What Darwin Got Wrong

[bascule]

Anyone taken a look at this?

 

http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/0374288798

 

The authors of this scattershot treatise believe in evolution, but think that the Darwinian model of adaptationism—that random genetic mutations, filtered by natural selection, produce traits that enhance fitness for a particular biological niche—is fatally flawed. Philosopher Fodor and molecular-biologist-turned-cognitive-scientist Piattelli-Palmarini, at the University of Arizona, launch a three-pronged attack (which drew fire when Fodor presented their ideas in the London Review of Books in 2007). For one thing, according to the authors, natural selection contains a logical fallacy by linking two irreconcilable claims: first, that creatures with adaptive traits are selected, and second, that creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. The authors present an ill-digested assortment of scientific studies suggesting there are forces other than adaptation (some even Lamarckian) that drive changes in genes and organisms . Then they advance a densely technical argument that natural selection can't coherently distinguish between adaptive traits and irrelevant ones. Their most persuasive, and engaging, criticism is that evolutionary theory is just tautological truisms and historical narratives of how creatures came to be. Overall, the scientific evidence and philosophical analyses the authors proffer are murky and underwhelming. Worse, their highly technical treatment renders their argument virtually incomprehensible to lay readers.

 

Sounds... interesting and weird. The language used to describe it reminds me an awful lot of Roger Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind

[Mokele]

Sounds like two morons who don't understand evolutionary biology.

 

I'd rather shove an ice-pick into my eye than listen to anymore drivel by "philosophers" trying to comment on science while illustrating how colossally poorly equipped they are to do so.

[bascule]

I'd rather shove an ice-pick into my eye than listen to anymore drivel by "philosophers" trying to comment on science while illustrating how colossally poorly equipped they are to do so.

 

They're scientists, but they're scientists indulging in philosophy to make scientifically indefensible arguments. In my mind this sort of thing doesn't end well. Penrose and Hammeroff bent over backwards inventing a hypothesis for a quantum mechanical "pineal gland" that could serve as the back door to consciousness, all as part of an overall philosophical conjecture that consciousness is fundamentally non-computable. Penrose's credentials would seemingly lend credence to his arguments, however ill-founded they may be.

 

Meanwhile, the computational theory of mind remains on sound scientific footing and best matches all of the available information to date.

[blood_pardon]

Sounds like two morons who don't understand evolutionary biology.

 

I'd rather shove an ice-pick into my eye than listen to anymore drivel by "philosophers" trying to comment on science while illustrating how colossally poorly equipped they are to do so.

Wouldn't philosophy and science go hand and hand in understanding reality?

[gcol]

You know a "true scientist" when, presented with a comprehensive toolbox, they always select only one......mathematics. Blinkered, or what?

 

To make matters worse, they then claim to be the sole judges and arbiters of logic. Funny lot, really. Still, we should not mock the afflicted. They do their best, within their limitations.

 

Just continue to gently persude them to examine themselves as rigourously as they would examine others. (hockey sticks and glaciers, anyone?)

[Sisyphus]

For one thing, according to the authors, natural selection contains a logical fallacy by linking two irreconcilable claims: first, that creatures with adaptive traits are selected, and second, that creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

 

Anyone have any idea what this means? Are they using the term "selection" differently than everyone else?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, guys, this has nothing to do with philosophy. "Philosophy" /= "whatever bullshit pops into you head."

[Phi for All]

For one thing, according to the authors, natural selection contains a logical fallacy by linking two irreconcilable claims: first, that creatures with adaptive traits are selected, and second, that creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

 

Anyone have any idea what this means? Are they using the term "selection" differently than everyone else?

To me, it seems like they're claiming it's circular reasoning to say that adaptive traits cause selection while also saying that evolution selects adaptive traits. However, I think the logic that adaptation gives a higher chance of surviving to mate overrides any seeming tautology.

 

I don't see how you could argue that adaptive traits aren't preferable over irrelevant ones. The authors use of "densely technical" and "murky" arguments makes me think they haven't found a theory that answers more questions or gives a better explanation than natural selection.

[Sisyphus]

I just don't get the circular reasoning, because it sounds like saying the same thing twice.

 

"Creatures with adaptive traits are selected."

"Creatures are selected for their adaptive traits."

 

That's the same thing. What is the logic that they're "irreconcilable?" That's what makes me think they're using terms incorrectly. Seriously, can anyone at least rephrase the claim to make it intelligible?

[Mr Skeptic]

In any case, Darwin acknowledged the existence of non-adaptive traits, such as those selected for via sexual selection. Likewise, largely neutral traits can also be affected via genetic drift, which has been known since a little after Mendelian genetics was applied to evolution.

 

There's a response to that book on arXive:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.1888v1.pdf

A sample response to "(2) Rather, Darwin's theory looks much closer to a tautology.":

That today's heritable traits are those of yesterday's heritable traits that caused the creatures inheriting them to be more successful, in their environment, in surviving and reproducing thanks to (some of) those very traits, is indeed a tautology --

once you realize the consequences of the fact that there does indeed exist such a heritable variation/retention process

; but not without that realization. And that is the realization we owe to Darwin.

[Phi for All]

Seriously, can anyone at least rephrase the claim to make it intelligible?

I think you're right, the critic from Amazon phrased it badly. I think the circular logic argument would more correctly be:

 

"Creatures with adaptive traits are selected."

"Adaptive traits cause evolution to select them."

 

It may sound circular, but since that isn't the only argument for natural selection, then the point is moot. The fact that adaptive traits make a creature more successful in surviving to reproduce is the overwhelming argument.

[Mokele]

The problem is treating "adaptive" as if it's some sort of trait of the allele, rather than a description of how evolution acts on an allele.

 

It's like saying that proclaiming a book as best-selling as a tautology, because best-selling books are defined by their sales.

 

The correct statement is that populations contain a wide array of traits, some of which propagate more effectively to the next generation than others, and traits which exhibit this trend are called "adaptive". The trait is only adaptive if it's selected - there is no such thing as an "adaptive" trait, in spite of the lazy and imprecise language of some authors.

[bascule]

It's like saying that proclaiming a book as best-selling as a tautology, because best-selling books are defined by their sales.

 

Haha, that's an awesome analogy

[Mr Skeptic]

The authors appeared on NewScientist to defend/pimp their book.

 

In that article, for the most part they are claiming that the effects of Natural Selection have been overestimated. True of Darwin, no doubt, but we all knew of non-NS effects for many decades already.

[Mokele]

Natural selection isn't the only part of evolution, but it's the only part that's interesting.

[Galindo]

Darwin was correct.

[insane_alien]

Darwin was correct.

 

not completely.

[Skye]

I think you're right, the critic from Amazon phrased it badly. I think the circular logic argument would more correctly be:

 

"Creatures with adaptive traits are selected."

"Adaptive traits cause evolution to select them."

 

It may sound circular, but since that isn't the only argument for natural selection, then the point is moot. The fact that adaptive traits make a creature more successful in surviving to reproduce is the overwhelming argument.

 

It's not circular, it's iterative.

 

Anyway they provide an explanation for the book:

 

Accordingly, if natural selection disappears from biology, its offshoots in other fields seem likely to disappear as well. This is an outcome much to be desired since, more often than not, these offshoots have proved to be not just post hoc but ad hoc, crude, reductionist, scientistic rather than scientific, shamelessly self-congratulatory, and so wanting in detail that they are bound to accommodate the data, however that data may turn out. So it really does matter whether natural selection is true.

 

That's why we wrote our book.

 

Which boils down to: since natural selection is misused by pop psychologists it must be wrong!

 

Idiots.

[Galindo]

not completely.

 

yes he was....you'll see

[insane_alien]

darwin's evolution didn't include a whole lot of things. mainly because they hadn't been discovered. science progresses, it doesn't remain static.

[CharonY]

Natural selection isn't the only part of evolution, but it's the only part that's interesting.

 

Uh, I kind of disagree with that. It depends on what you want to know. In some cases it is particular interesting to look at non-selective areas.