September 4, 2004
THE ONE TALE (via Mike Daley):
Walking back to genesis: If evolution could be re-run, how would the story end? In this exclusive extract from his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins goes back in time to find out (Richard Dawkins, September 2, 2004, The Guardian)
It is a conceit of hindsight to see evolution as aimed towards some particular end point, such as ourselves. A historically minded swift, understandably proud of flight as self-evidently the premier accomplishment of life, might regard swiftkind - those spectacular flying machines with their swept-back wings, who stay aloft for a year at a time and even copulate in free flight - as the acme of evolutionary progress. If elephants could write history they might portray tapirs, elephant shrews, elephant seals and proboscis monkeys as tentative beginners along the main trunk road of evolution, taking the first fumbling steps but each - for some reason - never quite making it: so near yet so far. Elephant astronomers might wonder whether, on some other world, there exist alien life forms that have crossed the nasal rubicon and taken the final leap to full proboscitude.We are neither swifts nor elephants, we are people. As we wander in imagination through some long dead geologicial epoch, it is humanly natural to reserve a special warmth and curiosity for whichever otherwise ordinary species in that ancient landscape is our ancestor (it is an intriguingly unfamiliar thought that there is always one such species). It is hard to deny our human temptation to see this one species as "on the main line" of evolution, the others as supporting cast, walk-on parts, sidelined cameos.
These are not, of course, mutually exclusive, indeed they are the fundamental premise of Creation. Man, the swift, and the elephant are all end points. Indeed, Darwinism is inherently a matter of hindsight, trying to find a mechanism that would have necessarily rendered what's here, but without invoking intelligent guidance. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 4, 2004 7:24 AM
"Indeed, Darwinism is inherently a matter of hindsight, trying to find a mechanism that would have necessarily rendered what's here"
Really?
Homo sapiens did not appear on the earth, just a geologic second ago, because evolutionary theory predicts such an outcome based on themes of progress and increasing neural complexity. Humans arose, rather, as a fortuitous and contingent outcome of thousands of linked events, any one of which could have occurred differently and sent history on an alternative pathway that would not have led to consciousness.Posted by: Eugene S. at September 4, 2004 8:44 AM
Eugene:
When you start at the end point--homo sapiens--you've already conceded the argument.
Posted by: oj at September 4, 2004 8:58 AMGould's point is that evolution is not teleological but "fortuitous and contingent". True, he would posit humans far to the right of the "left wall" (see linked text for explanation), but with some justification; in any case, that is not the same as calling homo sapiens the endpoint.
He is arguing against the latter view.
Posted by: Eugene S. at September 4, 2004 9:33 AMHumankind may actually be the endpoint for some time, for one very simple reason. Evolution is the result of 'survival of the fittest', those phenotypes which are best adapted for their environment are the ones that get to be fruitful and multiply.
Uniquely among animals, man can make the environment adapt to him. If it's cold, we make clothing, shelter and furnaces. If it's hot, we invent air conditioning. If it's wet, we invent raincoats and umbrellas. If it's dry, we invent bottled water.
Posted by: Bart at September 4, 2004 10:25 AMThe idea that there's some perfect and prefectable world is central to environmentalist religious dogma (and that people can't be part of that world is another.)
A true Darwinist would not consider people or elephants or swifts any sort of "end-point", but just the last steps taken before the first of many future steps are taken. Intellegence is just another trait developed to further a speciies along its way. The amusing thing about the Dawkins is that they are so opposed to certain ideas that they adapt and use them as the basis for their arguments. This makes the contradictions almost invisible unless you look at what their (often glossed over) assumptions are.
(And the phrase is "survival of the fit" which has an entirely different meaning.)
Still and all, copulating in free flight must be the end all of highs.
Posted by: genecis at September 4, 2004 11:51 AMGenecis: I suspect it'd be difficult due to lack of leverage.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 4, 2004 2:17 PMDarwinists don't end up with humans.
That's Orrin's trope.
For example, I have been reading up on the evolutionary relationships among the algae. Real Darwinists say things like, "This (order) seems to have been an evolutionary deadend."
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 4, 2004 2:51 PMReally? What came next?
Posted by: oj at September 4, 2004 5:51 PMNothing from that order.
Your notion that Homo sapiens was the goal of development will have a hard time explaining the presence of phyla that went extinct before the rise of vetebrates. What was their purpose?
The only conceivable 'purpose' was as part of the matrix upon which evolution worked itself out.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 5, 2004 6:09 PMThe point is that there is a "matrix upon which evolution worked itself out"
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2004 7:22 PMThe existence of the matrix does not imply a certain outcome. In fact, the reverse
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 6, 2004 6:45 PMSadly your grammar is no better than your biology:
Meaning of MATRIX
Pronunciation: 'matrixh
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/matrix
Definition:
1. [n] mold used in the production of phonograph records, type, or other relief surface
Posted by: oj at September 6, 2004 7:00 PMIf we regard evolution as a system, then it is the repeatable and predictable outcomes, such as flight and sight, that might possibly be regarded as the purpose and direction of this system, not evolutionary freaks such as humans and horseflies.
See POSIWID blog at http://www.dontpanic-ii.org/posiwid/2004/09/conceit-of-hindsight.html
Posted by: Richard Veryard at September 19, 2004 6:25 PM