السلام عليكم و رحمة الله
To cut to the meat, a debate has been raging regarding whether animals are the product of adaptation or are they partly non-adaptive?
Wait, what is adaptation and what's non-adaptation? Well, keep it simple, in the evolutionary sense, it means that every physical part, every gene, every cell, every everything in an animal or plant is there due to some benefit to the animal or plant and these parts arose due to natural selection which is a process that allegedly "sees"[1] all changes in an animal and either removes them, like a sieve, due to their harmful effect (like being slow) or preserves them due to the benefit they give to the animal. On the other hand, non-adaptive features are any physical parts, any gene, any cell, any anything which would be in an animal or plant that does not harm nor benefit the creature in any way, is just simply there for whatever reason - like beauty. A good example would be the infinite amount of patterns on the butterfly wing. Do the millions of patterns on butterfly wings point to some survival benefit or just a form of beauty?
Those who believe that an animal is composed, at least the majority, of adaptive parts are called: arch-Darwinist, Neo-Darwinist, ultra-Darwinist, adaptationalist or arch-adaptationist[2]
Whilst those who are against the adaptationalist mindset don't really have a name, we'll call them neutralist.
The disagreement isn't whether adaptation is real or not, in fact they all agree adaptation exist, but the disagreement is whether adaptation is as exclusively important as it's been labelled for the last 110 years - beginning with August Weismann calling natural selection Allmacht - a word in German that means All Powerful.[3] Weismann had so much faith in natural selection that the title of his paper was "Die Allmacht der Naturzuchtung" - The All Sufficiency/Powerful of Natural Selection.[4]
At the start of the 20th century, not many believed that adaptation ruled the animal kingdom though it surely played a role (excluding Weismann and his followers of course). Various scientists disagreed with natural selection playing a major role. Hugo de Vries was one of many who were saltationist. de Vries proposed his heretical "mutation theory"[5] where mutation alone can provide the necessary changes for evolution in a rapid form without the need of natural selection or gradualism. de Vries thought that he witnessed such rapid evolution when he sowed the seeds of the evening primrose plant Oenothera lamarckiana and producing 7 different species of Oenothera, namely: gigas, rubrinervis, albida, oblongata, nanella, lata and brevistylis. He described their evolution as,
Even the founders of Neo Darwinism, were, at the start, neutralist but then for whatever reason changed their position and became arch-adaptationist. Neo Darwinism is the hypothesis that postulates that life evolves gradually, no sudden leap at all & the evolution occurs by extrapolating the series of gradual accumulation of random mutations that we see in our day to day life (it's based on extrapolation since no one has witnessed that such mutations can do what the tree of life needs), that adaptation plays a huge role in the development of life and the unit of selection is the organism (or the gene)[7] In fact this hypothesis is called "orthodox" hypothesis. But plenty of doubt has risen regarding the whole Neo Darwinian paradigm or at least part of it, challenging the orthodox view of life.[8]
So the debate continued from the late 19th century all the way to the 21st century. At one point you had the "Dawkinsites" vs "Gouldites" debate regarding the very question of adaptation.[9] And when Stephen Jay Gould presented his paper The Spandrels of San Marco and the Adaptationist Programme to argue that animals are similar to spandrels - see how the spandrels are natural byproducts of the intersecting of the two triangular shapes? - the group of geneticists in the audience claimed that this was nothing more than a Marxist plot! and they could explain all the features of the snail via adaptation.[10] Apparently it's political to critique adaptation!
I want to share four examples of how adaptationists would think regarding whatever trait is in question. I will go from understandable to utter rubbish.
Imagine you have a skull, especially the neurocranium in your hands. This particular skull has a similar trait like the other skulls on the table: pachyostosis which means thick boned. So if you have a neurocranium with such thick bones, would you somehow think it's due to some survival benefit or just a normal growth of the skull & therefore not really relevant to ponder much on? As an adaptationist, you must have a story on how pachyostosis appeared and indeed professor of anatomy Noel T. Boaz and professor of anthropology Russel L. Ciochon think they have found the answer. Apart from the obvious fact that the skull is here to help the jaw to hold our teeth and protect our brain, this unusual thickness in Homo erectus is allegedly evidence for some onslaught made by H. erectus in the past. They cite Peter Brown's study that Australian aborigines have the thickest skull in modern human population.[11] Brown hypothesizes that the reason behind their thickness is due to their battling to settle issues with the nulla nulla (a wooden club). So, the thin skull humans would be knocked out with the nulla nulla whilst the thick ones would survive. And that is how thick skulls appeared. The authors didn't say that this is the ultimate proof but rather "If Brown is correct" then head bashing might explain the pachyostosis of Homo erectus.[12]
Now, ask this question, why do men like red? A common sense answer is, "first of all not all men like red and those who do simply like it, perhaps connected to some neurological process but we have the choice to like or dislike it". Right? "No", says the evolutionary psychologist. Why? Because redness, allegedly, is an unconscious attraction which reminds us, men, of
I don't even have to explain why this is utter nonsense. That is just-so story at its best.
Now ask yourself, why do women like red/pink? Wait, didn't I just say men like red? I did but evolutionary psychologist tend to contradict themselves. The reason being is because allegedly whilst men hunted, women, millions of years ago, went to collect berries and generally speaking, berries are red and because women gathered berries, which are red, that is why women today like red since it's an unconscious reminder of the redness whilst women were the housewives of the heroic ape-man who went to hunt and eventually liked the colour blue (which contradicts the part that men like red)[14]. You think this is nonsense? That's just scratching the surface.
Gould raised two issues against the adaptationists, (1) it's irrefutable, since all you need is a just-so story and if it fails, make a new,
And (2) it's not based on scientific scrutiny since adaptationist use consistency rather than proper explanation to explain the traits that the animals or plants have,
Even though the debate between arch adaptationists vs neutralists won't end soon, the good thing is to see the unstable reality of how evolution allegedly occurs. Depending on your position, the history of life is seen in a radically different light. It also opens a history of 150 years of debate to enlighten us & the future regarding how and why different evolutionary theories exist, contrary to what many evolutionists claim which is that there are no different theories. Nothing in evolution is stable or straightforward but fluctuating against itself.
References & Notes
1. It must be remembered that natural selection is not a conscious process. It doesn't decide or plan ahead. We simply use the word "natural selection" to explain that weaker animals would die due to their weakness, whatever the weakness is and stronger animals, whatever their strength is, would remain alive and pass their genes to the next generation whilst the weak die before passing their genes & if they do somehow survive, then there's a problem to the welfare of the species.
2. Richard Dawkins was once called arch-adaptationist and ultra-Darwinist, in fact he finds the word "ultra Darwinist" not much of an insult as the coiners intended. Richard Dawkins, 2009, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, Bantam Press, page 332.
3. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 63, 197-208.
4. Ibid, page 198.
5. Though I haven't read the works of the Japanese scientist まさとし ねい (Masatoshi Nei) but he recently, in 2013, also proposed a "mutation theory" - it sounds quite similar to de Vries, perhaps they are identical. See Masatoshi Nei, 2013, Mutation-Driven Evolution, Oxford Press.
6. Hugo de Vries, 1905, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, page 550 Quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 426 - 427. Just a side note, selection and struggle is one of the same thing.
7. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, chapter 7.
8. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press. Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould, 1972, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative To Phyletic Gradualism, in Models of Paleobiology, pages 82-115. Denis Noble, 2006, The Music of Life: Biology Beyond The Genome, Oxford Press. Michael Lynch: 2007, The Origins of Genomic Architecture. Sinauer Associates, 2006 The Origins of Eukaryotic Gene Structure, Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 450-468. Eric Davidson, 2011, Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology, Development Biology, 357: 35-40. Douglas H. Eric, 2000, Macroevolution Is More Than Repeated Rounds Of Microevolution, Evolution and Development 2: 78-84. Michael Denton, 2016, Evolution: Still a Theory In Crisis. Discovery Institiute Press. Stephen C. Meyer, 2013, Darwin's Doubt, Harper One. David Klinghoffer, 2015, Debating Darwin's Doubt, Discovery Institute Press. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View From The 21st Century. Also see http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
9. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 5.
10. Ibid, page 6.
11. Noel T. Boaz & Russell L. Ciochon, 2004, Dragon Bone Hill: An Ice-Age Saga Of Homo Erectus, Oxford Press, page 81.
12. Ibid.
13. Frederick L. Coolidge & Thomas Wynn, 2012, How To Think Like A Neandertal, Oxford Press, page 85.
14. Robert Newman, 2015, The Entirely Accurate Encyclopedia Of Evolution, Freight Book, page 25-26.
15. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 423, also see page 421.
16. Ibid.
To cut to the meat, a debate has been raging regarding whether animals are the product of adaptation or are they partly non-adaptive?
Wait, what is adaptation and what's non-adaptation? Well, keep it simple, in the evolutionary sense, it means that every physical part, every gene, every cell, every everything in an animal or plant is there due to some benefit to the animal or plant and these parts arose due to natural selection which is a process that allegedly "sees"[1] all changes in an animal and either removes them, like a sieve, due to their harmful effect (like being slow) or preserves them due to the benefit they give to the animal. On the other hand, non-adaptive features are any physical parts, any gene, any cell, any anything which would be in an animal or plant that does not harm nor benefit the creature in any way, is just simply there for whatever reason - like beauty. A good example would be the infinite amount of patterns on the butterfly wing. Do the millions of patterns on butterfly wings point to some survival benefit or just a form of beauty?
Those who believe that an animal is composed, at least the majority, of adaptive parts are called: arch-Darwinist, Neo-Darwinist, ultra-Darwinist, adaptationalist or arch-adaptationist[2]
Whilst those who are against the adaptationalist mindset don't really have a name, we'll call them neutralist.
The disagreement isn't whether adaptation is real or not, in fact they all agree adaptation exist, but the disagreement is whether adaptation is as exclusively important as it's been labelled for the last 110 years - beginning with August Weismann calling natural selection Allmacht - a word in German that means All Powerful.[3] Weismann had so much faith in natural selection that the title of his paper was "Die Allmacht der Naturzuchtung" - The All Sufficiency/Powerful of Natural Selection.[4]
 |
| Oenothera lamarckiana |
 |
| The result of Hugo de Vries' experiment. Taken from
de Vries' book "Mutation Theory"
|
"They came into existence at once, fully equipped, without preparation or intermediates steps. No series of generations, no selection, no struggle for existence was needed. It was a sudden leap into another type..."[6]
So the debate continued from the late 19th century all the way to the 21st century. At one point you had the "Dawkinsites" vs "Gouldites" debate regarding the very question of adaptation.[9] And when Stephen Jay Gould presented his paper The Spandrels of San Marco and the Adaptationist Programme to argue that animals are similar to spandrels - see how the spandrels are natural byproducts of the intersecting of the two triangular shapes? - the group of geneticists in the audience claimed that this was nothing more than a Marxist plot! and they could explain all the features of the snail via adaptation.[10] Apparently it's political to critique adaptation!I want to share four examples of how adaptationists would think regarding whatever trait is in question. I will go from understandable to utter rubbish.
Imagine you have a skull, especially the neurocranium in your hands. This particular skull has a similar trait like the other skulls on the table: pachyostosis which means thick boned. So if you have a neurocranium with such thick bones, would you somehow think it's due to some survival benefit or just a normal growth of the skull & therefore not really relevant to ponder much on? As an adaptationist, you must have a story on how pachyostosis appeared and indeed professor of anatomy Noel T. Boaz and professor of anthropology Russel L. Ciochon think they have found the answer. Apart from the obvious fact that the skull is here to help the jaw to hold our teeth and protect our brain, this unusual thickness in Homo erectus is allegedly evidence for some onslaught made by H. erectus in the past. They cite Peter Brown's study that Australian aborigines have the thickest skull in modern human population.[11] Brown hypothesizes that the reason behind their thickness is due to their battling to settle issues with the nulla nulla (a wooden club). So, the thin skull humans would be knocked out with the nulla nulla whilst the thick ones would survive. And that is how thick skulls appeared. The authors didn't say that this is the ultimate proof but rather "If Brown is correct" then head bashing might explain the pachyostosis of Homo erectus.[12]
Now, ask this question, why do men like red? A common sense answer is, "first of all not all men like red and those who do simply like it, perhaps connected to some neurological process but we have the choice to like or dislike it". Right? "No", says the evolutionary psychologist. Why? Because redness, allegedly, is an unconscious attraction which reminds us, men, of
"...red, swollen, fertilizable private parts of a woman back million and millions of years ago"[13]
I don't even have to explain why this is utter nonsense. That is just-so story at its best.
Now ask yourself, why do women like red/pink? Wait, didn't I just say men like red? I did but evolutionary psychologist tend to contradict themselves. The reason being is because allegedly whilst men hunted, women, millions of years ago, went to collect berries and generally speaking, berries are red and because women gathered berries, which are red, that is why women today like red since it's an unconscious reminder of the redness whilst women were the housewives of the heroic ape-man who went to hunt and eventually liked the colour blue (which contradicts the part that men like red)[14]. You think this is nonsense? That's just scratching the surface.
Gould raised two issues against the adaptationists, (1) it's irrefutable, since all you need is a just-so story and if it fails, make a new,
"Unfortunately, a common procedure among evolutionists does not allow such definable rejection..."[15]
And (2) it's not based on scientific scrutiny since adaptationist use consistency rather than proper explanation to explain the traits that the animals or plants have,
"Often, evolutionists use consistency with natural selection as the sole criterion and consider their work job well done when they concoct a plausible story. But plausible stories can always be told."[16]
Even though the debate between arch adaptationists vs neutralists won't end soon, the good thing is to see the unstable reality of how evolution allegedly occurs. Depending on your position, the history of life is seen in a radically different light. It also opens a history of 150 years of debate to enlighten us & the future regarding how and why different evolutionary theories exist, contrary to what many evolutionists claim which is that there are no different theories. Nothing in evolution is stable or straightforward but fluctuating against itself.
References & Notes
1. It must be remembered that natural selection is not a conscious process. It doesn't decide or plan ahead. We simply use the word "natural selection" to explain that weaker animals would die due to their weakness, whatever the weakness is and stronger animals, whatever their strength is, would remain alive and pass their genes to the next generation whilst the weak die before passing their genes & if they do somehow survive, then there's a problem to the welfare of the species.
2. Richard Dawkins was once called arch-adaptationist and ultra-Darwinist, in fact he finds the word "ultra Darwinist" not much of an insult as the coiners intended. Richard Dawkins, 2009, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, Bantam Press, page 332.
3. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 63, 197-208.
4. Ibid, page 198.
5. Though I haven't read the works of the Japanese scientist まさとし ねい (Masatoshi Nei) but he recently, in 2013, also proposed a "mutation theory" - it sounds quite similar to de Vries, perhaps they are identical. See Masatoshi Nei, 2013, Mutation-Driven Evolution, Oxford Press.
6. Hugo de Vries, 1905, Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, page 550 Quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, pages 426 - 427. Just a side note, selection and struggle is one of the same thing.
7. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press, chapter 7.
8. Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press. Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould, 1972, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative To Phyletic Gradualism, in Models of Paleobiology, pages 82-115. Denis Noble, 2006, The Music of Life: Biology Beyond The Genome, Oxford Press. Michael Lynch: 2007, The Origins of Genomic Architecture. Sinauer Associates, 2006 The Origins of Eukaryotic Gene Structure, Molecular Biology and Evolution 23: 450-468. Eric Davidson, 2011, Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology, Development Biology, 357: 35-40. Douglas H. Eric, 2000, Macroevolution Is More Than Repeated Rounds Of Microevolution, Evolution and Development 2: 78-84. Michael Denton, 2016, Evolution: Still a Theory In Crisis. Discovery Institiute Press. Stephen C. Meyer, 2013, Darwin's Doubt, Harper One. David Klinghoffer, 2015, Debating Darwin's Doubt, Discovery Institute Press. James Shapiro, 2011, Evolution: A View From The 21st Century. Also see http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
9. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 5.
10. Ibid, page 6.
11. Noel T. Boaz & Russell L. Ciochon, 2004, Dragon Bone Hill: An Ice-Age Saga Of Homo Erectus, Oxford Press, page 81.
12. Ibid.
13. Frederick L. Coolidge & Thomas Wynn, 2012, How To Think Like A Neandertal, Oxford Press, page 85.
14. Robert Newman, 2015, The Entirely Accurate Encyclopedia Of Evolution, Freight Book, page 25-26.
15. Stephen Jay Gould, 2007, The Richness of Life, Vintage, page 423, also see page 421.
16. Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment