Natural Selection

This is a pretty volatile subject. And by volatile I dont mean dynamic - you're either with, or against it, and the conflict between these two camps . . . that's volatile.

Let me start by saying I have a pretty robust background in both the sciences and the arts. Religion intrigues me, on a social and historical level; when it comes to beliefs about salvation and God, I tend to leave that to a personal understanding. The Will of the Most High, if you accept even that, would be so far beyond our understanding as to make faith doctrine. And only the most dangerous fringe elements seek to make faith an integral element of understanding our world. We don't have faith in mathematics or physics: we attack with reason, and record the results. Faith has nothing to do with chemistry or biology - science guides our understanding.

My apologies for the pedantic introduction. I present these generally acceptable tenets in order to highlight the inconsistencies. Mathematics may be unyielding in reason, but it is by no means self-completing. [URL="http://www-2.dc.uba.ar/profesores/becher/ns.html"]


Omega number mathematics have shown that. Similar inconsistencies have been shown in Geometry by non-Euclidean Geometrics, in Math by Goedel's incompleteness theorem, in physics by both Heisenberg and, more recently, by String Theories inability to submit to provability. Basically, we don't know as much as we pretend to.

Which brings me to a question I have struggled with - Natural Selection. This is the idea that evolution is brought about by the survival of the fittest - that is, those random mutations occuring that allow its hosts to more ably survive will manifest themselves in their superior reproductive capability.

This is pretty much canon in the biological field. Coming from a non-creationist perspective, I cannot say I buy it.

Random mutation (and this is a point Dawkins hammers home time after time) is blind and purely based no chance. Given that, doesn't it follow the specific random mutation allowing for greater survival (given the countless potential mutations) would occur in only one specimen? Accepting that, we have the Adam and Eve problem. If only one specimen possesses the random mutation, how is that supposed to spread to an entire species, since that single mutation might not be passed along, might remain dormant, or might be passed along is mutated fashion? Genetics is a pretty iffy business.

Beyond the crap shoot nature of random genetic survivalism, we have a more directly measurable result. I can't find the link, but in some remote island ecosphere a newly appeared bird species, related to the dominant species at the time but more colourful (and therefore more attractive as a mate), ended up edging out the prior bird species within the matter of two years. If anyone else read about this and has a link, please send it to me.

In the Economist (again, no link, but I'm not pulling this out of my ass), there was a study showing that Japanese teenagers had developed structural changes in their thumb ligaments allowing them to text message far quicker than the preceding generation could, regardless of skill. This is a structural change, not necessarily related to reproductive prowess, observable within less than a generation's time. (again, I don't have the link, but I'm certain I read it because it blew my mind at the time [print edition], so if anyone has anything more specific please post).

Perhaps I'm just not understanding some of the basic tenets of Natural Selection. It's so established at this point, any challenge to it is seen as either academically dishonest or theologically motivated. But anyone with some familiarity with the history of science will realize that many things, no matter how established, have been shown to be wrong. My [admittedly ill-informed] take on all this is, maybe natural selection isn't dictated solely by the survival of the fittest. Perhaps there is some environmental element, that affects species across the board, regardless of their reproductive acumen, that affects basic genetic mutation. I realize this is an easily abused argument, as it lends itself to Intelligent Design. But who is to say the environment (or the ecosphere, or GAIA if you really want to discredit yourself) can't somehow impact the seemingly 'random' mutation of a species genetics? The best argument I can think of for this is the oft repeated Creationist attack: you never see fossils actually in the incremental process of evolution. If we can accept environmental factors as somehow influencing the mutation (here, I have no idea what mechanism would foster that, I'm simply proposing it), then there doesn't need to be an incremental step. The physical structure of Japanese' thumbs changed in (less) than a generation. The remote island ecosphere was altered in less than two years: surely it would take longer than that for a random mutation to selectively outbreed it's competition. [i really wish i had the links for that, but it was an article in the print edition; seriously, I'm not making it up.]

Anyway, I'm just throwing all that out there to see if I get a response, maybe some education in the finer points. Feel free to ignore it.

I respect the 'God as Designer of Evolution' argument. There's simply no way to rebuke it. It's fairly common among scientists of faith. It is my understanding that the scientific renaissance that took place in the Caliphates was a result of that particular fusion of the 'divine' and 'science.' That is, understanding the natural order is nothing but understanding the work of God. I find no issue with that.

The thrust of my argument is, given the near consensual agreement upon 'natural selection' as evolution's agent, aren't we taking that as an article of faith in itself? I don't doubt evolution (macro or micro); nor do I doubt that fitness has an affect upon which gene-types survive and those that do not. But the fundamental assumption in the scientific community (and in most of the people I talk to), is that this is all based on random chance on the genetic mutation level.

Stepping away from the ID arguments, I'm asking whether or not 'evolution' might be based on more than blind, random chance. This is easily adopted into a 'metaphysical assumption' framework (and I do not discount that), but I'm wondering whether this can be adopted into a strictly materialist framework. If 'Survival of the Fittest' is incomplete (and given the fossil record, along with modern observations as to genetic adaptation, I think it might be), what materialist framework can take its place?

I would say an Environmentally Directive force might be at play, superseding basic reproductive imperatives . . . but then you're left with the problem of identifying what initiates that Environmental Directive. Here, I simply submit that our understanding of it all if far less complete than you would be led to believe reading a Biology textbook.

This has always been an intriguing argument to me. It all comes down to free-will, at least as I see it. The only justification I have ever found that really supports free will (yeah, you can eat the apple, if you want, but I'm telling you, don't do it) is the notion that God can only obtain meaning (beyond his own implied uber-omnipotence) by creating choice beyond his decree. 'Free' Will implies a Will free from God's demand (that's how I see it, at least). We can choose God, we can reject him, it's within OUR will. If God dictates all that from the beginning, there is no Freedom in the will to action. >Why< God would invest himself in something like that seems beyond our comprehension, unless you take a mundane route and chalk it up to sheer boredom.

So why worship him, or fear retribution? I've always considered that a question that answers itself. Why worship a God that's obvious, evident, and in control? Shit, why wouldn't you? If the Lord came down from heaven, riding a flaming steed and swinging a mighty sword, I would bow down pretty quickly.

I recognize this is a coarse way of framing of it, but I'm not convinced it doesn't have value. Faith is meaningless if it's assumed. As for the particulars - I can't claim to speak on any of that. And I remain very suspicious of those who claim they can.

I do think it's telling we got to 'God' as the designer as evolution so quickly. I didn't propose 'God' as the agent that directs evolution, but it's hard to to terms with a definition on that scale that doesn't correlate to our general conceptions of 'deity'.

Which leads to me to another question. If we accept some sort of directive in evolution (beyond Natural Selection, which I'm not buying, on a material level, just yet), does that directive have to be the 'will of God'? I think if you dig in there, really deep, you find a lot of cultural and social debris pertaining to religion and our ideas about it.

I've heard the adaptive argument before, and it kind of leaves me in a middle ground. I mean, isn't adaptation just another term for evolution? Can we really say these adaptive developments wont be passed down to their offspring?

My challenge here is to the entrenched notion that all evolutionary advance comes from reproductive superiority. Perhaps there is another mechanism at work, and we just cannot see it because the debate is so polarized.

Obviously, Natural Selection isn't 'aiming' for anything. Reproductive success is definitely an issue here.

What if reproductive success hinges on more than a single random mutation?

I'm genuinely asking to be educated in this, because my understanding remains murky, and I've presented this line of inquiry in other venues.

A single random mutation (the mutation must be random - this I can at least testify to have, having read a number of texts on the issue) . . . how does that spread throughout an entire species through Reproductive Superiority? I know reproduction isn't the aim, but that brings me back to the Adam and Eve issue: you're only going to have one 'random mutation' contributing to a superior survival complex.

I gotta stop posting when Im trashed.

Evolution is definitely incremental. On the micro level, it occurs constantly.

I think my point was, natural selection acts on the macro level. Environmental changes affect different scales of 'survival acumen' in species. Natural Selection presents that random mutations that allow for superior survivalism are the sole motivating factor in Evolution.

I'm simply wondering if random mutation might not be the only factor. Some sort of environmental pressure that creates a directed, not entirely random mutation could explain the wild diversity of life on Earth more effectively than random mutation (I think, this is just what I'm presenting). Evolution has taken place over billions of years, true, but looking at the fossil records it appears that diversity explodes at certain points, and becomes stagnant at others. If random mutation was the sole factor, wouldn't it follow that diversity would expand constantly? That follows into the 'survival' problem, where we say at certain points random mutation affects superior survival and at other points it doesn't. I honestly don't know, and it's unfortunate that the question is so polarized that an honest inquiry inevitably explodes into some religious debate.

The issue here is 'random' mutation, and if you accept that it might not be random, you have to consider something 'else'. I don't have a philosophical problem with this, as I am ever skeptical of how much we actually 'know'. Perhaps mutation is influenced by ecological organizations ('organisms' if you want) we simply cannot recognize (perhaps because we are subsumed into these 'organisms').

That was the thrust of what I was getting at but, man, I was pretty fucked up when I posted that.

EDIT: Kerry Martin pretty much cleared up my confusion here. Rogue Genes and 'Natural Survival is not the end all of Evolution' addressed my questions. I am now more knowledgeable! Half the Battle! I suppose you just have to explore the correct avenues to hear these things, because I've actually never heard it stated so clearly and succintly.

Something Im not quite clear on, though: giraffes, as an example. If genetics isn't passed on incrementally, how exactly do their necks get so long? If I understand, you have a particular species that occasionally undergoes genetic change, in regards to survivalism. The only problem I'm having with this is, incrementalism is out here. So what explains to slow upward creeping of humanity's height, over the centuries? Is this purely affected by changes in the environment? (like, say, people standing upright longer?) Some clarification on how that works would be greatly appreciated.

Got it.

It's not really an argument, more of an honest question, so please forgive me for being a moron, oh mighty eenin.

Seriously, though, what's the difference between incremental and cumulative in this context?

Granted, I would have posted this somewhere else, if there was a more appropriate board.

I wonder why, when contemplating possible limits in our knowledge, we necessarily fall back into debating religion. That's probably my main problem when discussing touchstone issues like this - there's so much polarization (on both sides) it leads to intellectual extremism. Maybe that's too strong a word, but either you're a 'moron' who doesn't understand the basic tenets of science (which is the end all be all) or a close-minded jerk. You see this thing on the internet all the time; it's disheartening to see it so prevalent everywhere else, from the Wal Mart to the University. I caught a lot of flak for even bringing up the issue in a course . . . but I don't think it serves the scientific spirit to dismiss legitimate questions as 'ignorant.' There's plenty of debate within the evolutionary field, between people far smarter than any of us. Dawkins has issues with Punctuated Equilibrium. For all the (deserved) ridicule we throw at fundamentalist, it seems like sometimes the scientific community accepts the status quo with the same certainty that was once afforded to mathematical determinism or (more dangerously) eugenics. I don't mean to suggest we can't believe anything science tells us, but maybe a little more honest skepticism, and acceptance of open debate, would be good for all of us.

EDIT: I realize this might also just be a problem of perception. I've met a lot of very open minded academics and plenty of intelligent students of religion. Taken to the fringe, you're always going to find the ignorant and hostile. I do wish the ignorant and hostile weren't so prevalent, but hey, that's life.