Sloppy Teleological Explanations for Evolution

[Notvacka]

Now tell me exactly HOW this mechanism is supposed to happen!

Sorry, that's too tall an order for me. Nobody knows what the metaphysical mechanisms are that result in quantum behaviour. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits our knowledge. I jumped into this thread on inspiration. I'm not really here to argue about evolution or even teleology. I just thought my idea about postdetermination could apply.

QM has become the dumping ground for every crack pot meaningless theory.

But I'm arguing against such theories. In particular against those that tout the "randomness" and "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics as evidence of an infinite number of possible futures to choose from and proof that "free will" exists in reality.

Applying notions from quantum mechanics on a larger scale is dubious at best. But if you do, I suggest that both the randomness and the reversible arrow of time should come along for the ride. In which case the "purpose" of evolution could be defined after the fact and work backwards.

[Notvacka]

Dawkin's "selfish gene" is possibly the most famous example of teleological shorthand and although it probably does work within the scientific community it has been terribly misrepresented elsewhere, not least by opponents of evolution. Dawkin's would be horrified at the advancement of a teleological explanation for evolution but he will insist on using metaphors that lay him open to misinterpretation.

I agree, basically. Good metaphors are irresistible, though they often come back to bite you in the ass, when misinterpreted. Happens all the time in this forum too.

[chaz wyman]

Now tell me exactly HOW this mechanism is supposed to happen!

Sorry, that's too tall an order for me. Nobody knows what the metaphysical mechanisms are that result in quantum behaviour. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits our knowledge. I jumped into this thread on inspiration. I'm not really here to argue about evolution or even teleology. I just thought my idea about postdetermination could apply.

So on the matter of natural selection you are just talking bollocks?

QM has become the dumping ground for every crack pot meaningless theory.

But I'm arguing against such theories. In particular against those that tout the "randomness" and "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics as evidence of an infinite number of possible futures to choose from and proof that "free will" exists in reality.

You are confusing a range of issues here.

Applying notions from quantum mechanics on a larger scale is dubious at best. But if you do, I suggest that both the randomness and the reversible arrow of time should come along for the ride. In which case the "purpose" of evolution could be defined after the fact and work backwards.

How utterly naive of you.

[chaz wyman]

I can understand Notvacka's use of example of the double slit experiment, as it involves applying teleology to a non sentient phenomena, but I think the teleology in that example is in part true, due to the information transfer.

Dah! HOW?

It of course knows nothing, but it does react to information, which is what we do in a sense. But that would be where the similarity ends.

Now in the case of zebra stripes, of course the stripes themselves can't know anything, and are in fact the cause of the increased survival rates.

That is not even necessarily true. Natural Selection only acts on the survival of individuals in species' reproductive success - IT DOES NOT ACT DIRECTLY ON ANY GENE OR TRAIT. Stripes might be of no significance what ever. Zebras' survival might have nothing to do with its stripes. There are many other similar species that thrive without stripes.

But there is no information the stripes gain from the fact that they increase survival rates. The only information that is even about the stripes is of course genetic. However this information does lead to the expression of the stripes within the organism. And yet the stripes, through a sort of feedback mechanism, allow that the information which produced them can continue to be present in the organism.
There is no such mechanism except survival. Natural Survival works by death and reproductive failure, as long as stripes do not adversely affect reproductive success then they are capable of hitching a ride on an otherwise successful species.
It is even possible that stripes might be slightly disadvantageous, but since there are no zebras without them, stripes are IN. They just have not to be so disadvantageous as to NOT allow a competitor species to thrive in their niche.

But of course nowhere within that process are the stripes aware of anything they do, they are just an effect which happen to increase the chance of survival, and therefore their continued phenotypical expression. No teleology involved.

But of course it is easier to use teleology to explain this

Easier to lie.

, and maybe it is so easy to do this as where we see some form of structure or useful process we tend to assign the creation of the process a form of intelligence or intent. Undoubtedly this must be eradicated if it is taken literally, however I would argue that within the scientific community this kind of shorthand might be useful given the person reading is aware of the true nature of evolutionary processes.

Sadly this lie implies design and cognisance.
It is no wonder that "intelligent design" and "creationism" thrive whist this lie is propagated.

However for clarity and to eradicate intentionally destructive misinterpretations it would be beneficial for writers who discuss evolution within the media to use correct explanation.

I agree with that.