tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post623216130249051014..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Podcast Teaser: Evolutionary PsychologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65830208678223185072010-09-27T20:56:17.638-04:002010-09-27T20:56:17.638-04:00My post was responded to on the podcast yesterday,...My post was responded to on the podcast yesterday, and the response was a major let-down.<br /><br />My post was abbreviated in the podcast to something like "Don't most of Massimo's criticisms of evo psych also apply to mainstream psych as well?".<br /><br />Massimo dismissed this, saying that evo psych is all about the historical sequence of man's psychological development. This is not true. I've read about 5 evo psych book, and almost never do they go into any detail about the historical sequence of development. They are psychologists. They are using hunches based on evolutionary theory to go looking for psychological traits. It is evolutionary biologists who are primarily concerned with the history of the development of biological structures.lalawawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219154713603989499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24436685943567485142010-09-13T17:40:40.825-04:002010-09-13T17:40:40.825-04:00I agree that life is an example of the emergence o...I agree that life is an example of the emergence of purpose in nature. But I'd add the qualification that it's not the first or only example of purposive behavior in the cosmos. Others as I recall have commented on the proposal that the cosmos has acquired its own purposes, the purposive "laws of nature" being a fairly clear example. <br />Life forms of course being the only example we are as yet aware of that can choose to acquire purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30593063948679447222010-09-13T17:13:41.592-04:002010-09-13T17:13:41.592-04:00The self-organizing brain, as Deacon describes it,...The self-organizing brain, as Deacon describes it, didn't evolve (in my contrarian opinion) by the accident of random mutations producing a weblike series of functional devices that were found to have a purely coincidental fit with the multitude of developing brains' cumulative experiences. Those researches that are able to make what would be an extremely concerted effort will predictably discover this to be the closest to a mathematical impossibility ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30067796473893732472010-09-13T13:06:50.331-04:002010-09-13T13:06:50.331-04:00Baron, I've read that Deacon interview before,...Baron, I've read that Deacon interview before, but I don't recall taking away from it anything about "self-directed evolution." On the other hand, I do recall from elsewhere his defense of teleological language (albeit, with some admission of poetic license) to describe life's unique quality of goal-seeking and -serving (as in: life as an example of the emergence of purpose in nature).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5211522111531989502010-09-13T12:56:12.306-04:002010-09-13T12:56:12.306-04:00Baron said:
I find it disconcerting to be asked (...Baron said:<br /><br /><i>I find it disconcerting to be asked (by some) to believe that it was never life's doing to act as if it's efforts were consequential. Ergo, that it has not evolved by choice.</i><br /><br />Well, if that's the case, then (at least in some sense) they're wrong, given that we know that our actions have consequences. To my mind, the important questions are: Do I care about those consequences? and, if so, why?<br /><br />To be sure, the old-time answers to those question, coming from mythology and religion, are more cosmic and anthropomorphic than the new-fangled ones, coming from science and (secular) philosophy. But, at least for some of us, that does not make the old-time answers more satisfying.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31636639394348712412010-09-12T14:07:47.113-04:002010-09-12T14:07:47.113-04:00jcm writes, re Baldwin effect:
"I can see why...jcm writes, re Baldwin effect:<br />"I can see why EvPsych, in particular, would find it appealing (i.e. as "an instrument to do some heavy lifting fast.")."<br />The problem is that they don't find it appealing, because if they did, they would have to abandon the primary aspect of their modular theory that was developed as an alternate explanation for the evolution of human behavior.<br /><br />By the way, here's a good site to read more about Deacon's thoughts on what I see as the self-directed evolution of our abilities to use abstractions for solving what we were at the same time becoming able to recognize as the more long term problems of survival.<br /><br />http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58334573824036941752010-09-12T13:23:13.211-04:002010-09-12T13:23:13.211-04:00jcm, I find it disconcerting to be asked (by some)...jcm, I find it disconcerting to be asked (by some) to believe that it was never life's doing to act as if it's efforts were consequential. Ergo, that it has not evolved by choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48389464258175072402010-09-12T10:05:24.089-04:002010-09-12T10:05:24.089-04:00Baron P said But to others of us it's comforti...Baron P said <i>But to others of us it's comforting to believe it's not our fault.</i><br /><br />It never was our fault that human nature is what it is, whether we believed that the gods (or God) or blind evolutionary forces were responsible for determining that nature. But that never stopped us from rewarding/punishing individuals, depending on how their actions measure up against a particular set of social sanctions.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20753536523952124062010-09-12T09:47:48.784-04:002010-09-12T09:47:48.784-04:00Hector, I won't speak for the others, but it i...Hector, I won't speak for the others, but it is certainly not my intention to "reshape the theory of evolution", and it should be clear from the excerpt above that Deacon treats the Baldwin effect as an established subcategory of Darwinian evolution - albeit, one that assigns a greater-than-usual role to learned animal behavior as an input in the process of natural selection (say, as part of a complex feedback loop). It need not be a generally common or strong force in order to help solve some specific problems in evolutionary history, and Deacon's problem is a specific one indeed (viz. the special case of human symbolic communication). <br /><br />That's not to suggest that Deacon has necessarily put the Baldwin effect to proper use in this case, or that EvPsych might not generally abuse (or over-use) it. (I will leave that to the experts to decide.) But it seems to me to be very much alive among theorists (at least here in the US), and I can see why EvPsych, in particular, would find it appealing (i.e. as "an instrument to do some heavy lifting fast.").mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9314409665137217212010-09-12T00:11:15.538-04:002010-09-12T00:11:15.538-04:00Yes, Hector, curiosity can be overrated. Some migh...Yes, Hector, curiosity can be overrated. Some might find it disconcerting to think that our own behavior, especially our deepest emotions, were crafted by blind selective forces maximizing genetic transfer into future generations. But to others of us it's comforting to believe it's not our fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13480947730917854102010-09-12T00:00:37.886-04:002010-09-12T00:00:37.886-04:00In one chapter of Massimo's book "Making ...In one chapter of Massimo's book "Making Sense of Evolution", and in a shorter section of his more recent book "Nonsense on Stilts", Massimo makes a case that Evolutionary Psychology is less scientific than the study of the evolutionary biology of non-human species. I will agree that this is accurate, but it is an answer to the wrong question: the right question is "Is Evolutionary Psychology less scientific than mainstream psychology?". Most of the objections Massimo raises could be made to ANY approach to studying human psychology.<br /><br /> Both Massimo and Steven Jay Gould also object to Evo Psych's claims to have found "adaptations", and I think these objections are probably correct: Evolutionary Psychologists do claim to have found adaptations, and it is generally not possible to experimentally verify whether the traits they discuss are adaptations or not. If Evo Psych were to restrict itself to discovering species-wide psychological TRAITS, and to always backing those traits up with psychological research independently of the traits' perceived adaptive nature, Evo Psych may be able to contribute a lot to the study of human psychology.lalawawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01219154713603989499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69503762907914440902010-09-11T23:30:05.691-04:002010-09-11T23:30:05.691-04:00I concur with Baron P. on the increasing evidence ...I concur with Baron P. on the increasing evidence on the importance of epigenetics and RNA. But this is a side issue, not relevant to the matter of EvPsych discussed here. The central claim of EvPsych, i.e. that predispositions for certain behaviours evolve by natural selection, may perfectly accomodate that, since it is not necessarily linked to particular ways in which that selection may operate at the molecular level.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17790424479818631032010-09-11T23:24:12.277-04:002010-09-11T23:24:12.277-04:00I am also tired of discussing Baldwinian issues. T...I am also tired of discussing Baldwinian issues. The discussion may last forever without reaching any conclusion. In my view, events such as those envisaged as examples of Baldwin effects may have occurred in some particular instances, but cannot be used to reshape the theory of evolution. <br />To say it differently: Events like animals happening to invade another niche are mostly random, and akin to any other random change in the environment. Some groups or individuals may be more apt to deal with the new environment, some may not, and this will happen either when the organisms move into a new environment through their behavioural flexibility (and the availability of a new environment within their reach) or when the environment itself changes at their old location. In any case, differential responses to a new environment may trigger differential changes in fitness and thus natural selection. Nothing to see, move on.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9772119307479432002010-09-11T23:22:32.205-04:002010-09-11T23:22:32.205-04:00We're finding that the underlying DNA sequence...We're finding that the underlying DNA sequence of the organism is not necessarily where evolutionary change needs to take place, and epigenetic change that lasts for generations is not the only mechanism where DNA is not primarily responsible for long term adaptations.<br /><br />Check out for example this paper The Scientist<br />Volume 24 | Issue 9 | Page 34<br />By Anna Marie Pyle<br />TOUCHING RNA<br /><br />Excerpt: "We now know from the human genome project and from studies of the human “transcriptome” that the vast majority of our DNA does not encode proteins after<br />all; rather, it encodes RNA. RNA is far more important in biology than any of us imagined even 5 years ago. Now more than ever, we must understand how RNA folds, how it serves as a scaffold and enzyme, and how it is taken apart by the<br />engines of the cell. Studies of RNAs like group II introns and remodeling proteins like NS3 have shed a little light on this problem, but there is much more to learn. We are looking forward to the revolution in experimental biology that will<br />illuminate the dynamic world of RNA gymnastics."<br /><br />Anna Marie Pyle is the William Edward Gilbert Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology and Professor of Chemistry at Yale University. <br /><br />This and other research points more and more to RNA as the<br />key to the selective apparatus residing within each individual cell. The apparatus that Weissmann was convinced did not exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74580386436113202602010-09-11T17:34:00.249-04:002010-09-11T17:34:00.249-04:00A study of The Effect of Famine on Foetal DNA may ...A study of <a href="http://www.exploredna.co.uk/effect-famine-foetal-dna.html" rel="nofollow">The Effect of Famine on Foetal DNA</a> may establish the plausibility of epigenetic changes being transmissible (at least those that occur in utero). It may be a stretch to apply it to post natal experience, but anyway:<br /><br /><em>"The environment can affect the number of 'chemical caps,' which are known as methyl groups – coupled with DNA bases. These caps affect the amount of protein that a gene would produce. On top of that, the caps will persevere for the duration of a person's life and can be passed through to that person's offspring....The study [shows]...how the diet of a mother can affect not only her own offspring's DNA but also the DNA of her grandchildren and so forth for generations. </em><br /><br />Also<br /><br />Stöger R (February 2008). "The thrifty epigenotype: an acquired and heritable predisposition for obesity and diabetes?". Bioessays 30 (2): 156–66. doi:10.1002/bies.20700. PMID 18197594.<br /><br />And<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia: "epigenetics</a> <em>is the study of inherited changes in... gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence... These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;"</em><br /><br />I guess one question is can epigenetic changes persist long enough for their impact on fitness to affect natural selection impacts on the underlying genotype. <br /><br />At least that's my uneducated and unwashed take on it.<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2172154665943744252010-09-11T13:54:21.620-04:002010-09-11T13:54:21.620-04:00Baron P., what I said was that, in the hypothetica...Baron P., what I said was that, in the hypothetical case that a particular band of primates (within a population of such animals) develops a "cultural" pattern of behaviour (such as using a new kind of tool), that trait cannot be passed to their descendants (except again by learning).<br />Now suppose that pattern of behaviour is culturally transmitted within the band, and not shared with other bands, during several generations. A band is a very small group, at most a few dozen individuals.<br />If that particular band enhanced their fitness thanks to that cultural pattern, their numbers may expand over those generations. What you are saying is that whatever biological traits are shared by the band, those traits will also increase in frequency within the population, simply because that particular band increases its size. <br /><br />This includes all their biological traits; these biological traits are unrelated to the behaviour in question: the hypothesis that they developed such a cultural pattern does not imply any biological factor: they are not supposed to differ in biological terms from other similar bands within that population (otherwise, the behaviour in question should be regarded as a behaviour favoured by the band's peculiar genetic make up, evolved previously for some reason).<br />In such conditions, the band (as far as it expands thanks to their new tool) will cause an increase of all their genes in the population gene pool, but by assumption those genes are on average the same genes possessed by the rest of the population. The fact that they are of a certain shade of brown and that monkeys with that shade of brown increase in numbers will not make any difference at population level, because other bands have also the same shade of brown in their fur. The same goes for any other biological trait they may happen to have.<br />Your hypothesis seems to be that, once some monkey discovers that new tool (say, by accident), and his success moves other band members to imitate that behaviour and pass it on to their children, there MIGHT be some particular variation WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR BAND that is particularly advantageous for makinf or using that new tool; e.g., some individuals in the band may have better fine motricity, enabling them to use the new tool better. Those particular individuals will gain a fitness edge over other members of the band, and then those biological traits (fine motricity) will prosper. <br />Yes, it may happen, although the possibility that the two events coincide within a small band with very few adult individuals (i.e. the emergence of the cultural trait and the existence of some genetic variant that enhances the ability to apply the new trait) is rather farfetched. <br />However, this does not detract from the general argument. In the rare cases in which such a process may have occurred, the actual evolution starts because in the new environment (which now includes the cultural innovation) some biological traits are more advantageous than others, and are therefore selected by natural selection. For this to occur, you would need (a) that the relevant genetic variants exist within the same band; (b) that the cultural trait is retained and culturally transmitted for a long number of generations, enough to allow for the associated biological traits to be selected. If the band, for some reason, abandons the trait (perhaps it was enforced by one alpha male but anandoned by his successor), the possibility of those genetic traits to keep being selected, generation after generation, will be lost.<br />And we are talking only about a farfetched and convoluted hypothetical case, for the few species where culturally transmitted traits have been detected. This cannot be applied to the vast majority of species on this planet, not even to a majority of primates.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-184437788002307372010-09-11T13:48:37.272-04:002010-09-11T13:48:37.272-04:00"All this is about population genetics, conce..."All this is about population genetics, concerning averages, distributions and frequencies, not individuals." <br />A regurgitation of the central shibboleth of neo-Darwinism. <br /><br />None of these conceptual measures can exist without the benefits of individual experience, and individuals adjusting to experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70403352197218577622010-09-11T13:14:10.185-04:002010-09-11T13:14:10.185-04:00Hector opines. "Regarding behaviours, EvPsych...Hector opines. "Regarding behaviours, EvPsych does not say that behaviours as such are inherited."<br /><br />But that's exactly what its adherents do say. To quote my earlier remarks, they claim, without any biological evidence, that these are "domain specified learning mechanisms that spit out thousands of behavioral modules."<br />Not just algorithmic strategies inherited, but specific behaviors that don't require cultural transmission - only cultural fine tuning. <br />Nobody so far knows how those modules were imprinted so precisely or where they are located in the DNA or RNA, if to be found there at all, but they have faith that the day will come when all will be revealed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90759874557884838062010-09-11T12:35:48.625-04:002010-09-11T12:35:48.625-04:00I don't have time to get sucked into a debate ...I don't have time to get sucked into a debate over the Baldwin effect, but, since I invoked Terrence Deacon earlier, here's a relevant excerpt from The Symbolic Species (pp. 322-3):<br /><br /><i>This variation on Darwinism is now often called "Baldwinian evolution", though there is nothing non-Darwinian about the process. Baldwin suggested that learning and behavioral flexibility can plan a role in amplifying and biasing natural selection because these abilities enable individuals to modify the context of natural selection that affect their future kin. Behavioral flexibility enables organisms to move into niches that differ from those their ancestors occupied, with the consequence that succeeding generations will face a new set of selection pressures. For example, an ability to utilize resources from colder environments may initially be facilitated by seasonal migratory patterns, but if adaptation to this new niche becomes increasingly important, it will favor the preservation of any traits in subsequent generations that increase tolerance to cold, such as the deposition of subcutaneous fat, the growth of insulating hair, or the ability to hibernate during part of the year. In summary, Baldwin's theory explains how behaviors can affect evolution, but without the necessity of claiming that responses to environmental demands acquired during one's lifetime could be passed directly on to one's offspring (a discredited mechanism for evolutionary change proposed by the early nineteenth-century French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck). Baldwin proposed that by temporarily adjusting behaviors or physiological responses during its lifespan in response to novel conditions, an animal could produce irreversible changes in the adaptive context of future generations. Though no new genetic change is immediately produced in the process, the change in conditions will alter which among the existing or subsequently modified genetic predispositions will be favored in the future.</i>mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3915682313611456062010-09-11T03:37:32.256-04:002010-09-11T03:37:32.256-04:00Except that it was you, Hector, who conceded that ...Except that it was you, Hector, who conceded that monkeys have acquired instinctive strategies for the manual use of tools. And which came first, the opposable thumbs of primates or the strategies that contributed to their evolution? Did primate cultures not contribute to the eventual development of human anatomical advantages?<br />Those such as you who refuse to accept that inheritance of acquired strategies occurs across the biological board are the dinosaurs of evolutionary studies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58386494671057751122010-09-11T01:37:29.886-04:002010-09-11T01:37:29.886-04:00Regarding behaviours, EvPsych does not say that be...Regarding behaviours, EvPsych does not say that behaviours as such are inherited. What is inherited is a genetic make up that favours or enables the adoption of certain behaviours. Those individuals genetically more predisposed to fitness-enhancing behaviours may on average survive and reproduce better, and thus those genes would increase their frequency in that population's gene pool. <br /><br />Individuals possessing those genes will be predisposed to certain behaviours, e.g. by having the necessary mental ability, or the required muscular strength, or the visual acuity required to perceive a threat earlier and thus be able to react in time, or the neurological mechanism provoking a certain response, or whatever it is. <br />This does not mean that each individual is necessarily committed to behave in that manner. Some will, some will not. Many factors may be at play in individual cases (genetic, epigenetic, developmental, cultural, environmental, biographical, whatever). All this is about population genetics, concerning averages, distributions and frequencies, not individuals.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60687355563867419532010-09-10T23:20:43.067-04:002010-09-10T23:20:43.067-04:00"If you concede that inheritance of learned s..."If you concede that inheritance of learned strategies occurs at all", says Baron P. But that is the crux: does it occur? If a discussion on evolution becomes a discussion about the inheritance of acquired or learned characteristics, then we are in a different debate, one that for all practical purposes has been settled since 1859, and reburied again several times ever since.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7942463742235733412010-09-10T15:10:34.762-04:002010-09-10T15:10:34.762-04:00If you concede that inheritance of learned strateg...If you concede that inheritance of learned strategies occurs at all, then you will have conceded that if it's an efficient way to enhance fitness, it will become common in direct relation to that efficiency. Common in nature doesn't mean frequent, as most all these mechanisms of inheritance work more slowly than we can readily observe, at least in the higher animal kingdom. In the world of bacteria, however, it seems to be a much different story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49217322542930846702010-09-10T14:49:34.065-04:002010-09-10T14:49:34.065-04:00"Without experience, nothing evolves". M..."Without experience, nothing evolves". More precisely, without biological variation plus differential experience, nothing evolves. But that is not the point. The point is whether a learned or acquired trait can be inherited. It cannot. Period. <br />What actually happens is that faced with a given environmental change (say, a changed climate, or a new predator), which one may call a new experience, some organisms in a given species survive and reproduce better than others. If they do so because of some acquired trait (say, because they had learned from their peers a trick to fool that particular predator), their reproductive success will not last: their children (barring cultural transmission) will not have that ability, and would succumb to the new predator. Instead, if they do so because of some genetically inheritable trait (say, longer legs and stronger muscles enabling faster flight), as these traits are (at least partially) inheritable, their children (or at least some of them)will have them too.<br /><br />This guy Baldwin was writing not only before Watson and Crick: he was writing before the Mendel papers were rediscovered around 1900. Now we know better, even if some use may be found for some aspects of his theory if adequately translated into modern language (I cannot tell about this, but some papers do exist to that effect).<br /><br />Some genetic traits may be inherited as a by product of cultural transmission, sure. If a band of monkeys learns some trick to get more termites, and this increases their fitness, whatever other genetic traits they may have (say, a characteristic colour in their fur) will enjoy that fitness and expand their share of the population, and their frequency in the gene pool. But I doubt anyone can argue that this is a common occurrence, let alone the general law governing evolution.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24388393464104936512010-09-10T14:32:46.029-04:002010-09-10T14:32:46.029-04:00Hector M,
Behavioral traits are essentially strate...Hector M,<br />Behavioral traits are essentially strategic. Those items cited are not examples of heritable behavioral traits, those are examples, as you have somewhat ingenuously confirmed, of how culture gives us the advantage of our experience with communicative strategies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com