beausoleil

My feeling that Dawkins is a zealot is based on his pieces in the media in the UK. Typically, I think, his pronouncements go beyond that for which there is evidence, and his role in the atheist camp reminds me of a that of a religious fanatic. I'm interested why people react so strongly to fairly mild criticism of him - cause for some reflection I'd say.

Meanwhile I'll try to explain what I think is an interesting idea.

Think of the people in the audience as 500 planets starting out with a simple form of life. Some of those planets will lead to intelligent life (role 8 heads). Looking back through their fossil record, these intelligent observers will see a run of '8 heads', and think this needs some explanation. What they don't see is the other planets where other choices happened. They also may posit a mechanism for removing instances of tails.

Yes, I know that isn't quite what Dawkins means. But let's push the envelope.

It's a commonplace in astrophysics that we see the Universe we can see (see under 'anthropic'). Why not extend it to 'biology'? It is actually easier to apply because there is no complexity associated with the notion of multiple planets comparable to that associated with multiple universes. To some extent, for intelligent observers to be here there must be an evolutionary record looking somewhat like ours. We see the planet we can see. In particular, we can't see a planet that didn't 'throw 8 heads'. So there's no justification in deducing a mechanism for weeding out the others, simple chance and the selection inherent in our being here will do the trick quite nicely.

For the 'dimwit' brigade: you should get out more! Sticks and stones...

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: beausoleil ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Meanwhile I'll try to explain what I think is an interesting idea.

At long last! An actual idea, instead of an everyone-is-dumber-than-me claim.

Think of the people in the audience as 500 planets starting out with a simple form of life. Some of those planets will lead to intelligent life (role 8 heads). Looking back through their fossil record, these intelligent observers will see a run of '8 heads', and think this needs some explanation. What they don't see is the other planets where other choices happened. They also may posit a mechanism for removing instances of tails.

Beau, this is entirely teleological. There is no process that goes from non-intelligent life and leads to intelligent life. Any occurrence of any form of life demands an explanation rooted in the particular properties of that life and its environment.

Another problem is that you assume that traits are random. But here on earth, humans did not "roll eight heads" (strange terminology that). We were selected for by various evolutionary pressures. The process is non-random. It is not like flipping coins. Hence, your idea fails.

Yes, I know that isn't quite what Dawkins means. But let's push the envelope.

More like, "let's find a battered envelope in the garbage and see if we can smooth it out enough to make it look new." It's an old and long discredited idea.

In particular, we can't see a planet that didn't 'throw 8 heads'. So there's no justification in deducing a mechanism for weeding out the others, simple chance and the selection inherent in our being here will do the trick quite nicely.

Unfortunately, we have to posit a mechanism by which animals get weeded out, because we find their fossils in the earth. In other words, we DO SEE the planet where things got weeded out; it is our own. Also, we see change in organisms over time. Chance cannot explain the adaptations, since animals are suited for some environments and lifestyles, and not others.

For the 'dimwit' brigade: you should get out more! Sticks and stones...

Naw, I'd rather sit at my computer and laugh myself silly over pompous lightweights who roll in here, announce we're all idiots, and then presume to pontificate on ideas disproved decades ago. The first sticks and stones were tossed here by you, big fella....

Vorkosigan

beausoleil

[B]
Beau, this is entirely teleological. There is no process that goes from non-intelligent life and leads to intelligent life. Any occurrence of any form of life demands an explanation rooted in the particular properties of that life and its environment.

Another problem is that you assume that traits are random. But here on earth, humans did not "roll eight heads" (strange terminology that). We were selected for by various evolutionary pressures. The process is non-random. It is not like flipping coins. Hence, your idea fails.

Unfortunately, we have to posit a mechanism by which animals get weeded out, because we find their fossils in the earth. In other words, we DO SEE the planet where things got weeded out; it is our own. Also, we see change in organisms over time. Chance cannot explain the adaptations, since animals are suited for some environments and lifestyles, and not others.
[/QUOTE]

I guess I was thinking of heads rolling for some reason.

Perhaps I explained the idea badly again. In the thought experiment, some animals die out out (at random) on all planets. New species arise at random as well - all planets have a fossil record. Any occurrence of intelligence will observe a fossil record that shows an appearance of weeding out - but the appearance is a consequence of the selection (by the need for observers) of only instances where intelligence arises.

It seems to me you're assuming what I'm questioning ('selected for', 'evolutionary pressure' etc). The Earth looks the way it does in both models - in one because there is a mechanism, in the other because the observers arose by a series of chances and what they observe is necessary for their coming in to being. Chance can explain the adaptations since the evidence we see is selected by our being here.

It's not teleological. It's more summed up by "given that we're here, what must our world look like?". I would argue that things that are included in the answer should not be used to deduce mechanisms.

Chance can explain any observation if it is possible and a required step in the production of intelligent life, given that there is intelligent life. (Gosh, I can almost hear that condescension firing up again, but it does make sense if you think about it.)

To take a more conventional example, the properties of any solar system are essentially the outcome of a series of events with a major random element (according to our present understanding). However the properties of the solar system we observe are severely constrained by our existence in it. I'm just seeing how the argument can be extended to biology (to some extent).

I was hoping for some constructive input, believe it or not. There can be no doubt that there is some effect like this, I think, though what I have described would be an extreme position. That there is a resonance in the 12C nucleus, that the sun is less than a certain mass, that the galaxy is more than ~10 Ga old, that various properties of the Earth are what they are and that there is a Jupiter are all necessary (or posited to be necessary) for the existence of intelligent observers. None of these things are evidence of design (except perhaps the 12C nucleus). Why should the evolutionary account of our presence be completely isolated from the idea?

scigirl

Yeah, being here in good ol "God Bless" America, I rarely even read about the guy in the news.

From his books, I would say that yes at times he does tend to oversimplify issues, mainly because he is writing to non-scientists. I imagine if he was writing to scientists, his books would be more complex. I do have criticisms of some of Dawkins' theories, but his "zealotry" IMHO doesn't go far enough! When you have hundreds of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry taking up the airwaves, when an atheist finally does get on the news here (in USA), you want it to be blunt, to the point, and not pandering to religion. And I think that is what he does well.

scigirl

Vorkosigan

Perhaps I explained the idea badly again. In the thought experiment, some animals die out out (at random) on all planets.

But that's what I mean. They don't die out "at random." They die out for a reason.

New species arise at random as well - all planets have a fossil record. Any occurrence of intelligence will observe a fossil record that shows an appearance of weeding out - but the appearance is a consequence of the selection (by the need for observers) of only instances where intelligence arises.

You've lost me here. You mean that the appearance of selection is an artifact of human perception, rather than a genuine event happening independent of human beings?

It seems to me you're assuming what I'm questioning ('selected for', 'evolutionary pressure' etc). The Earth looks the way it does in both models - in one because there is a mechanism, in the other because the observers arose by a series of chances and what they observe is necessary for their coming in to being. Chance can explain the adaptations since the evidence we see is selected by our being here.

The earth does not look the same in either model. In your model there is no mechanism for conserving or eliminating traits. Traits are not related to the environment, and the environment has no effect on traits. So how is it that animals are adapted for particular environments?

It's not teleological. It's more summed up by "given that we're here, what must our world look like?". I would argue that things that are included in the answer should not be used to deduce mechanisms.

The mechanism is natural selection. It was deduced from the data.

Chance can explain any observation if it is possible and a required step in the production of intelligent life, given that there is intelligent life.

Chance can explain the appearance of a trait. Chance cannot explain the conservation or elimination of it. Chance cannot explain adaptation -- the fit of the environment and an organism's traits.

(Gosh, I can almost hear that condescension firing up again, but it does make sense if you think about it.)

You will note that there have been no remarks in the serious portion of your posts. You post ideas, you get discussion. You post insults, you get dismissed. Simple.

To take a more conventional example, the properties of any solar system are essentially the outcome of a series of events with a major random element (according to our present understanding). However the properties of the solar system we observe are severely constrained by our existence in it.

You seem to be saying that our mere existence affects the properties of the relationships between the sun and the bodies that orbit it. Through what means?

I was hoping for some constructive input, believe it or not. There can be no doubt that there is some effect like this, I think, though what I have described would be an extreme position. That there is a resonance in the 12C nucleus, that the sun is less than a certain mass, that the galaxy is more than ~10 Ga old, that various properties of the Earth are what they are and that there is a Jupiter are all necessary (or posited to be necessary) for the existence of intelligent observers. None of these things are evidence of design (except perhaps the 12C nucleus). Why should the evolutionary account of our presence be completely isolated from the idea?

Well, because these things were all true long before we existed....

Vorkosigan

beausoleil

Yes, I have lived in the bible belt but sometimes forget the difference. If I may digress, I think it's interesting that the UK, with an established church, has a population that is functionally agnostic, while the USA (south at least), has a well separated church and state and an amazingly (to me) religious population. Abusing christianity in the UK seems to me to be a bit like bullying! (I speak as an agnostic, in the colloquial sense.) On the other hand, our present government consists largely of God botherers, and proposes to extend a law of blasphemy to protect all religions from abusive comments.

beausoleil

OK, I admit I pushed an extreme version to try to make the point. I'm going to continue doing it since it might make the principle clearer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

But that's what I mean. They don't die out "at random." They die out for a reason.

That's the point in question - is a reason necessary.


You've lost me here. You mean that the appearance of selection is an artifact of human perception, rather than a genuine event happening independent of human beings?


No. But the present existence of human beings (intelligent observers) depended on certain events in the past. In a statistical ensemble of worlds, all of the ones with human beings (intelligent observers) would exhibit those events in the past, irrespective of whether an operating mechanism favoured or did not favour the outcomes required.

To take a very simplistic example for explanatory purposes, let's suppose that without the evolution of eukaryotic cells there would be no intelligent observers. It might be, that in 99 out of 100 worlds in which eukaryotic cells emerge, the prokaryotes smoke them - prokaryotes in this sense being the beneficiaries of evolutionary pressure. Nonetheless, every intelligent observer would see a fossil record in which eukaryotes thrived. They would also mistakenly argue based on their observations that survival of eukaryotes was down to some inherent superior adaptation. (Bear in mind I said it was simplistic, just to illustrate the principle)

The earth does not look the same in either model. In your model there is no mechanism for conserving or eliminating traits. Traits are not related to the environment, and the environment has no effect on traits. So how is it that animals are adapted for particular environments?

Because intelligent observers only develop in the minute fraction of worlds in which animals are adapted for particular environments (in the extreme case).


The mechanism is natural selection. It was deduced from the data.

In effect, the data is selected because it ended up with us.

You will note that there have been no remarks in the serious portion of your posts. You post ideas, you get discussion. You post insults, you get dismissed. Simple.

OK I can live with that. I don't think I intentionally insulted you until you insulted me. And in all honesty I didn't think that what I'd posted before was that controversial or badly explained. However, I admit that I can be inappropriately confrontational online and apologise unreservedly for any unintentional offense I caused to you or others in my original post.

You seem to be saying that our mere existence affects the properties of the relationships between the sun and the bodies that orbit it. Through what means?

Our existence doesn't affect anything in the mechanistic sense (unless you take a fairly extreme view of the anthropic principle - intelligent observers required for wave function collapse etc). Rather, we couldn't be here if the solar system was different in some ways, so the solar system we observe has to have certain properties.

Well, because these things were all true long before we existed....

So were many things in the fossil record.

So why does this interest me?

Well, for one thing it severely reduces any constraints on the likelihood of some events in the history of 'life' on Earth - so what if they are phenomenally unlikely? Not only was there 4 Ga for them to happen in, there was also an uncounted multitude of planets and we can only be on one where they happend.

Secondly, I find arguments that every observed feature is a survival characteristic somewhat unconvincing (there's a whiff of circularity about some of them sometimes to my mind) - this way of looking at things means that there's no need to argue that some steps in evolution made for better adaptation to the environment.

Evolution is often described as a 'downhill' (better adaptations supplant poorer ones) fitting mechanism, whereas excellent fits have to involve some uphill as well in a nonlinear environment.

Also it is mostly a statistical argument and is independent of the observations - whatever the data looks like the argument stands.

joshack

The earth does not look the same in either model. In your model there is no mechanism for conserving or eliminating traits. Traits are not related to the environment, and the environment has no effect on traits. So how is it that animals are adapted for particular environments?

Because intelligent observers only develop in the minute fraction of worlds in which animals are adapted for particular environments (in the extreme case).

Looks to me like you all are arguing functionalism vs. historicism (or Gould-ism if you will). The effect of chance vs. the power of selection. In a sense you are both right - genetic drift is basically the random flow of traits through a population. It is probably less unusal than many think, but natural selection MUST be a more powerful force (assuming environmental differences). Any trait that arises "randomly" that is beneficial or deleterious for an organism will cause natural selection to kick in. Most mutations are neutral it is true. But given a non-stationary environment, it is inevitable that mutations will eventually bring either advantages or disadvantages. This does not mean that ALL traits exist because they are adaptive, but it makes it likely that that is why they originally arose.

The only possibility of having drift outweight natural selection is if the environment is absolutely constant and mutations function in an entirely neutral manner.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: joshack ]</p>

joshack

Thanks hezekiahjones!

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: joshack ]</p>

hezekiah jones

You can edit your post by clicking on the little pen and paper thingy.