something of a research question

[RAFF]

Can anyone help me find a list of publications (books, articles - scholarly or otherwise, ect) on why it is that Natural Selection is incompatible with a teleological or designed view of the human species. Specifically, I'm looking for a published explanation of why it is that God could not have created humans using Darwinian Evolution.

 

 

Why the idea of God creating Humans is simply incompatible with Natural Selection. Any publications would be appreciated. Its been along time since I've read the God Delusion but I would assume that it must be in there. Anyone know of any others?

 

 

Thanks a million.

 

R

[Nathan Flinn]

Can anyone help me find a list of publications (books, articles - scholarly or otherwise, ect) on why it is that Natural Selection is incompatible with a teleological or designed view of the human species. Specifically, I'm looking for a published explanation of why it is that God could not have created humans using Darwinian Evolution.

 

 

Why the idea of God creating Humans is simply incompatible with Natural Selection. Any publications would be appreciated. Its been along time since I've read the God Delusion but I would assume that it must be in there. Anyone know of any others?

 

 

Thanks a million.

 

R

 

Sorry for not delivering exactly what you are asking for but I am curious why are you interested in such a publication? Any given reviewed or non-reviewed article on any given topic will do the trick. Natural selection (you can drop the caps) is indeed logically fully compatible with the "designed view". There is just no evidence for the "designed view". But there is tones of evidence that evolutionary process is either blind (bad local solutions replace good global solutions) or that the designer is an idiot or that the designer is hidden in the laws of probabilities (in which case we would have to reconsider the meaning of "design").

 

 

 

 

 

[ecoli]

Why the idea of God creating Humans is simply incompatible with Natural Selection. Any publications would be appreciated. Its been along time since I've read the God Delusion but I would assume that it must be in there. Anyone know of any others?

 

It's not that Natural selection is incompatible with God creating humans, its just that natural selection works independently of any personal ideas about God. There's no evidence that a God exists, so there's no reason to put it into a scientific theory.

[StringJunky]

The other reason is that there is no need for the existence of a deity to explain it.

[Ringer]

To add on to the above, because I didn't see it directly stated, a natural scientific explanation will try to use the least amount, or the most credible, assumptions. Since adding something supernatural is a huge non-credible assumption it tends to be excluded because it is unnecessary and only adds baggage without better explaining anything.

 

Also, since science deals with the natural the super-natural is mostly agreed to be outside of empirical observation so you probably won't find any real high quality publication with discussion of the supernatural. What you can find in some instances is Creationist or Intelligent Design hypothesis being tested under good scientific control and methodology. When that has happened, or when results are independently tested, the ideas behind these things are grossly inaccurate. Add to that the constant misrepresentation and ignoring evidence of ID proponents and it makes their ideas even harder to take seriously, much less care about.

[Ophiolite]

Can anyone help me find a list of publications (books, articles - scholarly or otherwise, ect) on why it is that Natural Selection is incompatible with a teleological or designed view of the human species. Specifically, I'm looking for a published explanation of why it is that God could not have created humans using Darwinian Evolution.

As others have noted the current theories of natural selection are not incompatible with god using evolution to produce humans. This would also require that he had, for example, directed the bolide strike that wiped out the dinosaurs and a host of other unique events without which humans would not exist. This may have happened, but there is no substantial evidence that it did happen.

 

There remain many unanswered questions on the evolution of humans specifically, and life in general, that might have a teleological explanation. Again, there is no compelling evidence to give this possibility serious attention currently. Arguments such as those of irreducible complexity are attempts to generate such evidence, but thus far they have been found wanting.

 

The following books address, at least in part, what you are looking for.

 

Mark Perakh Unintelligent Design Prometheus Books 2004 ISBN: 1-51902-084-0

 

Eugenie C. Scott Evolution vs. Creationism University of California Press 2004 ISBN: 0-520-24650-0

 

Kenneth R. Miller Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Penguin 2008 ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3

 

Michael Brant Shermer Why Evolution Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design Henry Holt and Company 2006 ISBN:0-8050-8121-6

 

Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2000 ISBN: 0-262-16180-X

[RAFF]

Thank You,

 

Especially Ophiolite.

 

I'm curious to weed out what exactly the board means by in/compatibility because I am given to the notion that there really is an incompatibility between a teleological account and the process of NS.

 

Religious moderates often believe that God used the process of NS to create human beings. But I feel that this diagnosis stems from a misunderstanding of how NS works. I could understand god using Lamarckian evolution and that I think is the common misunderstanding because people tend to think of evolution as creatures morphing into other creatures as if they were made of clay. But the process of NS is inherently devoid of teleology.

 

And since NS is sufficient to explain our existence the question becomes; what exactly would God's contribution to the creation of human beings be?

 

Since mutations are random, God has nothing to contribute there. If he were to guide mutations then we did not evolve according to NS. Therefore it seems the only role god could have is through the termination of species, which is odd for a benevolent "Creator". In this view life keeps cropping up like weeds and God is the disinfectant. However, the point is that this is not the view the RMods are proposing when they think of NS as being compatible with their beliefs. After all we not talking about a creator or even a designer really. Termination may be teleological in its end but it is not a teleological process of creation. And even if it is teleological in its end, since the mutations are random, it can't be claimed that god is terminating one species with the aim of getting a certain kind of species.

 

 

The only other way I can see NS being compatible is through the possibility for some sort of "parallelism" between natural processes and the acts of supernatural deity.

But even if we ignore the fact that parallelism defies Occam's Razor there still the further problem as before. There is nothing left to contribute once NS has run its course. There is no role for the parallel supernatural to fill. Everything has been done already, which makes parallelism possible but absurd.

 

 

So it seems that me that what we really mean by God is not compatible with NS. A God who has a role to play, and a God who intentionally engages in the process of creation. Of course we can mold god into anything, but that wouldn't be the moderates' view of god.

Edited July 20, 2012 by RAFF

[Moontanman]

So it seems that me that what we really mean by God is not compatible with NS. A God who has a role to play, and a God who intentionally engages in the process of creation. Of course we can mold god into anything, but that wouldn't be the moderates' view of god.

 

 

The concept of God that is inherently incompatible with Evolution is the Young Earth Creationist Idea, many Theists prefer to believe that God works though natural means to guide everything in the universe.

 

The problem is that Science and the methods of science do not work when trying to measure the supernatural, they discount the supernatural, not because it cannot exist but because it is not detectable via scientific means... and yes it has been tried...

 

Originally as the enlightenment began to take shape the Christian Bible was considered to be absolutely true but as men began to study the natural world it became apparent the Bible was not an accurate description of reality.

 

BTW, YEC is not limited to Christians nor do Christians have a strangle hold on YEC, other religions with different creation stories and different gods or pantheons of gods out number Christian YECs.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Moontanman

[RAFF]

The concept of God that is inherently incompatible with Evolution is the Young Earth Creationist Idea, many Theists prefer to believe that God works though natural means to guide everything in the universe.

 

I think the issue is a bit sicker that. And That's what I was trying to convey. Sure YEC is incompatible, indeed, but so are most other ideas of God. Any idea of god that involves intentionally creating human beings is incompatible with NS. The only Theism that works with NS is perhaps pantheism if you will.

 

Its important to be clear that the issue is with NS not just any garden variety form of evolution. NS is unique among possible forms of evolution because it works specifically without the possibility of intention. That's why the theory is so powerful. The idea that god guides the process is just the thing that is incompatible with the theory.

 

In a way Darwin did us a bit of a disservice in labeling the theory natural Selection. Because there is no selection, nothing is actually being selected. Its just that some things die before replicating, and others don't. What we see around us are the things that don't. It should really have been called the theory of replication, extinction and mutation or something like that.

Edited July 20, 2012 by RAFF

[Nathan Flinn]

So it seems that me that what we really mean by God is not compatible with NS.

 

You can narrow down "what we really mean by God" to the point when it really becomes incompatible with natural selection. But by doing this you would explain nothing. The only theory incompatible with natural selection would be the one that logically excludes it.

It doesn't seem to me that popular teleological views are incompatible with natural selection. There may be purpose in everything, even in the laws of probability. Likewise it is not obvious that what people really mean by God is not compatible with natural selection. Even deeply religious folks will often refer to the Genesis as a metaphoric script. There is no reason for a believer and a practitioner of a religion to take any script literary. In fact biblical scholars or pretty much any Rabbi will tell you that taking the script literary is equivalent to completely destroying it.

 

I suspect that the attack on the theory of evolution in general is more of an ideological, political and cultural issue than a theological one. Religions are almost by definition conservative and many people feel that their "family life" is threatened by the age of science and reason. So they use their religion to defend.

 

 

 

 

[RAFF]

You can narrow down "what we really mean by God" to the point when it really becomes incompatible with natural selection. But by doing this you would explain nothing. The only theory incompatible with natural selection would be the one that logically excludes it.

 

 

Hey Flinn, Logical exclusion opens the topic to such absurdities as parallelism, which are not realistic and shouldn't be taken seriously by an epistemologically responsible person.

 

If we are to be epistemologically responsible, It seems to me that the point where the idea of god becomes incompatible with NS is precisely the point where we interject teleology.

 

 

I would appreciate for anyone to correct me if I have a misunderstanding.

Let me simplify my position.

NS, as I understand it, has three components.

 

1. Chance driven mutation

2. Replication (which arose through mutation)

3. Extinction of some replicators and not others.

 

These components are sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see on earth.

 

My issue isn't so much with god, but teleology to be specific. God is only a problem when S/He is a personification of teleology. Even if the acts of God are metaphorical, the teleology behind them is not, and that is what is in question. It has nothing to do with a literal account of any scriptures.

 

If there is teleology behind (1.) mutation then the theory becomes altered to the extent that it can no longer be considered NS. It would instead be a form of the theory of orthogenetic evolution.

 

Teleology cannot be behind (2.) replication because the mechanisms of replication arose from mutation.

 

If teleology is behind (3.) extinction then such a teleology is not a teleological process of creation. It may be teleological to the extent that extinction is opening up new doors, but it can not be claimed that one door is preferred over others since the mutations are random. Even if the entire environment were purposefully altered to the extent to only allow one kind of mutation it would not be teleological process of creation. This is not at all the view we imagine when we imagine teleology as compatible with NS. Though this is an interesting perspective.

 

 

It doesn't seem to me that popular teleological views are incompatible with natural selection. There may be purpose in everything, even in the laws of probability.

 

Can you explain how this would relate to the process of natural selection, because I'm not talking about probability. I'm talking about the actual process of NS, as outlined above. I don't see any way for the theory of NS to stand while having purpose.

 

I suspect that the attack on the theory of evolution in general is more of an ideological, political and cultural issue than a theological one. Religions are almost by definition conservative and many people feel that their "family life" is threatened by the age of science and reason. So they use their religion to defend.

 

 

I would agree, but teleology is the real issue I'm interested in. If I have a misunderstanding on the matter please point it out to me. I'd be happily corrected on this.

 

THanks

Edited July 22, 2012 by RAFF

[Ringer]

I don't think most here care about being epistemology responsible, they care about being scientific. Since god, or gods, have nothing to do with science they can't be compared to natural selection using science. It's like me making the statement that since computers work god doesn't exist.

 

Also, there are more ways for things to evolve that random mutation and natural selection, but that's a different discussion.

[Nathan Flinn]

1. Chance driven mutation

2. Replication (which arose through mutation)

3. Extinction of some replicators and not others

1. Mutation may or may not be chance driven (depending on the replicator). But it sure is a stochastic process.

2. Replication in a broad sense can exist in the regime of error catastrophe and do just fine. But replication as we know it exists despite not because of mutation.

3. Natural selection does not require extinction. (Mare differential reproduction rate will suffice.)

These components are sufficient to produce all the diversity of life we see on earth.

 

[sarcastic mode] Right. [/sarcastic mode]

 

If there is teleology behind (1.) mutation then the theory becomes altered to the extent that it can no longer be considered NS.

 

Consider the DNA repair machinery. It is itself a selected feature of an organism. The efficiency of the DNA repair machinery could vary as a function of the amplitude of environmental fluctuations (at least in microorganisms). The exploration should increase with uncertainty of the future environmental conditions. So in relatively constant environments populations will keep a low mutation rate (efficient DNA repair machinery) and will move toward a local fitness maximum. But in less predictable conditions, where the peaks of maximal fitness shift, the mutation rate will increase (to follow the shifts).

 

In other words, mutation rate can be viewed as a rate of exploration. The regulation of the mutation rate is itself a selected feature.

Example: think of the HIV's inefficient RNA-DNA mutation prevention mechanism. Due to the unpredictability and the adaptive nature of the immune system the local fitness peaks are running all across the field. So the mutation rate must be high. See, the evolution of (at least) this virus is teleological.

 

This is a very simple algorithm: adapt the mutation rate to the predictability of the environment.

 

The bottom line: evolution, at least when it comes to mutation rate, is teleological.

Can you explain how this would relate to the process of natural selection, because I'm not talking about probability

You are talking about probability when you are talking about stochastic processes. There is nothing to exclude God from the laws of thermodynamics.

[RAFF]

Thanks Flinn

 

I appreciate your knowledge. I hope that you're interested in continuing

the conversation. I'd like to get a good grasp of this.

I'm not trying to argue for a position definitively I'd just like to weed out the points

and shine light on these issues so that I can understand this fully.

 

1. Mutation may or may not be chance driven (depending on the replicator). But it sure is

a stochastic process.

 

 

I grant that mutation is a stochastic process but if the process is not driven by either chance

or a combination of chance and determinism are we really talking about natural selection? If evidence amounted to

show that the process of mutation was driven by some other force... then isn't NS at best only a crude

approximation? That's not to say that the TofNS would be without utility, or that it

wouldn't have a place in our understanding of life. Darwin may prove to be analogous to

Newton. But it seems me that NS would be undermined to the extent that it could no longer be considered

true if some other force besides a combination of determinism and chance were driving the stochastic process of mutation.

Would you agree with that or not?

 

2. Replication in a broad sense can exist in the regime of error catastrophe and do just

fine. But replication as we know it exists despite not because of mutation.

True, many traits that resulted from mutations exist despite other mutations. Yes,

of course, the capacity to replicate exists despite random fluctuations in the genetic code that could undermine the process.

To an extent all continuously existent traits do. But unless we completely disregard abiogenesis then wouldn't the replicating traits themselves have

arisen from mutations? That was the point.

 

We can speculate with good reason that replication exists despite mutations because

the only organisms that exist are the ones who's replicating traits were able to exist despite further mutation.

But that doesn't mean that replication itself didn't arise from mutation or that replication works against mutation by its nature.

Organisms go extinct all the time because these traits fail to exist despite mutations.

 

 

[sarcastic mode] Right. [/sarcastic mode]

 

I may be wrong, and if I am please correct me, but...

To my understanding genetic drift, sexual selection, localized forms of lamarkian

evolution, ect. all piggy back on NS. NS being the fundamental mechanism behind the

rest. Fundamental because without NS there could be no genetic drift, sexual selection,

ect. The reverse is not true. That's what I was getting at.

 

 

Consider the DNA repair machinery. It is itself a selected feature of an organism. The

efficiency of the DNA repair machinery could vary as a function of the amplitude of

environmental fluctuations (at least in microorganisms). The exploration should increase

with uncertainty of the future environmental conditions. So in relatively constant

environments populations will keep a low mutation rate (efficient DNA repair machinery)

and will move toward a local fitness maximum. But in less predictable conditions, where

the peaks of maximal fitness shift, the mutation rate will increase (to follow the

shifts).

 

In other words, mutation rate can be viewed as a rate of exploration.

 

I'm really interested in understanding this. But there are a few points that are

unclear. I'm not familiar with what you mean by "exploration". Would you be willing to

clarify? And does "environmental fluctuations" refer to anything more specific than

changes in the environment?

 

Perhaps I need to get a better grasp of what your saying but I don't see any argument supporting a teleology of mutation rate variance.

Are you ruling out a purely mechanistic explanation behind mutation rate variance? Because it seems certain to me that there should be a purely mechanistic explanation behind the process you're describing.

 

I think the use of "selection" in the 2nd sentence is a dangerous

word despite its common usage in scientific discourse because what we refer to as natural selection isn't actually

a process of selection at all. I would argue that our use of language can create the appearance of teleology when in fact there is

none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example: think of the HIV's inefficient RNA-DNA mutation prevention mechanism. Due to the

unpredictability and the adaptive nature of the immune system the local fitness peaks are

running all across the field. So the mutation rate must be high. See, the evolution of

(at least) this virus is teleological.

 

 

I don't see how that shows the evolution of this virus to be teleological because i see no reason to discount a purely mechanistic explanation for mutation rate variance. If anything, the fitness peaks running all across the field only supports that fact that mutation is a random process, even if mutation rate variance depends on environmental fluctuations in the way you've explained. But, if I'm missing something please explain because I have more experience with philosophy than evolutionary biology.

 

 

This is a very simple algorithm: adapt the mutation rate to the predictability of the

environment.

 

Why is this necessarily a teleological algorithm as opposed to a mechanistic one?

Edited July 26, 2012 by RAFF

[CharonY]

This is a very simple algorithm: adapt the mutation rate to the predictability of the environment.<br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">The bottom line: evolution, at least when it comes to mutation rate, is teleological.

 

Well, this does not conform with data. According to this all pathogens or organisms living in changing environments should have mutation rates and this evidently not true. The mutation rate (as expressed per genome) is extremely different if you just compare DNA-based to retroviruses, for instance (several orders of magnitude). Even within a group the rates vary quite a bit (though high-quality data is sometimes lacking).

 

Eukaryotes have higher mutation rates than prokaryotes, but this is because they have basically more area to play around with, before things become detrimental (i.e. the genetic density is lower), despite the fact that many prokaryotes experience vastly different environments even within a single life cycle (e.g. transition from free-living to host-interaction).

Edited July 26, 2012 by CharonY

[ecoli]

Eukaryotes have higher mutation rates than prokaryotes, but this is because they have basically more area to play around with, before things become detrimental (i.e. the genetic density is lower), despite the fact that many prokaryotes experience vastly different environments even within a single life cycle (e.g. transition from free-living to host-interaction).

 

Added note: for multicellular life, fitness/reproduction is no longer dependent on how fast you can replicate the genome, so duplication events (for example) are not selected against.

[CharonY]

Well, this is only partially true. To avoid confusion I would like to state that this is only indirectly linked to mutation rate, however there are quite a number of unicellular eukaryotes with enormous genome sizes. An example is for instance Polychaos dubium with a genome size of more than 200 times that of humans. Size selection is actually somewhat complicated and not solely dependent on replication speed.

However, the mutation rate is more related to genetic density rather than size alone (although these are usually correlated).

[Nathan Flinn]

I'm not familiar with what you mean by "exploration". Would you be willing to

clarify? And does "environmental fluctuations" refer to anything more specific than

changes in the environment?

Imagine you are playing a game where the opponent hides an object somewhere in a room and your partner is directing you to it by calling your moves "hot" or "cold" (close and far from the target respectively) . If you are very far from the target (very "cold") you will increase the average distance of your exploratory movements (because your risk of missing the target is very low). On the other hand, when you get to a "hot" area, you should move less (lower exploration) because the target is close and you don't want to miss it.

 

Fitness landscape can be represented in 3D as follows: let x and y axis be any two features on which selection operates, and let z (up) be the fitness. The peaks in this landscape are where evolving populations "want" to be. Mutations cause populations to move in certain directions in this landscape (like your exploratory movements in the room of the above analogy). The mutation rate determines by how much they move.The problem is that this landscape is not static. The peaks of fitness move and the evolving populations must keep finding them. (To make it more complicated the peaks tend to move more when populations get close to them.) Therefore in unpredictable environments the movement amplitudes should be higher.

 

And then again, if a peak you are approaching is a relatively low local fitness maximum, it would be better to increase the mutation rate so much that the peak would be missed altogether (otherwise the population gets stuck to this peak because consistently moving downhill is prohibited).

And does "environmental fluctuations" refer to anything more specific than

changes in the environment?

 

No, that's what I meant.

 

I think the use of "selection" in the 2nd sentence is a dangerous word despite its common usage in scientific discourse because what we refer to as natural selection isn't actually

a process of selection at all. I would argue that our use of language can create the appearance of teleology when in fact there is

 

none.

I use the term in a regular way (the mainstream meaning). It does not suggest any agency is at work (and few rational people will understand it so). But this is how language evolves For example, why do mathematicians call "network theory" "graph theory"? It is so annoying but you just have to live with it.

 

I don't see how that shows the evolution of this virus to be teleological because i see no reason to discount a purely mechanistic explanation for mutation rate variance.

 

You mean purely functional explanation? The mechanistic explanation I have provided directly: a very messed up DNA-RNA reverse transcription process. But this mess has a function: increased exploration in an extremely unpredictable environment.

 

 

Why is this necessarily a teleological algorithm as opposed to a mechanistic one?

Because the mechanism is simply the inefficiency itself. But if this inefficiency is a function of environmental variability then we can talk about teleology. This is similar to predicting the risk in finance: nobody knows what the market is going to be tomorrow but we can change the dynamics of investments as a function of unpredictability itself. In less jumpy markets we can focus the investments more than in crazy markets of the time of this writing. Think Wall Street for a moment.

 

... continued from the beginning

 

Darwin may prove to be analogous to

Newton.

 

Indeed he may. It would be irrational to dismiss natural selection from the theory of evolution (in fact it is the major force in evolution). But there are other, non-Darwinian, forces in operation. I concentrated on one of them (regulation of exploration) to bring out the point that evolution could have a teleological component.

 

But unless we completely disregard abiogenesis then wouldn't the replicating traits themselves have

arisen from mutations?

 

Again, you can have replication before sufficiently low mutation rate and before selection. Such replicators would (and likely did and perhaps still do) evolve by "genetic drift" rather than by variation and selection.

 

This being said, of course you are right that replication mechanisms of most known organisms evolved by mutation and selection. It was the DNA repair mechanism that probably presented the critical event in the origin of Darwinian, selection driven, evolution.

 

Well, this does not conform with data. According to this all pathogens or organisms living in changing environments should have mutation rates and this evidently not true. The mutation rate (as expressed per genome) is extremely different if you just compare DNA-based to retroviruses, for instance (several orders of magnitude). Even within a group the rates vary quite a bit (though high-quality data is sometimes lacking).

 

Eukaryotes have higher mutation rates than prokaryotes, but this is because they have basically more area to play around with, before things become detrimental (i.e. the genetic density is lower), despite the fact that many prokaryotes experience vastly different environments even within a single life cycle (e.g. transition from free-living to host-interaction).

 

You are complicating -- unnecessarily so.

 

Yes, in more unpredictable environments the mutation rates should be higher. The non-coding regions in Eukaryotes mutate for various reasons (lack of selection, the regulation of gene expression [proximity to enhancers and such] , proximity to centromers, etc) but as you suggest* this measure is irrelevant for the topic. What matters are the coding regions (as mutation rate can vary even within the genome!). I am also not claiming that retroviruses evolved high mutation rates denovo. I am aware of historical constrains.

 

BTW: Prokaryotes may inhibit extremely invariant niches.

 

* Mutation rate/genetic density is the measure we are discussing.

[CharonY]

Yes, in more unpredictable environments the mutation rates should be higher. The non-coding regions in Eukaryotes mutate for various reasons (lack of selection, the regulation of gene expression [proximity to enhancers and such] , proximity to centromers, etc) but as you suggest* this measure is irrelevant for the topic. What matters are the coding regions (as mutation rate can vary even within the genome!). I am also not claiming that retroviruses evolved high mutation rates denovo. I am aware of historical constrains. <br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">BTW: Prokaryotes may inhibit extremely invariant niches.<br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 12.727272033691406px; line-height: 16.363636016845703px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">* Mutation rate/genetic density is the measure we are discussing.

 

Well, here is the thing, as you just realized, the mutation rate is dependent on a lot of factors (also I am currently not aware of studies that showed this correlation, considering that the stability of the environment is not trivial to assess). The dominating ones being the mechanisms of replication rather than the fitness landscape being the dominant one. Note that variability of mutation rate can be triggered on the individual level with stress being the key component. They do not simply select for error prone replication but rather balance it out (i.e. no movement towards higher mutation rate is found on an overall basis).

The point is that mutation rates are controlled and balanced out by a large number of factors and mechanisms and may find local maxima at which it is maintained as any increase may have immediate consequences for their fitness.

 

For these reasons the teleological assumption only holds if we oversimplify things and ignore existing data.

Look, there are both upper and lower limits for mutation rates, with the lower being the restriction of variability and higher being the rise of deleterious mutations.

As you acknowledge yourself the individual history (including the mechanisms involved in controlling mutation rates) is a major determinant these boundaries. This includes to ability to have higher (or lower mutation rate) at any given variability of a given environment. For instance, organisms that have adapted to a given stressor can maintain their fitness without increasing mutation rate. For an organism that is not adapted to it, a higher mutation rate could eventually lead to fitness increase.

 

Again, it is biology. It is usually more complicated than you think. And oversimplifying it often leads to wrong conclusions.

Edited July 27, 2012 by CharonY

[Nathan Flinn]

Well, here is the thing, as you just realized, the mutation rate is dependent on a lot of factors

 

Have I really? Where do I claim that there is only one factor contributing to the mutation rate? I focus on one factor (the variability of fitness landscape) in order to support the point that there is a possibility of teleology in evolution. An even more straightforward factor would be simply the distance from a local maximum. Considering the latter you still end up with a strong positive correlation. But what does this have to do with the question we are dealing with?

If someone asks you where is the bloody remote control, do you start listing "other factors"?

The dominating ones being the mechanisms of replication rather than the fitness landscape being the dominant one.

 

This statement makes no sense. The position in fitness landscape affects the mechanisms of replication.

 

There are also other factors that have an effect on the mechanism of replication. There are other factors that have an effect on the location of the bloody remote control.

 

The point is that mutation rates are controlled and balanced out by a large number of factors and mechanisms and may find local maxima at which it is maintained as any increase may have immediate consequences for their fitness.

 

Right. This is mainly my point. But where do I claim that other, non-selective, factors have no effect on mutation rates? [...]

 

For these reasons the teleological assumption only holds if we oversimplify things and ignore existing data.

 

Here you reach the the point of the total collapse of your "arguments" and their transition towards the pile of...

I never assumed any teleology. I claimed that teleology may be possible in evolution. Prove that I have oversimplified things! What data are you referring to? I can also say that you are "ignoring the data". What data?

 

Look, there are both upper and lower limits for mutation rates, with the lower being the restriction of variability and higher being the rise of deleterious mutations

 

Look, there are both upper and lower limits for writing preachy, empty and somewhat boring, not to mention illogical, statements, with the lower being the restriction of variability and higher being the rise of nonsense.

[CharonY]

Have I really? Where do I claim that there is only one factor contributing to the mutation rate? I focus on one factor (the variability of fitness landscape) in order to support the point that there is a possibility of teleology in evolution. An even more straightforward factor would be simply the distance from a local maximum. Considering the latter you still end up with a strong positive correlation. But what does this have to do with the question we are dealing with?

 

If you claim there is teleology in evolution and claim that variability of the fitness landscape shapes then it must be the dominant one otherwise there won't be a goal within evolution. If other factors are stronger in determining the selective factors, it can easily move towards a different direction (and then it is no different from other traits).

As the data shows, an organism living in a very varied environment can have a lower mutation rate than an organism living in a more static one and organisms in the same niche can have very different ones (i.e. just look up a couple on papers, including from Sanjuan's group on viruses, for example). The rate for DNA viruses is about 10e-8 to 10e-6 for DNA (also roughly the rate for prokaryotes, higher ones for eukaryotes) and about 10e-6 to 10e-4 for RNA viruses. The environment in which viruses exist is very similar, so according to the claim you made, their mutation rates should converge. Instead, as I have repeatedly stated, other factors, including genome size are shaping the mutation rate.

 

In other words, mutation rates have, as basically all other traits, an optimum. Then the teleological argument would be that the fitness of an organism moves towards a maximum for a particular trait set (including polymerase fidelity), which is true but not quite the global goal that a teleological argument would aim for, or is it? My main point is that mutation rate is just a trait like every other (with e.g. changing environments being a selective pressure). It is interesting to note that in a PloS paper a few years ago (also from Sanjuan's group, I believe) they found in simulations that mutation rate stay below the optimum in a rugged landscape (I would have to dig it up again for their methodology).

 

 

I never assumed any teleology. I claimed that teleology may be possible in evolution.

Now is that the main point of your argument? In that case you may want to clearly define what you mean with teleology in evolution and how the example on mutation rate is different from the optimization of fitness of other traits? In a telelogical argument I would expect a certain endpoint. There is obviously there is an upper limit in which higher mutation rates clearly demonstrate detrimental effects in RNA viruses (Crotti et al. 2004 PNAS) and this rate is determined by factors such as genome size. As such, I do not see how mutation rates makes a stronger teleological point.

With regards to data, I was referring to the actual mutation rates found in viruses and their variability, despite similar environmental conditions and lifestyles. So how is your data coming along (aside from generalized statements)?

 

Right. This is mainly my point. But where do I claim that other, non-selective, factors have no effect on mutation rates? [...]

Right, you just omitted them and claimed that environmental variability will move towards higher mutation rates. If other factors limit it, it will obviously not. So there is no endpoint, really aside from an optimum value. And we are right now at the beginning of the argument again. Where is the frigging endpoint? And how is it different from other traits?

This statement makes no sense. The position in fitness landscape affects the mechanisms of replication.

That is actually true, I was thinking in terms of the interactions of fitness and mutation landscape and I totally garbled it up. My apologies.

Look, there are both upper and lower limits for writing preachy, empty and somewhat boring, not to mention illogical, statements, with the lower being the restriction of variability and higher being the rise of nonsense.

Thank you very much for your insights. While I tend to shoot from the hip with my posts at least I usually do not take the extra time to be insulting.

How about defining teleology in evolution, add at least some references (considering that it was your claim to begin with) and demonstrate that your post was much more thoughtful than what I spew out?

[onomatomanic]

[T]he teleological argument would be that the fitness of an organism moves towards a maximum for a particular trait set (including polymerase fidelity), which is true but not quite the global goal that a teleological argument would aim for, or is it?

 

That seeming triviality is, I think, an important philosophical insight which has been missing from this thread thus far.

 

It's impossible to refute that the purpose of natural selection might be to maximize fitness. But I'd call that argument tautological rather than teleological.

 

The incompatibility between natural selection on the one hand and teleology on the other suggested in the OP can only arise if the purpose is something which is not already inherent in the mechanism in the first place, it seems to me. If initial and final cause coincide, then the entire question must be relegated to the realm of metaphysics.