This offers the simplest “neutral” colloquial mixture of “design” and “evolution” that I’ve seen in a long time. The site is no longer maintained, but the language persists.
“As a designer it is important to understand where design came from, how it developed, and who shaped its evolution. The more exposure you have to past, current and future design trends, styles and designers, the larger your problem-solving toolkit. The larger your toolkit, the more effective of a designer you can be.” http://www.designishistory.com/this-site/
Here, the term “evolution” as used just meant “history”. The author was not indicating “design theory evolution”, but rather instead the “history of designs” themselves, which have been already instantiated.
The topic “design is history” nevertheless enables an obvious point of contact between “evolution” and “design”. They both have histories that can be studied. Present in the above meaning of “design” are the origin, processes and agent(s) involved in the “designing”. This differs significantly from the Discovery Institute’s version of “design theory”, when it comes to history, aim, structure and agency, since the DI’s version flat out avoids discussion of design processes and agent(s). The primary purpose of the DI’s “design theory”, meanwhile, is USAmerican religious apologetics and “theistic science”.
The quotation above likely didn’t come from an IDist, and it isn’t referencing “Intelligent Design” theory as a supposed “scientific theory”. The “designer” in the quotation above is a (more or less intelligent) human designer, not a Divine Designer. This fact distinguishes it “in principle” from the Discovery Institute’s ID theory, which is supposed to be (depends on who you’re speaking with in the IDM) about first biology, then informatics, and statistics. The DI’s ID theory is not actually focused on “designing by real designers”, but rather on apologetics using “design” and informational probabilism.
The Discovery Institute’s failure to distinguish or even highlight the differences and similarities between human design and Divine Design, and instead their engagement in active distortion, equivocation, double-talking, and obfuscation between them, are marks of its eventual downward trend to collapse.
I don’t have to confine myself to exogenous controls by histone modifications such as methylation and de-methylation. Changes to the visual abilities of blind cave fish are due to behavioural changes which are epigenetic.
Not such a long way. My sentences here are rooted in English words but the creativity lies in how I choose to arrange them. Likewise the appearance of any organism we see in front of us may rooted in its genes but the creative force lies in how these genes are selectively used.
The way you are thinking about genotype to phenotype in terms of cause and effect is a misapplication of the physics of dead, unresponsive matter to life.To apply this linear type of thinking to living beings is to ignore what it means to be alive.Kick a dog and you will have much more than Newton’s laws to contend with. Denis Nobel had good reason for using such metaphors as ‘dance’ and ‘music’.
Possibly, but I’m not an IDist. So you agree that your creativity does not originate in your genes?
So where about in the genome of a termite is the innate creativity that is required to construct these architectural wonders? You cannot point to specifics but you know it must be there somehow. One thing that can be observed is that the creativity of lower animals is much more generic and the study of higher animals reveals creativity becoming much more individualised.
True. But the history of science is a process where by the current thinking of one age is that which is superseded by later ages.
I have? 🤔
yes.
2015!.
2014
2020.
You’ve been saying the exact same things for at least six years phoodoo. In all that time you could have written that actual scientific paper on why biological fitness is bunk. But you seem content to just repeat yourself over and over while the world moves on without the benefit of your ideas.
Have you ever had anybody you know who understands a little biology to read your posts?
From what I can tell, not much would be, which makes it a rather vacuous concept.
I understand that there are significant differences apart from the types of membranes involved.
Just now?
I like Gregory. I think he has many good and interesting things to say. Being on the receiving end of his attempts at mind-reading is amusing to me. I understand though, if not everyone feels that way.
Or an accurate depiction of the underlying reality.
Sure. Lots of similarities too. We can’t just look at the differences and conclude from them that they are unrelated.
So you big-up Jablonka as congenial to your view then immediately dump her? God you’re fickle.
They behave like they can’t see? You’re making stuff up.
It’s entirely in accord with how things actually work. Which you’d know if you troubled to crack open a book before pontificating.
That’s due to instinctive, innate behaviours inherited genetically. Dogs bite, spiders spin, bindweeds spiral.
Our gracious host, who stands the expense of our ongoing chunner-fest, is a fan. Me, not so much. I’m not a massive fan of metaphors, you may have gathered. Genes resemble nothing more than genes; the relationship with phenotype is strikingly similar to the relationship with phenotype.
Really? You substitute some vague ‘intelligence of nature’ for a personal god; other than that, you seem to be an IDist in every respect. Evolution, commonly presented, is insufficient.
The capacity to be creative does, on account of me being descended from a long line of humans whose brains are constructed (by genes) with that capacity. If I was descended from a long line of termites, it would be different.
I don’t need to be able to name a gene in every case pulled up by an interlocutor before I can be confident that genes are ultimately responsible for innate behaviours. Why does every termite nest of a given species resemble every other? There are two possibilities: genes and ‘group memory’. On what grounds do you reject the first and invent a brand new, mechanistically unobservable phenomenon?
Ah, the old Kuhn gambit. Paradigm shift does not mean every theory is wrong.
I used the cuckoo specifically because it never encounters members of its species until it mates with them. Males do not learn the call, and females do not learn to find it enticing.
What clearer illustration would one need that birdsong were genetic? The groups share genes. Why do we need to look elsewhere?
That’s overextending the consequences of accepting a genetic basis – and, again, an example of false dichotomy. Either genes have no role or I’m engaged in perpetual rape? It’s clear that my attraction to women is fundamentally based in my genetics – the consequence, ultimately, of my Y chromosome. If I had 2 X’s, the opposite would most likely be true. Even though I can’t conceive of finding men attractive, one simple chromosomal swap during the formation of ‘my’ sperm would likely have achieved it.
So why is ‘personality’ heritable and selectable in exactly the same way as form, if it isn’t actually inherited in the same way?
I don’t disagree at all — I think you’re right about that. I just wanted to make sure we clarified the distinction.
Kantian Naturalist,
Ok, good. Thanks.
Thanks. I like you too.
OMagain,
I just want to know, what have you got against Monica Seles ?
She certainly was. I think her enthusiasm has waned.
I don’t dump her. She is a prime example of someone who sees the limitations of gene centred thinking. She argues that the gene is given centre stage and everything else is marginalised. She believes that variation is brought about by the complex interaction of genetic, epigenetic, physiological, ecological, behavioural and cultural processes. What is looked at in isolation for analytical purposes can never be isolated in reality.
Here I am using epigenetic to include everything above the level of the gene. The group behaviour in frequenting these dark caves has brought about the changes to their visual systems.
So can you point to the genetic origin of consciousness? Which genes cause consciousness?
As Jablonka points out, inheritance involves much more than the genes.
Denis Nobel had good reason for using such metaphors as ‘dance’ and ‘music’.
Our gracious host, who stands the expense of our ongoing chunner-fest, is a fan. Me, not so much. I’m not a massive fan of metaphors, you may have gathered. Genes resemble nothing more than genes; the relationship with phenotype is strikingly similar to the relationship with phenotype.
You will have noticed that your sentence, ‘I’m not a massive fan of metaphors, you may have gathered’, contains metaphors. 🙂 There is no getting away from them.
I agree with many of their criticisms of evolution as it is usually portrayed. I do not agree with the tendency to equate living matter with machines.
Brains are not constructed by genes. Genes are used and manipulated in the process of brain development and function.
We do observe the group behaviour. And the behaviour of the group leads far beyond the capabilities of any individual within the group.
No, but it does show up their limitations. Natural selection points to a reality, but it is limited in its scope. Not all genetic changes are accidental. Teleology is a factor of life.
No it isn’t. Neither is it a fact of life.
Don’t be silly. You’d die in days without teleology, Alan. You can’t eat, drink or do almost anything without it.
CharlieM,
Jablonka is an atheist. She is also quite openly anti-religious. Were you aware of either of these, CharlieM?
Gregory, Your dictionary definition must differ from mine.
What manipulates and uses the genes?
The same thing I press against your mother.
It’s funny that phoodoo thinks that typing ‘site:’ into google and doing a search for phoodoo+fitness is stalking
It’s a remarkable mindset where simply quoting back his own words to demonstrate his obsessions is somehow forbidden.
I suppose it’s the same mindset that Trump supporters have, even when faced with direct quotes from Trump they deny they were said or were taken out of context.
It’s not hard to find screeds against fitness from phoodoo going back years. And yet if I dare to point that out I’m somehow equated to a violent stalker.
Rather, I think, it shows how insecure he actually is in his position, to have it demonstrated that it has not developed in at least half a decade must be something of a shock to the system. Hey, phoodoo, got anything new to say about fitness? Why not publish it?
Yes and if these traits do not need to be learned but can be transmitted through the genes, why in other species does birdsong have to be learned by the individual? Genetics can be a very convenient answer. Cuckoos know how to behave as cuckoos because it is in the genes. Some birds learn to sing by imitating their parents. Starlings also imitate other species. Many times have I heard a ‘curlew’ singing from my roof. Just as innate behaviour is ‘in the genes’ so too is learned behaviour ‘in the genes’.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that cuckoo song is purely genetic in origin. Moving on to Darwin’s finches, their song is individually learned. Starlings not only learn their own calls, they also learn many other sounds:
There is an obvious progression here from the generic to the individual. And human vocalisation is at a whole new level. We not only vocalise through innate abilities such as in babies crying, we learn languages by imitation and we progress towards creating our own individual stories with unlimited potential for conveying information.
And can we put purely down to genetics our vocal skills and understanding thereof?
So how do you explain the LGBT community?
Because the traits selected for are shared generic traits. Artificial selection takes the generic in which there is always embedded slight individual differences and develops these peculiarities in a one sided way. This is an artificial narrowing of the niche of the type to a point where the original group plasticity is lost. Genomes play a large part but only in the way that they are being manipulated from without instead of within the group.
So bird’s nests serve no purpose?
That makes it even more telling that she can see how limited the current orthodox view of evolution is. What better place to criticise it than from within.
Give me an honest atheist over a hypocritical Christian any day 😉 (This comment is not directed at you, I am making a generalisation)
The organism to which they belong. Apart form instances such as artificial selection which I mentioned above. And of course heterotrophs indirectly control the genes of the organisms they consume.
As an individual organism I controlled my genes from the time I existed as a single cell up to this point and hopefully beyond.
Depends what you mean and whether you are wanting to clarify or equivocate. Birds’ nests function as receptacles for their eggs and developing young. Nests, being inanimate, lack purpose. Birds are motivated, in the breeding season, to build nests, find a mate, breed and raise young. The ultimate purpose of that and where it rests, I couldn’t say. But don’t let me stop you.
Exactly!
Knives and forks are inanimate. Do they serve a purpose?
I’m not talking about ultimate purposes. I am talking about entities built and used by living beings
We often calls these artefacts, more simply tools. You seem to be circling into, well, circularity. Bring in a bit of teleology and make the circle complete.
Gregory isn’t wrong to use teleology as he does; he’s just using the word differently from how you do. There’s a serious lack of clarity about divergent uses of the same word (well, that’s perhaps true in a good deal of philosophy).
There’s a perfectly legitimate use in which Gregory is right to insist that teleology is obvious; and there’s a perfectly legitimate use in which you’re right to deny it entirely.
I’m trying to spend less time on TSZ these days (too many real-world commitments) but very briefly put, the question is whether teleology is an ontogenetic concept or a phylogenetic concept.
Evolutionary theory correctly denies the usefulness of teleology for phylogeny, but it is silent on the usefulness of teleology for ontogeny & physiology.
CharlieM,
Ok, so you weren’t previously aware about that. That was the question, nothing more.
She’s a hardcore evolutionist, CharlieM. She’s not yours & Steiner’s distorted and twisted “spiritual science” ally here.
No, that would be the ideologically scientistic route, certainly not a requirement, and imo far from the best way to approach “teleology”. “Ontogenetic” in contrast with “phylogenetic” isn’t leading edge; it is outdated to Gould 1977. 40 years later, we need better explanations than just being frozen in time.
KN is still stuck in a whole whack of ideologies, from Marxism and naturalism to scientism. This makes him an trustworthy voice speaking about “teleology”. He’s an agnostic/quasi-atheist secular-ish philosopher whose answers do not inspire because they seek no inspiration. KN’s philosophy of life is a personification of Weber’s “disenchantment of the world”. So, “natural vs. natural” is the only kind of meaning of “teleology” one will get from such a worldview.
Well we do have to be careful in distinguishing between external causation and inner processes when we are talking about teleology in relation to organisms. Goethe was against the use of teleological language when discussing living forms. Talking in terms of purpose invokes the concepts of cause and effect between separate entities, whereas the Goethean point of view looks at the whole, the unity, and talks about the relationships within this unity.
Steiner gives an account of Goethe’s view of nature in Goethean Science
When looking to explain organisms and organic systems we should not be thinking in terms of purpose but individual expression of the overarching type.
I know she is an evolutionist who thinks that the evolutionary synthesis should not be discarded altogether. She would like to extend it. I didn’t see her as being particularly religion, but her religious views don’t concern me. I prefer to read, listen and try to understand to what she has to say about evolution.
Sometimes our closest allies are those that disagree with and challenge our views. The ‘great war’ between Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis spring to mind. Not that I put myself in the same league as Barfield, Lewis or Jablonka.
Teleology and purpose are not the same thing.
Well it is a question that’s worth looking into.
It would be hard to deny that individual organisms exhibit teleological behaviour. We can even see teleological behaviour within cells. Mitosis cannot happen without the directed coordinated behaviour of the organelles and other complexes within the cell.
At what level do processes stop being goal directed? Leon R. Kass M.D. is worth a read. I’ve quoted him below.
The Permanent Limitations of Biology
I take it that last word is a copying error and it should read, ‘now’.
I came across Kass while reading the book, ‘From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again’:by Etienne Gilson, which is also worth a read.
Also from the foreword to ‘From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again’, this is written:
All good questions to ask.
And yet more from Kass
This is very apt considering our present situation.
But they are intimately linked. Would you agree that there is an end-directed goal in nest building? The builder need not be conscious of this goal.
It certainly appears that way.
I wouldn’t go that far, if you’re talking about purpose. There is end-directedness in non-biological species but we don’t speak of them as being purposive.
Just making the point that there’s a difference is all.
Indeed, it was the biological definition that I was working with. Though notwithstanding, I think Gregory is flat wrong with this statement:
And I think you’re in no position to judge whether he is right or wrong. For starters, you don’t appear to have a clue what he’s talking about.
I take Gregory to be talking about what would happen if there were no such things as hunger or thirst — and similar biological drives.
Of if biochemical processes that always or almost always produce the same result failed to do so.
Teleology is a fact of nature and a fact of life. Science even depends on teleology in order to “do” science. It’s absurd to deny it.
I take Gregory to be talking about what would happen if there were no such things as hunger or thirst — and similar biological drives.Sure. But experience of hunger and thirst and the drive to satiate it is not explained by flinging out a word. I might just as usefully describe it as the hunger fairy.
No it’s a word that doesn’t explain anything biological.
It does! A mind did it! It explains that!
Alan Fox,
Agreed. That’s the problem with “teleology” — it is not well defined, and it often changes its meaning from one sentence to the next.
And yet:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
You’ve quoted a respectable philisophical source. I see it starts with a discussion about function and purpose. I doubt biologists start with or refer to teleology when trying to understand and explain biological phenomena. First observe.
You emphasize “because [apparently teleological explanations] play an important explanatory role” in your quote. I’d be interested in learning how teleological ideas enhance our understanding of biology as my impression is they don’t, not a tiny bit.
The key word is ‘apparently’ in that quote, I feel. Perhaps the intent is as Dawkins.
OMagain,
I was going to put “apparently” into bold type… 😉