"Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth

I'm sure some people have distanced themselves away from genetic determinism, but only because of the awkward philosophical/social/political issues it raises. Not wanting to be accused of this, I thought I'd include the thoughts of someone who could be said to be informed:

quote:

---

I recognise that philosophically speaking determinism is a difficult issue, which philosophers have been talking about for centuries. My point was that genetics has nothing to contribute to that philosophical argument. The argument will go on, and it is an interesting and important argument, but if you are a determinist you are a determinist, and adding the word genetic doesn’t make it any more deterministic. There is nothing peculiar about genetic determinism which makes it particularly sinister.

​

Also, when somebody announces that they have discovered a gene for let’s say aggression or religion, this does not have a deterministic force in the sense of irrevocable determinism, any more than discovering that a particular chemical in a diet has an effect. You might find that people who eat red peppers are more aggressive than those who don’t. I have no evidence for that, but you could find some such thing, and that’s not deterministic either. That too will be a statistical effect that will be added in with all the other effects. Genes are to be thought of like that. They are statistical contributors to a complex, causal web - and that’s all that matters for natural selection. The only reason that Darwinians talk about genes so much is that in order to do Darwinism they have to be looking at those aspects of individual variation in populations which are genetically influenced. So we’re not talking determinism, we’re talking statistics, we’re talking analysis of variance, we’re talking heritability.

---

--Richard DawkinsPhenotypical traits of a population can change through non-genetic factors...but this is not evolution. For example the height of mankind has varied through (recent) time - mostly due to health and dietary changes in the population over time rather than because of gene frequency changes. I'm a minor insurance geek - so your analogy appealed to me. When seeking proximate cause to decide if a party is liable there are some interesting things to keep in mind.Let us say that there were two small flames and both fires would have caused the same amount of damage. In this case we'd probably hold both flame starters liable for the fire. These are sufficient combined causes.Also there could be a situation where two acts of negligence were needed to happen for the injury to result. Courtesy of wiki, imagine a situation where a workman leaves a manhole cover off and a driver then bumps into a pedestrian who then falls down the manhole. Both situations were required to cause the accident. These are concurrent causes.Without environmental influence, genes could not be expressed. Without genes, there would be nothing to express. They are both needed and are both important - they are concurrent causes. Different environmental factors will have influence that varies with magnitude, as will different genes. Some scientists have offered the view that the other genes that any given gene interacts with to create bodies are also part of its environment.Interesting stuff.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Actually, it seems to indicate that your concept of 'genetic determinism' is wrong. I look forward to seeing what you have to say regarding my assertion on this matter and the explanation I gave in my post. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for the efficacy of your argument. However, I sympathize with your frustration. Maybe you are interested in a post I wrote a while ago: Save your posts, plugin?

Dawkins was basically saying that determinism is a philosophical position. If you are a determinist you're a determinist, genetic determinism isn't some special case of determinism in this regard.When biologists say they have discovered a gene for this or that, it doesn't necessarily follow that having said gene will definitely give a person a certain trait. Genetic determinism is looked on poorly because of the implications that behaviour is decided by genes, but biologists don't argue that it is as simple as possessing gene x will lead to behaviour y. A lot of the time, what determines the behaviour of a person is a complex web of causality...many strands having different influence on the final outcome.This is analogous to the idea that eating red meat increases your chances of certain cancers. Eating red meat doesn't exclusively determine that you will get cancer, but it is one of the causal strands - and it is advised to not strengthen it. You seem to be of the opinion that genetic determinism is required for evolution, and that genetic determinism must imply that the gene alone determines phenotypic traits.I would suggest that you are both wrong about the necessity of what you call genetic determinism in the role of evolution, and what genetic determinism has to mean.I do this because determinism doesn't have to mean that anything that could be considered a cause must have been the result of something that can be considered an effect. In the case of genes, they interact with the environment to express themselves, their expression leads to an effect, another cause creates another effect and these two (or more) effects lead to an observed trait. Not the result of one cause and one effect, but many causes and effects. Sometimes, a single gene has a very significant role in the determination. Sometimes, it only plays a small role - a role that can be filled in with one of its alleles.Second - natural selection does not require to work on absolute determinism. Imagine a plant population where tallness is selected for. A gene exists, and if a plant has this gene AND this plant grows in an area rich in a certain nutrient AND if this plant is in an area that receives x amount of sunlight THEN it will be a very tall plant. However, if it has only 10% chance of landing in such an area - then a botanist might initially say he has found a gene for tallness that gives a 10% chance of being tall (ie 10% of plants with the gene end up being tall).In the wild this gene might be positively selected for (or negatively depending on other factors) even though the gene is not the sole determining factor in the tallness of the plant.

I was not talking epigenetics. I was talking environmental factors principally. If a population is normally short, but their environment becomes filled with certain nutrients - that population might grow taller. This is not biological evolution. Absolutely it can happen the other way around. If our genes evolved to be optimal for males by existing in 5 foot hominids, then a dietary change caused us to grow up to 6 foot - then our genes may no longer be optimal. In this case those genes that are closer to the optimal at 6 foot male hominids will increase in frequency and any mutated genes that provided a more optimal solution still it may gain a foothold in the population. However, it would not be considered evolution until the gene frequency changes. The phenotypic change itself is not enough to be considered evolution. Sorry for any confusion. I meant that both fires that were started by the flames would have caused equal damage had there been only 1 fire. That is to say - the two fires simply joined together and caused the same amount of damage as if just 1 fire had been started.An easier example might be if two people shot someone in the head at the same time. One bullet was all that was needed to kill them, so both shooters are held liable. The same damage was caused by the one as was caused by the two. No - the point is that the damage would have been the same had there been one fire as had there been two fires or even three fires. Adding extra starter flames doesn't alter the eventual outcome of the large forest fire. No I'm not. I'm simply talking about the way current life works, not proto-life. As interesting as that puzzle is, it is irrelevant to the point at hand. That is one way around yes. It can happen both ways. For example, a gene that affects a mother's womb in a way as to provide a novel environment within the womb. This environmental effect affects the development of her child and a new secondary phenotype can occur. All of the child's genes are not optimized for its new form - but in total the phenotype is more fit. We might expect the non-optimized genes to evolve to a more optimal point as time goes on.As I, and Dawkins said: it is a complex web of causality rather than a simple cause leads to effect affair. Right, but the external environment plays a vital role in the development of the organism - which is then the temporary environment of the genes. The genes are optimized for building and operating a phenotype born in the environment of its ancestral bodies. If the environment changes, the genes may no longer operate how they are meant to or may no longer confer the advantage they once did if they do operate the same way. Time for a genetic change in response...and that would be called evolution.

You seem to be under the impression that "RMNS Darwinism" is the currently accepted theory of evolution. If that is the case, that could explain the problems in communication we're having. Random mutations only account for part of the development of novel traits. Random mutations and their influence on the environment are required to create new traits. New traits can arise without random mutations - but these new traits are not hereditary and are as such not evolutionary changes. There is no need for it just to be DNA that inexorably generates particular forms. That doesn't follow from determinism one iota. The only thing that follows is that traits are determined. It doesn't matter what the causal reasons are, just so long as there are causal reasons. It could be a combination of things - that is still determinism. Your expression of genetic determinism asserts that the only causal factor whatsoever is genetic. I do not think this is the only way to express genetic determinism: it can also be used to describe the position that genes are a strong and vital causal factor in determining traits. It does not say that organismic traits are not determined genetically. Genes can be one causal factor among many. It is perfectly straight forward, agreed? We are talking about how genetic determinism affects a theory of evolution that includes natural selection. You have spoken of natural selection yourself (including in the OP). I have shown you how even a basic theory of evolution of just natural selection acting on existing alleles can still function in a scenario where exclusive genetic determinism isn't in play. This falsifies your notion that genetic determinism is required in a RMNS scenario. I can complicate it more by adding random mutations - but doing so seems unnecessary when I am simply talking about the affect of genes on the expression of traits and how genetic determinism isn't required for gene frequency change to take place in a population.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If you can show that evolutionary biologists have a picture of evolution that is contrary to the discoveries of science (most importantly the evolutionary biological sciences), then we'd have something to talk about. You haven't shown this though. How can a mutating entity be considered the creation of something out of nothing. There is definitely a something involved here. Nobody assumes that nothing mutates to create a something! That sounds like a bold claim. Do you care to support it? I don't see anything to strongly disagree with here. However, your denial that mutation events can produce novel traits seems contrary to the literature. Do you have any support that would suggest that mutations are not at all involved in the origins of new traits? So we agree that one can be a determinist and accept that genes play a vital but not exclusive role in the expression of traits? So we agree that the idea of DNA being the exclusive source of traits is not necessary in determinism? Since I suspect neither of us really understands quantum physics to an appropriate level to really discuss this meaningfully - I suggest we simply defer to the experts on this one. The answer is: maybe it does affect determinism, maybe it doesn't. However, this issue is not relevant here.Quantum effects does not alter the fact (correct or otherwise) that genes are a vital determinant in trait expression. Quantum physics does not change the fact that cutting the arm off a person will also affect their traits. Not at all. Determinism could be ultimately wrong but genes can still play a vital role in determining phenotypical traits. If somethings happen with no base cause...that does not necessarily mean all things have no cause. If naive determinism is wrong right at its base, that doesn't mean there is no cause and effect whatsoever. It's one expression of it. However, there is another expression of it, which is that genes play a vital and front-line role in the expression of phenotypical traits. If we change the genes, the phenotype changes. Some species have a high phenotypical plasticicity - meaning that their phenotype can change dramatically based on environmental pressures. Other species are less plastic. However, the genes still play an important role a lot of the time. That is another form of genetic determinism. And yet you type on a keyboard and press "submit reply" expecting that to cause your words to be submitted to EvC and that I will request the server for the page and read it, disagree with it and type words in reply and submit them causing those words to go to EvC. You expect photons to more or less cause the correct stimulus in your optic nerve to faithfully recreate the letters and signals sent to your language centre to cause an understanding of the words. You still accept that some causes can lead to some effects. Right, and if you had asked me 'what is the theory of evolution?' I would not have said 'RMNS'. I would have said: " it includes natural selection, hereditary variation, neutral drift and epigenetics to name a few...It is a body of knowledge of hypotheses and theories that, when combined help explain all the ways we know how population changes can occur under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are present in life and so the theory can help explain the evolution of biological life. Some examples of these sub-theories include the process of natural selection acting on hereditary variations, neutral genetic drift, recombination of recessive and dominant traits and so on and so forth. " I explained my shorthand straight afterwards. I was suggesting that it doesn't have to be exclusively genes, genetic determinism also can describe the position that genes provide an essential role in trait determination. You claimed that in a world were genes are not the only determinant in traits - RMNS doesn't work. I showed you how natural selection can act on non-deterministic genes to cause evolution. It is trivial to add random mutation to the example and I thought you'd be capable of doing that yourself. Am I wrong?There is no propping RM up on NS. There is just me showing natural selection occurring in a non-exclusively genetically determined world can lead to gene frequency change. No biologist I have ever spoken to studies evolution as if it were exclusively about the origins of novel organismic traits. They talk of studying gene frequency changes. Anyway, here it is again:

quote:

---

magine a plant population where tallness is selected for. A gene exists, and if a plant has this gene AND this plant grows in an area rich in a certain nutrient AND if this plant is in an area that receives x amount of sunlight THEN it will be a very tall plant. However, if it has only 10% chance of landing in such an area - then a botanist might initially say he has found a gene for tallness that gives a 10% chance of being tall (ie 10% of plants with the gene end up being tall).

​

In the wild this gene might be positively selected for (or negatively depending on other factors) even though the gene is not the sole determining factor in the tallness of the plant.

---

If you'd like - we have here the origin of the 'supertall' trait in plants..you can mix it up and say that a new mutation causes the plants to open wider, taking in more sunlight but only 10% of the time. Either way, we have a trait spreading around the population. If every plant ends up with our gene, then 10% of all plants will be tall. If only 10% of plants start with the gene then only 1% of plants will be tall. If we went from one state of affairs to the other we have a definite evolutionary shift in the tallness gene.I expect you to respond that the tallness of a plant isn't a trait. If I am right, let me ask a response question now: How are you defining 'trait'?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm perfectly aware of Quantum Indeterminacy. That is why I answered: maybe it does affect determinism, maybe it doesn't. To quote wiki:

quote:

---

The time dependent Schrdinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time...So quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates)...

---

So yes, you are right that quantum physics may show that total determinism is not entirely correct at the scale of very small - but it is also the case that it might be that determinism is still in play at this level.Now - since we are both unqualified to talk about quantum physics we should probably leave it well alone unless we don't mind the risk of looking like idiots. Whether or not some events occur with no prior cause is not relevant to the question at hand in this thread no matter how many exclamation marks you use: You assert that genetic determinism (the exclusive variety) is necessary for certain variants of evolutionary theory. I hope it is clear that this is evidently false since it is simple enough to demonstrate that genetic determinism isn't essential to the simple theory of evolution.You go on to say that this is somehow affected by the fact that it might be impossible to determine the future from the present - but this part of your idea seems many steps ahead of the argument at this stage. So let's take things one step at a time.First step: Define trait
Second step: Demonstrate genetic determinism is required for the modern synthesis taking into consideration my counter argument.Once we have got there we might be able to talk about how QI might fit into the argument. From where I am standing you are making a whole bunch of unrelated claims so starting at the beginning might be the best way of bringing them to form some kind of coherent whole, what say you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What part of 'maybe it does, maybe it doesn't' gives you the deluded idea that I insist that determinism must be a given? That's not what I claim at all. I explicitly accept QI. The implications of it might affect determinism, or it might not. As I said - quantum physics might actually be deterministic even with QI as crazy as that sounds. Once again, due to our ignorance of this non-intuitive subject I advise we simply leave it well be. This one might be best for its own thread...we're here to talk biology not quantum physics. How on earth did I manage to 'make it appear' that by 'it' you were referring to 'ex nihilo' when the sentence previous to the one you quoted I was talking about quantum physics AND I never mentioned 'ex nihilo' in my post?I must be one slippery customer to be able twist your words that much Then address my rebuttal example where I show how it is not necessary. You have still neglected to define 'trait'. You seemed to spend most of your post misrepresenting my position. Defining 'trait' played a big role in my post for a good reason. It's very important that I know what you mean by it.I have posted the simple demonstration twice now. By all means, read my posts and you'll see it. It was the one about plants and tallness. Reading comprehension. You might try it. 'this' did not refer to indeterminacy. Why would it make any sense to say that indeterminacy was somehow affected by indeterminacy? Try reading it again. Or better yet, perhaps you should just respond to the following?

quote:

---

First step: Define trait
Second step: Demonstrate genetic determinism is required for the modern synthesis taking into consideration my counter argument.

​

Once we have got there we might be able to talk about how QI might fit into the argument. From where I am standing you are making a whole bunch of unrelated claims so starting at the beginning might be the best way of bringing them to form some kind of coherent whole, what say you?

---