

Thank God this isn’t the 17th Century!

Jorolat

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
**

*Originally posted by jorolat *
Hey - I appear to have this place all to myself, don’t tell there are no objections to an internal mechanism!

There are many objections. However, I belive that the folks on this message board have now concluded that raising them would be an exercise in futility, since you are a clearly a zealot and not a scientist.

You will address the objections raised or I will start closing your threads. This forum is not intended for evangalism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. **

I could truthfully argue that other commitments have prevented me spending less time on this thread than would otherwise been the case. It would be more accurate, however, to say that I chose the GQ board rather than Great Debates because I only wanted to know if there were any other objections to an internal mechanism beyond those listed in the OP. Indeed I stated this in a later post and added that I didn’t even want to argue about what they may be.

I haven’t the time or inclination to find it but one reply began a sentence with the words “Natural Selection guides…” and in beginning this thread I was fully aware of the difficulties in communicating with mindsets who unconsciously see “Natural Selection” as a supernatural entity that acts on natural life without being part of it. It is a form of zealotry in itself.

Of course when called to account they will argue that this is not what they meant but a post or two later “Natural Selection does this” and “Evolution does that” will start to appear again and we’re back into the metaphysical.

I would argue that there are only individual organisms and their individual offspring. If all external supernatural agencies are discounted then that only leaves the organism and the answer to how evolution occurs must be internal. The “Spandrels” paper was written in 1979 and since that time both phenotypic plasticity and the Baldwin Effect are coming increasingly to the fore, the trend is towards recognition of an internal mechanism only this hasn’t been realized yet. Reality can only be denied for so long.

Another reason for not becoming overly involved, and part of the mindset mentioned above, is the tendensy to jump to erroneous conclusions. They are so tedious to reply to. One example in this thread was the assumption that I was comparing myself to Galileo whereas in actual fact I was simply employing the principle that “History never repeats itself but Psychology does”.

As to the charge of not being a scientist I would like to point out that neither is natural life, the subject supposedly under discussion. This simply means if the nature of natural life isn’t taken into account then all you can do is generate modern day equivalents of the geocentric theory. Anyone who has read the “Spandrels” paper will recognize that this is Gould and Lewontin’s underlying argument in criticizing the adaptionist approach.

Religious zealots, particularly those who don’t realize that is what they are, do not like their conditioning disturbed. I have been accused of not being a scientist and as geocentrism was the science of its day I do not consider this a crime.

I have also been accused of being a zealot which is quite interesting. The appending of labels with a negative emotional content that has accrued under other circumstances and involving other people is often the precursor of punishment. The way it works is this:

1. You apply the label and then see the person to whom it is applied only in terms of that label (ie they become responsible* for the negative feelings the label has accumulated)

2. Once the victim has become responsible for those feelings then they can be righteously discharged upon that person with no subsequent feelings of guilt.

This is how mild forms of abuse are often rationalized. Neat trick huh?

Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for upsetting bad feelings that his peers weren’t born with and which neither he or the rest of the world were responsible for.

Thank God this isn’t the 17th Century!

Jorolat

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by jorolat *
**Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for upsetting bad feelings that his peers weren’t born with and which neither he or the rest of the world were responsible for.

Thank God this isn’t the 17th Century!

Jorolat **

Well, he did spend some of his life under house arrest for upsetting people, but it wasn’t exactly because he said “I think the heliocentric theory is right, and Jupiter has moons” It was more for saying, “It’s obvious the heliocentric theory is right! What fools you geocentrists are! Don’t you know that the heliocentric theory is right and Ptolmey and the bible are lies?!”, and just generally being a jerk about his findings.

But I agree. It’s a good thing this isn’t the 17th century, and people can be jerks and patronizing without being locked up.

[Firx]

Apparently, Jorolat, you have more memory problems than I thought. You see, unlike you, I did go back and look at all of the posts in this thread, and guess what? No-one said anything even close to what you claim:

[quote]
I haven’t the time or inclination to find it but one reply began a sentence with the words “Natural Selection guides…” and in beginning this thread I was fully aware of the difficulties in communicating with mindsets who unconsciously see “Natural Selection” as a supernatural entity that acts on natural life without being part of it. It is a form of zealotry in itself.

Of course when called to account they will argue that this is not what they meant but a post or two later “Natural Selection does this” and “Evolution does that” will start to appear again and we’re back into the metaphysical.

[quote]

In fact, I will personally vouchsafe that none of the remarks your have ‘quoted’ were actually said. I’ll also vouchsafe that neither were the sentiments they represent ever expressed. The only person who has been “called to account” about anything in this thread has been you, and instead of realising what was happening, all you’ve done is continue to insult people.

My first thought on reading your last post was to ask that the moderator close the thread so that we wouldn’t have any more chance of hearing your inane drivel, but I’ll do something else instead. I would first like to remind everyone that Jorolat has pulled this trick once before; having done so I would like to ask that everyone pitch in and squash this bug for good. I entreat everyone who looks at this thread to go here and append an answer to this question: has Jorolat been posting in good faith?, or has he been an outrageous jackass? Please, help stop this madness!

[jorolat]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**

*Originally posted by jorolat *
**Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for upsetting bad feelings that his peers weren’t born with and which neither he or the rest of the world were responsible for.

Thank God this isn’t the 17th Century!

Jorolat **

Well, he did spend some of his life under house arrest for upsetting people, but it wasn’t exactly because he said “I think the heliocentric theory is right, and Jupiter has moons” It was more for saying, “It’s obvious the heliocentric theory is right! What fools you geocentrists are! Don’t you know that the heliocentric theory is right and Ptolmey and the bible are lies?!”, and just generally being a jerk about his findings.

But I agree. It’s a good thing this isn’t the 17th century, and people can be jerks and patronizing without being locked up. **

My understanding is that he spent the rest of his life (8 years) under house arrest but I would have to check it out.

In 1640 Galileo wrote a letter to Fortunio Liceti in which he said:

“If Aristotle were to see the new discoveries recently [made] in the heavens, whose immobility he had asserted, because no alteration had previously been seen in them, he would now without doubt state the contrary.”

This statement highlights the danger of placing dependence on words frozen in time without taking into account how those words would change if their author had had access to the discoveries that have since been made.

It was the psychological dependence of Galileo’s peers on Aristotle that was the problem. Must have been a nightmare dealing with people whose minds were so affected by conditioning that they couldn’t see the simple truth in the above statement.

Jorolat

[jorolat]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Firx *
**Apparently, Jorolat, you have more memory problems than I thought. You see, unlike you, I did go back and look at all of the posts in this thread, and guess what? No-one said anything even close to what you claim:

[quote]
I haven’t the time or inclination to find it but one reply began a sentence with the words “Natural Selection guides…” and in beginning this thread I was fully aware of the difficulties in communicating with mindsets who unconsciously see “Natural Selection” as a supernatural entity that acts on natural life without being part of it. It is a form of zealotry in itself.

Of course when called to account they will argue that this is not what they meant but a post or two later “Natural Selection does this” and “Evolution does that” will start to appear again and we’re back into the metaphysical.

In fact, I will personally vouchsafe that none of the remarks your have ‘quoted’ were actually said. I’ll also vouchsafe that neither were the sentiments they represent ever expressed. The only person who has been “called to account” about anything in this thread has been you, and instead of realising what was happening, all you’ve done is continue to insult people.

My first thought on reading your last post was to ask that the moderator close the thread so that we wouldn’t have any more chance of hearing your inane drivel, but I’ll do something else instead. I would first like to remind everyone that Jorolat has pulled this trick once before; having done so I would like to ask that everyone pitch in and squash this bug for good. I entreat everyone who looks at this thread to go here and append an answer to this question: has Jorolat been posting in good faith?, or has he been an outrageous jackass? Please, help stop this madness! **

In saying "I haven’t the time or inclination to find it but one reply began a sentence with the words “Natural Selection guides…” I hope it is obvious that I was quoting from memory and you are indeed correct in pointing out that no one said “Natural Selection guides…”.

What was actually said was:

I think the “weak” form says something more like 'once the entire body plan is put together no really large changes can occur, and the process by which the body plan forms is GUIDED BY NATURAL SELECTION [my emphasis]. This would seem to be consistent with many of the ideas Gould expressed in “Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”.

This appeared in a message posted on the 17th September at 11.12 pm and can be found on page 1 of this thread. The paragraph was subsequently quoted by someone else who apparently didn’t see any incongruity in the phrase I have emphasised.

I must admit that after reading your post re my memory and good faith that I was astonished to find that the author of this phrase was none other than yourself!

Bearing in mind that this is the GQ message board and not General Debates, along with the limited time that I’ve had up to now to spend on this, I would like to point out there is an additional communication problem when I say something like:

The original post was simply looking for objections to an internal mechanism beyond those listed. In terms of “Populations evolve, individuals don’t” it would basically be a question of whether germ cell mutations are all truly random or could an unknown percentage be due to an INDIRECT [my emphasis] (and non-Lamarckian) internal mechanism (posted on the 17th at 7.21 am)

and this is thereafter interpreted as:

By “internal mechanism,” you mean some process which changes an individual’s genes (or just the genes within the germ cels), yes? This would imply that some part of evolution is SELF DIRECTED, [my emphasis] (posted at 5.36 pm on the 17th)

or

Oh. OH! Okay. G&L are saying here that S, R & G are claiming that natural selection is fine for the “little things,” but for initiating or transitioning between forms, it’s not enough, and there must be “something else” (some strange “internal mechanism” that no biologist has yet found, or maybe God perhaps?) DIRECTING [my emphasis] the process. (posted at 7.47 pm on the 17th)

There are probably more examples but the point I’m making is that the difference between “direct” and “indirect” is more than two letters.

I’ve checked in the mirror - I can’t find any long ears.

Jorolat

[DaveW]

After quoting two of my posts, Jorolat wrote:

There are probably more examples but the point I’m making is that the difference between “direct” and “indirect” is more than two letters.

What you are ignoring is that in those two posts it is obvious that I was trying to figure out just what you were talking about. Feel free to ignore those early posts. Do not feel free to ignore the later ones, though. And you probably shouldn’t ignore my latest ‘contributions’ to the Pit thread.

Forgive me if my memory is bad, but I don’t think I’ve read anything from you in which you define what you mean by ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’. All I had to go on in the posts you quoted and emphasized was the G&L quote, so of course I got it wrong when applied to your meaning. So, please define the following terms, in your own words: direct, indirect, natural selection, and evolution.