Yet again, evolution says that all observed features can be explained by copy-vary-select mechanisms, ID says some can’t. They can’t both be right, and ID is not a valid argument but mere Pythonesque naysaying. If that makes me tribal, well, bang the frigging bongos.
That sounds right, probably what my confused thoughts were on.
Major changes in the earth would cause thousands of species to go through a rapid evolutionary period.
I think the specific paper I read proposed that most changes were rapid as opposed to gradual natural selection that Darwin originally proposed.
Jim
Well, there’s the utterly discredited Lamarckism, which would give my offspring an appendectomy scar and an ability to play the guitar.
Frankly, I don’t think old Kurt is really that familiar with evolutionary biology, and hasn’t thought his position through very well.
I am 100% certain others on this board understand Gould better than I do, but that’s never convinced me to keep my trap shut before :).
The idea of punctuated equilibrium is indeed that most changes are “rapid.” Me and my fellow finches have adapted a pretty good way of keepin on keepin on, what with the juniper bushes in our neighborhood. But when a new type of predatory snake expands into our territory, our population is decimated: the snake loves to sneak up on our low-branch nests and eat the little chickies.
However, in every generation, there are a few oddball finches who prefer to build their nests in the holly bush. Holly bushes are denser at the bottom than juniper bushes, so the snake has a harder time getting into those bushes. Suddenly, these are the finches that become much more abundant. ANd then some of these finches develop a taste for holly berries, and since they’re so much closer to their food, they have a survival advantage. Then some finches develop beaks better adapted to eating holly berries, and they become the most abundant.
Speciation has occurred. The finches keep on keepin on this way, until a new source of food becomes available, and speciation occurs again.
Nature, according to Punctuated Equilibrium, thinks that Continuous Quality Improvement is a load of crock.
Daniel
Put simply, there are instances which are better explained by punctuated equilibrium than the gradualism favoured by Darwin. Both of these are still evolution. Evolution is a fact, and PE and gradualism address different rates of evolution.
I dunno. Like someone else said, evolutionary biology formed the central plot poit of his book Galapagos. I think that the two likeliest explanations are:
- He misspoke, meaning to imply that religion was not incompatible with evolution but instead saying that evolution is a crappy explanation for complex lifeforms; or
- He’s changed his mind as he grows older.
But I don’t think ignorance of evolution is a likely explanation. Personally, I’m going for #1, and this couldn’t possibly have anything to do with how much I idolized Vonnegut in my youth :).
Daniel
I’ll say.
Has evolution ever explained consciousness? Emotion? Dreams? What some people would call a “soul”? Kurt’s not saying they can’t have evolved, just that there are some things we don’t know yet and that maybe some things about humanity are a little too big for us to explain with current scientific theory just right now. And that as soon as you say something like that, people will automatically think you side with the fundies and are anti-science, and that’s tribalist behavior.
People in this thread are sure proving him right.
Bullshit.
Daniel
I too heard the interview and my heart kind of sank when I heard what KV said. But then I got my hands on his latest book “A Man Without A Country” and encountered some of his other thoughts on evolution where he didn’t seem to be factually disputing it but he did seem to be highly disappointed with it:
This is significantly different from what he said on NPR. I don’t think the man’s gone dotty by any stretch of the imagination, but anyone familiar with his books knows that he operates more on emotion, rhetoric, and fancy rather than a direct appeal to the facts. For someone like Vonnegut (and I speak from this position as best I understand and share it), to be human is an important and humble thing at the same time. But if your whole worldview of humanity is grounded solely in evolution then we are destined to a purposeless march toward ceaseless consumerism, war, and cruelty, really with no good reason not to. Personally I try to put this conflict out of my mind and deal with humanity as it is and can be while neglecting the implications of atheistic origins, but this sort of question ought to drive a true secular humanist to drink.
I think this thread is absolutely proving Vonnegut right aboutthe tribalism. His point was, yes there is evolution, but how in the world can it actually explain me? My eye? My nervous system? My emotion? OK, so I have these questions and I find it hard to believe it could have all been the result of evolution. It may have, it probably has. But the dogmatic out there hear me ask that question and try to shout me down. "Ignorant! Foolish! Wacko! Look we said it was evolution, we know it was evolution, how can you even have these questions!"So instead of trying to explain or too explore, you cast aside and for many people who are they forced to? The fundamentalist religious ID tonic salesmen.
I certainly believe evolution, but I also wonder about the things davenportavenger mentioned. Emotion. Free-will. Consciousness etc. What Vonnegut seems to me to be asaying, is help embrace those who still wonder about it, don’t push them away. Most people are not dogmatic IDers, but they are treated as such because they do not accept evolution as an absolute.
Okay, yeah, the “couldn’t possibly” doesn’t leave much room for debate, but I’ll chalk that up to the fact that he’s a very old man and also very stubborn. Haven’t you ever had that kind of slip? I think the general gist of his statement was still quite hazy and agnostic. He seemed to be opposing dogmatism in all its forms, whether religious or scientific. I don’t think that one bad choice of phrase negates anything.
Damn, now I really want to read Man without a Country.
I did not hear the interview so I am going on his written word. It sounds to me that he is saying evolution does not explain the totality that is Man. It does not explain morality or consciousness or free will or many of the other things that makes us human.
Evolution does not explain this machine we call Man. I’m not a big KV fan-- in fact, I haven’t read a single book of his-- but I think he’s absolutely right about that. And I am a firm believer in evolution.
Thanks, lissener (and Polerius), your post wasn’t there when I wrote my post.
I don’t think this thread is an example of Vonnegut’s tribalism. Pointing out factual mistakes in others’ public statements is not tribalistic. It’s debate.
I believe the essential problem displayed by Vonnegut (and separately by anti-evolutionists) is that he expects too much from a scientific theory. Evolution is a statistical science describing how populations of living entities change over time. (Not any different than thermodynamics describing how energy distributions change over time.)
That’s it. Evolution doesn’t give us a purpose. Why should it? If Vonnegut has a problem with human purpose, that’s fine, but don’t drag evolution into it. (And the fact that others (i.e., some religious fundamentalists) do, is a poor excuse.)
Sort of. PE is an explanation for the appearance of the fossil record, and that appearance is largely a byproduct of the pacing of speciation events, rather than a simple incompleteness (i.e., even if we dug up every fossil in existence, we would still see much the same pattern). Speciation occurs most typically in small populations which, while changing rapidly, are statistically unlikely to yield fossil representatives. These periods of rapid change, then, are typically lost to the fossil record. By the time the species has achieved sufficient size and/or distribution to yield a statistical sampling of fossils, the population will likely have stabilized to the point wehere major changes are lost in the greater gene pool. The species thus appears “static” (even though seasonal fluctuations and the like will still occur, these will likewise be statistically unlikely to be represented in the fossil record).
So, what we have is a pattern of fully-formed species appearing suddenly in the record, then reminaing more or less contsant during their run, then disappearing as suddenly as they appeared. And this pattern is a direct result of the rapid pace of speciation in small populations, and the muting effect of large ones (all coupled with the statistical unlikelihood of fossilization for any given individual), rather than an incompleteness, in the sense that we simply haven’t found all the intermediates yet.
Very well said. That’s what I meant to say.
Sometimes those of us who are grounded in the sciences forget that the vast majority of the world is made up of people who aren’t. Many people are taking many different paths to the truths, starting from different places. If you brand all the people who took an extended detour through stupidland as being adversaries, then they may just decide to take up permanent residence there. This is what I think KV was saying. Such ideas are enhanced by his talented, but obfuscated by his mediocre speaking abilities.
If folks are saying, “You’re admitting the possibility of a god? Heresy!” then yeah, I agree, they’re doing what he’s talking about.
If folks are saying, “I disagree that evolution can’t possibly explain a human being,” then they’re not being tribalistic. Disagreeing with someone is not tribalism: it’s healthy debate.
I disagree with Vonnegut’s “couldn’t possibly” statement, whether he meant it or not. My disagreement with him on that does not mean that I want his head on a pike.
Daniel
I meant to say, “such ideas are enhanced by his talented writing, but obfuscated by his mediocre speaking abilities.”
Thanks, Darwin’s Finch, for your explanation of PE!
Daniel
Of course that’s true, but what’s in question is what happens in response to agreement. You can either respectfully discuss the issues, or you can organize along tribal lines and try to stamp out the other position entirely. I think Vonnegut was just using evolution as an example of where the disagreement has tribalized.
Right, and I agree. I think it’s overgeneralizing to characterize this thread as an example: specific posts might be, but if we dismiss the whole thread as tribalistic behavior, then we ourselves stamp out debate.
Daniel