Evolution...what it is precisely...

[Scott Mayers]

I opened this to help keep anther thread on issue and to aid in speaking of this independently to address people's understanding of this. I don't know if this is quite the same thing as formal "philosophy of science" but it still relates to many issues on philosophy. I'll just open this and leave this for now to invite interpretation upon it.

So what is evolution?

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's not a cause.
It is the effect of differential survival in a changing environment.
Only those that survive changing conditions, go forth to the next generation and so species change with the environment through necessity.

This means that whilst traits and behaviours have functions, they cannot be said to have purpose.

It also means that traits that have no significance to survival, as well as those that have positive significance to survival are carried forward. Even traits that might have some negative significance can be preserved just so long as they do not negatively impact to the degree that the organism fails to have viable progeny.

Death and failure is the main driving force of evolution; not success.

[Lacewing]

It's not a cause.
It is the effect of differential survival in a changing environment.
Only those that survive changing conditions, go forth to the next generation and so species change with the environment through necessity.

This means that whilst traits and behaviours have functions, they cannot be said to have purpose.

It also means that traits that have no significance to survival, as well as those that have positive significance to survival are carried forward. Even traits that might have some negative significance can be preserved just so long as they do not negatively impact to the degree that the organism fails to have viable progeny.

Death and failure is the main driving force of evolution; not success.

I could apply much of this description to how I think of evolution in terms of our thinking and awareness and energetic vibration too. If those aspects are not flexible, they cannot evolve either.

Rigidity in any aspect of this world and ourselves seems to go against nature, and limits or dooms our evolvement... even on levels we might (as of yet) be unaware of. This could prevent us from recognizing and utilizing the open and flowing pathways of a more efficient and effective, broader and collective system of awareness and connectivity that we are already naturally a part of.

[Scott Mayers]

It's not a cause.
It is the effect of differential survival in a changing environment.
Only those that survive changing conditions, go forth to the next generation and so species change with the environment through necessity.

This means that whilst traits and behaviours have functions, they cannot be said to have purpose.

It also means that traits that have no significance to survival, as well as those that have positive significance to survival are carried forward. Even traits that might have some negative significance can be preserved just so long as they do not negatively impact to the degree that the organism fails to have viable progeny.

Death and failure is the main driving force of evolution; not success.

I agree with this. Darwin originally noticed from the contemporary data of Malthus on the statistics of London that more births AND deaths occurred in the most impoverished and highly denser areas of London. At the time this was a surprise since they could not figure why it was the case, as many still do today, that poor and struggling people would insist on having so many babies when they can't afford them. Yet, it also turned out that more deaths occurred in these communities too and thus the conclusion was inferred that where there is a great struggle for survival, populations tended to have more offspring to offset the struggle due to more deaths as well. So this was the main hint that Darwin presumed had something to do with evolution. It was death, not success that lead to some driving force.

Another factor, considering how larger populations in more densely populated areas have greater variety too, aided in some way to provide something that allowed for even more variation in offspring too. Considering Gould and Eldridge's Punctuated Equilibrium which suggests stable periods of less variation during times of stability but sharp punctuated changes in more rapid variation during times of struggle, this makes sense as well.

Some form of 'mutation' seemed to be another cause not yet understood by Darwin in which random variables of change appear 'accidental' in some offspring over others. And while most may not be productive nor suited to the environment, others happen to 'fit' quite well. And the means of significance lacks value intrinsically with necessary meaning too, like the the feathers of a peacock which are merely a type of 'cultural' accident but actually could risk the bird's survival with such features.

With variation from what we later learned beginning with Mendel that the mechanism of change took half information from each parental contributor (parents) to create a mix that had a means to express one half of the active possible traits that could get passed on.

But it is those mutations which offer the variability and then the process of weeding out (selection) takes place to eliminate those things less favorable. This is a negative process which leaves those that 'survive' remain 'fit' to that present environment.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This is a tricky topic. For thousands of years our language has developed in the spirit of teleology based on an assumption of the presence of god and the fallacy that the world is a purposeful place.
Along comes Darwin and he finds that there are no words that do not completely avoid this tendency. Indeed Darwin's work is replete with teleology as he was working to counter the arguments of the Natural Theologians in the same language.
Even the best practitioners of Natural History such as David Attenbourogh tend to erroneously say "why" a leopard has spots rather than restrict their language to what advantage those spots might provide.

Mutation, variation and environmental change is the fuel for more and more. The less and less is the fuelled by failure of SOME of those variations. One important point not always emphasized by evolutionism is the simple fact that selection does not work upon individual traits or genes, neither does it work upon whole and distinct species or groups. The selection process works most keenly upon individuals who, bearing some catastrophic trait, fail to reproduce and thus fail to pass on those traits. However, even if an individual has a multitude of poor quality or selectively useless traits it can still survive and reproduce just so long as those traits are not severe enough to make that individual fail to reproduce offspring. In this way the "infinite variety" as described by Darwin will grow - "more and more".

It has been the cause of great annoyance and disappointment to me that some of the most influential and famous natural historians such as David Attenborough persist in the use of naive teleological language. They persist in the notion that the characteristics of living things have a purpose. If we are to accept the theory of Darwin that natural characteristics are the result of random mutation and natural selection, then it cannot be said that things have a purpose. But this is exactly what is implied, time and time again in statements such as "The butterfly has beautiful red wings so that it can attract a mate". This is naive teleology. There is no purpose to the butterfly having red wings. One might as well say that the purpose of the red wings is so that predators will more easily be able to see them for its food! Characteristics can have no purpose unless you believe that there is a guiding hand in evolution.
Bad language... Evolution causes things to change so that they may more easily survive!! WRONG! Evolution is not the cause of change. There is no force in nature that causes things to change. EVOLUTION is the result of change. Things change therefore species evolve.
The theory of natural selection relies on three factors: 1) empirical variability, 2) persistence of transmission of some or all variability and 3) differential representation of transmitted variability in subsequent state. Evolution is change that results from differential persistence of variability under the selection pressure of environment. The only driving force suggested by Darwin was that unsuccessful individuals perish. Therefore natural selection does not act to cause us to survive. Neither does it directly assist evolution by preserving traits that enhance survival. There is no positive mechanism, only a negative one. Change merely results in the elimination of those factors that cause us to perish before the individual gets a chance to procreate. When this, negative mechanism, is understood we can see the world of infinite variety as just existing randomly and not just for reasons of survivability, enabling us to reject the pernicious teleology which such approaches are heir to. Natural selection does not guarantee that a particular behavior or physiological feature may prove significant to survival but life is enhanced by this variety in as much as it provides a random and not teleological response to changing environmental circumstances. This picture also enables and re-casts an understanding of human cultural experience as self-determining rather than the gross interpretation that require all human phenomena to be "for something". This negative mechanism can lead both to survival and extinction but can explain neither. Most traits must be seen as random, conferring no particular advantage of disadvantage. This will also help defend the theory against those that hold up vestigial organs are some proof against evolution.

Until we actually grasp the nettle and expunge teleological language from the discourse of evolutionary studies we will never fully understand evolution and will always be at the mercy of creationists who calmly use this language themselves.


I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that, in general, all the conceptualisations we have, are borrowed second hand fro the cultural and educational milieu in which we find ourselves, and it is sometimes a good idea to reflect that the conditions of our own socialisation always affect the interpretation of such thins as "natural selection" NS
To this end we should reflect that the term NS, coined by Darwin relates directly to his own experiences of Victorian life in which he found himself, fighting with an assumption of a divine hand in nature. When we move on 165 years we should re-examine the phrase and its underlying implications. Mature reflection should tell us that selection implies a selector, as I mentioned in an earlier post. But evolution does not cause change. Evolution is what happens when things change. It is an important distinction that seems lost on many - even on biologists...

[Scott Mayers]

Very well spoken, Hobbe's Choice!

I agree completely. Yet I also find that even in science proper this behavior is persistent regardless. You still here of a relatively good documentary in science use the term, "creation", to describe the universe, cosmos, or totality. It's even hard to speak of ourselves with respect to sex with a generic term that sounds awkward or too formal when we speak of "he/she" rather than "it". I try hard to remain formal by saying "one" or "person" but it also steals away connection with the reader. Maybe this is why many promoters still use such emotionally laden terms.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So the point I am clumsily making above; and why I accused you (Skip) of getting things backwards in another thread is due to the unwarranted application of an assumption of teleology which infects most evolutionary theory.
One simply cannot just pick a trait; think of a selectively positive trait and then pretend THAT is what it is "FOR". All traits must precede selective pressure; they do not emerge because of it. What Darwin proposed was a genuine copernican turn in the way we look at nature.

In fact, although I am 100% behind the idea of Darwinism, I do not think the mechanism he identified gives us warrant to explain any of the phenomena that evolution gives rise to, except in the most narrow sense. The fact is that all variations have to preceded their selection, and this means that the world of living things is far more diverse that that selection process can explain. Natural Selection preserves for us existing traits that do not cause the reproductive failure of the individual members of species; it does not explain how and why ALL traits come about and persist.
If it were the case that adaptations knew what they were selected FOR, then we would now be living in a different world entirely - but I sometimes think that Pinker and his crew think exactly that.
In fact evolution is not a mechanism that selects any traits at all. It certainly does not select FOR a trait.
Evolution is the effect of a selection that preserves successful organisms against those that are less successful. This is effected by organisms being fitter. But fitness can come in many guises; and along with what can be identified as a positive trait, any individual is a collection of mainly neutral traits and even some negative ones (so long and they are not bad enough to cause reproductive failure).
The problem for so-called 'evolutionary science;' is the tendency to latch on to positive looking traits and claim that they are THE REASON for the organism's success. In fact it is more complicated than that and today's negative traits can be tomorrow's positive traits, and vice versa.

I'm not alone, as a Darwinist that thinks the Pinker brigade are a bunch of evolutionary religionists.

There has been a long-standing, subtle confusion, elegantly expressed by Fodor&Piattelli-Palmarini (in their Book What Darwin Got Wrong), between;"

(1) The claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and;

(2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

1 is correct, 2 is false. The difference is subtle but significant.

2 leads to the massive misconceptions of evolutionary psychology and neo-darwinism, which assert the results of natural selection as some kind of explication engine of change and naturalistically fallacious set of assertions about why we are the way we are.

When you stop and reflect the the truth of 1, then you have to accept the world of variation as an explanation in and of itself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Very well spoken, Hobbe's Choice!

I agree completely. Yet I also find that even in science proper this behavior is persistent regardless. You still here of a relatively good documentary in science use the term, "creation", to describe the universe, cosmos, or totality. It's even hard to speak of ourselves with respect to sex with a generic term that sounds awkward or too formal when we speak of "he/she" rather than "it". I try hard to remain formal by saying "one" or "person" but it also steals away connection with the reader. Maybe this is why many promoters still use such emotionally laden terms.

YES! and we are all 'creatures" - what does that imply but a complete misconception?

[Briancrc]

So what is evolution?

Evolution is a three part idea: one is the concept of common ancestry (I.e., living things descended with modification from common ancestors); two, the pattern of evolution (e.g., taxonomic systems) that show the branching and splitting that has occurred with evolution, and; three, the mechanisms or processes that describe how evolution might work.

[Briancrc]

If we are to accept the theory of Darwin that natural characteristics are the result of random mutation and natural selection, then it cannot be said that things have a purpose. But this is exactly what is implied, time and time again in statements such as "The butterfly has beautiful red wings so that it can attract a mate".

Yes, I think this type of language confuses directionality and implies that the process goes from the organism to the environment as opposed to the other way around. Excellent post, Hobbes!

[Hobbes' Choice]

If we are to accept the theory of Darwin that natural characteristics are the result of random mutation and natural selection, then it cannot be said that things have a purpose. But this is exactly what is implied, time and time again in statements such as "The butterfly has beautiful red wings so that it can attract a mate".

Yes, I think this type of language confuses directionality and implies that the process goes from the organism to the environment as opposed to the other way around. Excellent post, Hobbes!

Thanks. This has been a big bug bear of mine for years.
I love David Attenbourgh and his Wildlife programmes but hate the implication of "intensional" evolution in his language; he might as well be extolling the virtues of "creationism'.
I react like a pedant with a common grammatical mistake: my blood literally boils!!

But worst still - bringing up children listening to this forces into their consciousness the language of intelligent design.
It's no wonder people are confused, and ID persists.