In short, it would potentially provide a clue that something was happening which couldn't be explained under the current ToE. Scientists could then take this evidence and conduct more fine-grained experiments to rule out one thing or the other (unknown internal process or externally imposed process).
Indeed it would. I do hope you seriously follow-up on this and keep the rest of us informed. I think we both can hazard a guess as to the eventual outcome, but still, it would be a fascinating try. Maybe Molbiogirl can get the funding for you.
I think the first thing we'd need to do (after the head-scratching phase), would be to determine whether or not there was some unanticipated constraint(s) we imposed inadvertently on the two populations that limited the resulting variation.
Absolutely. Again if Molbiogirl can get the funding we would need to repeat with differing conditions. However, I think that finding significant populations with the exact same genomes in both dishes over a few billion evolved individuals would be telltale. In my opinion, only some directive force would so limit variability among a population of billions given what would be expected in an un-directed scenario under the Modern Synthesis within the same environment with the same constraints. But, then, that’s why people smarter than me would need to take a really close look.
Beyond that, as far as presenting evidence of "purpose" (which is what I understand is meant by teleology), in what way would the experiment show this?
This crazy experiment would not show evidence of purpose as in identifying what such a purpose might be. It would only show directionality and only as compared with the predictions of the Modern Synthesis. We already posit that random mutation and natural selection will evidence a considerable degree of variability even in the most stable population. By showing an extreme restriction of variability coupled with the same exact resultant genomes in two isolated populations would, imo, be a strong indicator of directionality. As to purpose . directionality designs the genome and design is causality for purpose . to paraphrase Kant.
I kind of like this. However, doesn't it beg the question a bit by overlooking all the millions of species that have gone extinct? Maybe there's some generalized, sort-of-Spinozan "purpose" in life writ large - to perpetuate itself, regardless of how may "survival vessels" go extinct along the way. Here I think we may be moving too deeply into metaphysics, 'tho.
Well, thank you. I kinda liked it when I wrote it.
Most species went extinct due to some catastrophic outside force, like a big honking space rock messing up the place. Most of the others are extinct because their offspring are now so removed from the ancestor populations in time that we no longer identify the ancestor and offspring as the same species. Of the few remaining that travelled up evolutionary dead ends and naturally expired without leaving a legacy . blind chemistry is allowed to make numerous mistakes without detracting from the ultimate goal (purpose) of replication.
No metaphysical voodoo intended. Spinoza is appropriate here. “Purpose” is a human conception without any reality in our natural universe. But the use of the word is allowed as a description of what life does, absent the overtones of some intellectual intent, imo.
™ Version 4.2
