The implications of Evolution

I think that theories concerning the implications of evolution are problematic as well as claims about the intentions of evolution.This particularly includes evolutionary psychology. Also it concerns issues such as the meaning of life or the ramifications of evolution on our values and goals and possibilities.I think that on one portrayal of evolution it makes us victims of intentionless coercive drives in the service of mindlessly propagating our genes.On the other hands it seems suspect to make any claims about what evolution "intends" or "intended" because of issues including falsifiability and competing theories. Then there is the issue of spandrels in which case anything could be classed as a spandrel.So for example it would be bizarre to claim we evolved to play the piano. Following from that it would be dubious to say people play the piano to attract mates. I speak as a gay person who plays the piano for his own pleasure.If I am a gay person playing the piano for my own pleasure in my own company I am not doing anything in the service of evolution.So in this sense the paradigm of evolution gets spread to thinly as if it should be the dominant explanation of anything. (In a reductionist spirit)I also think the naturalistic fallacy is invoked a lot and people even talk about and try to enact programmes in service of improving our evolution. Things that evolved cannot scientifically be defined as good without crossing the is-ought barrier.So it is one thing to say that altruism benefits the gene pool but another thing to claim that it is good and should be pursued.

I am puzzled about how you could think no theory in the field of evolution is based on the idea that the basic framework of evolution carries implications.The only theories within evolution that are not based on the idea that evolution has implications are the ones at the biochemical level.I don't know where to start here so I'll post this link first.Modularity of mind - WikipediaThe idea is that if humans evolved then functions of the human body and in the EVP case the brain must have evolved to serve a survival function.This TED talk on Homosexuality carries a lot of this type of claim.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Khn_z9FPmUThe assertion is that homosexuality must have survived because it provided an evolutionary benefit and that is seen as a green light to speculate widely on the possible benefits of homosexuality and of how it is subservient to the basic human "function" of continued reproduction. The underlying unelaborated assertion is that if evolution is true then Homosexuality must survive a survival purpose for a species.Here are the unspoken premises.Premise 1 Evolution by natural selection is true and describes the origin of any aspect of being humanPremise 2 All human attributes must be described as persisting due to survival benefitsPremise 3 Homosexuality is not a spandrel (ie a harmless trait that has limited impact on the species and could be described simply as a trait that was created without being adaptive)Premise 4 Homosexuality must be explained primarily in terms of its survival valuePremise 5 All explanations must reduce to a mechanical materialist world view.Premise five is one of the ones that leads to the demand that only certain types explanations are acceptable (those in a reductionist framework)
So for example theories about homosexuality have been disproved. But the theories had traction because they use vocabulary deemed acceptable.So a theory can be deemed plausible based on the biases or unspoken/emergent premises of a field or ideology.Edited by AndrewPD, : SpellingEdited by AndrewPD, : No reason given.

You are conflating beneficial with good.Things that helps a species survive do not prove that that species has value or is intrinsically good. The assertion that is being made is that because something happens in nature it is objectively good and we must endorse it and promote it. So atheists for example and secularists argue that we can have morality without religion and cite the benefits of altruism as a groundwork. This is involves the naturalistic fallacy. There is no grounds for saying that anything in nature should be promoted or is objectively good.The other presumption being made is that we should carry on having children (I am a strong antinatalist) and that because humans have reached this era we must keep on propagating ourselves and we must propagate ourselves based on evolutionary principles.On the topic of Spandrels.The vast majority of human activities are spandrel like. We can learn to do a vast range of activities that only occurred recently and didn't require us to develop new adaptions. If the human body was designed by evolution with specific functions in mind then it is hard to explain how we can do a wide range of novel things. For example a birds wings can do a limited range of things but the human brain and hands can do an almost infinite range of things. So in what sense can you describe the majority of what humans do as evolved or adapted for? How can you legitimately pick out specific functions that were selected for in the brain considering its huge range of abilities?Anything can become a spandrel or what has been called vestigial once it ceases to have the purpose/s it is supposed to have adapted for.I also think the nature and interpretation of evidence is controversial. Reality contains a huge amount of evidence how you interpret it is a different matter. If you apply a version of evolution to everything you can make plausible narratives. This is where competing theories for the same evidence occur (see my latest post on homosexuality) If there are competing theories and know means to choose between them that undermines falsifiability.This is the argument, that I agree with, that is used on religions. I think that having numerous religious sects makes it less plausible that any of them are right. I don't know the statistical terminology but if there are two religions they have a 50% chance of being right but with a thousand they have a 0.1% chance of being right.I also don't think you need a competing theory to doubt another theory.

This thread is intended to be about what implications if any evolution has.I am discussing explanations of homosexuality because someone questioned whether people actually claimed evolution has implications. So I am highlighting that people think that if we evolved then the *implication* is that homosexuality must be an evolutionary by product with adaptive value.The general explanation is that all sexuality has an implicit evolutionary motive.I am questioning how valid this assumption is and even if we accepted that sexuality was solely a productive of evolutionary strategies that doesn't mean we will ever have a valid theory. This relates to the allegation of "Just so Stories". An explanation that intends to sound plausible is just that. It intends to sound plausible.... But they are easily created hence the wide range of theories to explain homosexuality as an evolutionary adaption.My general belief is that evolution as it is presently defined and promoted has very negative ramifications that are being ignored. For example say someone proved to you that you were living in the matrix, the equivalent would be finding out you lived in Matrix and completely ignoring that fact from then on.An example of real life negative ramifications of the theory is Social Darwinism and The Nazis and Lamarckism . The way people interpreted evolution is that evolution was trying to weed out weak humans and that humans were on a journey of fine tuning in a hierarchy. This illustrates how a theory is not just a case of describing facts but has implications in various ways.When evolution was portrayed as weeding out the weak it was used as a justification for genocide.So there will be implications for any theory of evolution, but what are they and why should people feel free to expound these theories without reservation (in an arguably pernicious way)?Among other alleged implications of evolution is that there are no gods/no creator, no purpose or meaning to life and that certain views are invalidated because they are not framed in the evolutionary (or general scientific) paradigm.

Those were not my premises but the unspoken premises in the Ted Talk video In linked to.If you watch it then I can discuss it further.

Any theory. There are a huge number of theories about a huge number of things.

I have only read this far into your post yet Beneficial means to benefit something/someone. The notion of good is controversial. Good often means "right" and "praiseworthy" or "desirable"Beneficial means advantageous.Therefore "Owning a collection of guns and and knives will be beneficial for a serial killer." "A dirty kitchen will be beneficial for the spread of salmonella."Ethical theorists want to go from saying altruism is beneficial (for the pointless survival of our species) to claiming it is praiseworthy and or desirable. They also assert that altruism originated from the Dawkins style selfish gene but that despite this "self" interested origin it is still genuine.Now if I injected a mean old man with a chemical that made him suddenly very charitable I would say that that undermined the nature of his charitably and freewill.If my genes are coercing me to feel altruistic I don't see that as desirable or praiseworthy.Neither "beneficial" or "good" are precise scientific language.

The other issue I didn't get round to on competing theories is when they are both completely compatible with the evidence or cause overdetermination.Here I am talking about theories within evolution not about the general theory (obviously?) because these theories are derived from the perceived implications of a general theory of evolutionSo for example the notion of homology. Things can be homologous and not related. The idea is that if evolution is right we should expect homology. That creates the interpretations of homologies until other evidence undermines a homology.So the expectation of homology is a supposition or implication of the general theory. Theories about why we like music are also based on the idea that evolution will have implications for all human behaviour.So here I am questioning the validity of making these further assumptions and implications.

Here is an illustration of my notion of evidence........There is a woman's dead body lying at the bottom of some stairs. She has cuts and bruises on her face. Lying next to her is a note that a says "I told Jane I would kill her because she has been more like a living nightmare than a wife".......My interpretation is that the woman's name is Kate. She just Killed her friend Jane and was planning to plant the note to implicate the husband. But she fell down the stairs accidentally and was killed........That interpretation of the evidence could be correct however, if the body turns out to have a knife in the back this new evidence undermines the previous theory and is of more weight.......So the point is that you can create a narrative about what the evidence is saying. Only some evidence is really compelling like a knife in the back. But a lot of evidence is not and is ambiguous. The compelling evidence may rule out certain claims. However if most of the evidence is ambiguous it does not have the truth status of an unambiguous piece of evidence.In the case of science *induction* can be a source of strong evidence (though it is fallible) But induction is not unambiguous either. The idea that all swans are white was inductively strong for centuries. It was immediately overturned by unambiguous evidence , the discovery of a black swan. So inductive evidence is not final evidence. It is not impossible to overturn. The theories I am discussing only get their credibility from an assumption of the implications of evolution.Thus Eugenics was given credibility through the evolutionary framework.

I am talking here about theories derived from the alleged implications of evolution not the general theory.However on a general point..... We do not have an explanation for consciousness. It will no doubt be argued that any theory must be compatible with materialism and the theory of evolution.If something is not explained I don't see how that gives us free rein to speculate (often with out clarifying that we are speculating) based on a current paradigm.Every era in science and thought there has been a new attempt to explain consciousness based on things such as the computer, a mill. a robot, Quantum Physics and so on.I think things should simply be explained. Explaining something is giving a provably complete causal account for it, in my opinion. What passes for as an "evolutionary explanation" is simply an explanation of what value an entity might have for evolution theory.So for example explaining how consciousness or altruism or homosexuality may have helped us survive is conflated with a causal explanation for the phenomenon. Explaining how something benefits survival or evolution is not a causal explanation.Explaining homosexuality mechanistically would entail explaining how we come to have a conscious same-sex sexual desire. So the explanation would incorporate an explanation of consciousness and the nature of desire. Suggesting that my mother is really fertile or I am really smart and altruistic is not an explanation for homosexuality it is simply trying to make homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution.These subtleties seem to have passed many people by.

Homology defined thus is tautologous. It assumes a relationship based on likeness.What I intended to say is that things can have similar features and not be related but relationships are assumed based on things looking a like.If things weren't considered homologous where would the theory be?I am not interested in a general debate about the theory so you can side track me constantly anyhow, I am talking about what things can be considered implications of evolution.I was listening to a discussion on the BBC's "In our time podcast" about Neutrons and one of the Scientists on there referred to isotopes as isotones. Maybe she needs to retake GCSE physics?I think the general tactics on this discussion so far are just aimed at undermining any chance of a worthwhile debate.I am not going to waste my time reading tomes on every aspect or theory within evolution theory whilst you ignore my general points and pretend you have never heard anyone make any of the claims I have asserted. The idea that morality can be founded on altruism is widespread. If you haven't come across it then I don't know where you have been. Lots of claims are widespread but when you discuss them in these kind of debates suddenly everyone's got amnesia.Has nobody hear of Sam Harris or Paul Bloom?I am also not claiming that there is no controversy. There is loads of controversy in academia

I knew this would come up.My attraction to men is based on my conscious experiences of lust or love when I have a conscious image of a male and the ensuing tingling sensations. When I am unconscious I don't engage in any homosexual activity. There may well be unconscious mechanisms that are required to produce the resulting behaviour but I don't think homosexuals are referring to unconscious behaviour (I certainly ain't) when they define themselves as gay.In fact this is a pernicious aspect of the reductionist physicalist view. Homosexuality is reduced to a biochemical trick supposed to favour the genes and stripped of the romance, the lust, the unrequited love, alienation, the hate crimes and all the other vivid range of lived conscious experiences. This is all considered largely irrelevant and epiphenomenal.This is why evolution is a great theory for claiming to be explanatory powerful. because often a theory is considered explanatory closed after simply stating a few trivial aspects of a phenomena and how they can be reduced.. (to genes etc)(just read around!!) (Dennet's universal acid) Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Wikipedia

Indeed. I will respond further tomorrow. However I was responding to RAZD who said I thought it was so well known that altruism was popularly seen as the origin of morality, that I wouldn't need to make citations.RAZD also says However Paul Bloom in conversation with Sam Harris says https://www.samharris.org/...item/the-roots-of-good-and-evil

Homosexuality is seen as something that has to be explained by evolution because it is seen as challenge for evolutionhttp://www.carigoetz.com/...lutionary_psychology_AP_2010.pdf So what what would be seen as evidence for the evolution of homosexuality? Or what would be a meaningful prediction?I don't see how the idea that we evolved predicts anything the cause and nature of homosexuality? And I have no worker bee tendencies and do not recognise the ideas portrayed that I am essentially someone who exist to either stop overpopulation or pamper my nieces and Nephews and paint pretty pictures and gossip.

I am not the person making this claim. Did you not see the big quote I put in my post with a link? (Link to a paper compiled by several evolutionary theorists I am not interested in whether or not homosexuality can be "explained" by evolution. The point is that, the evolutionary paradigm that is popular expects all behaviours to be explicable in terms of their heritability and survival value. I find this claim ridiculous. How can things that emerge from humans be unrelated to evolution?Also your assertion that homosexuality is a product of homosexuals "having no barriers to procreation" is a bit ridiculous.Lots of people gay and straight people don't have children. But I am certainly not bisexual and the idea that homosexuality can be conflated with bisexuality I find offensive. Homosexuals are usually born to straight people. Unless the insinuation your are making is that anyone who has a gay child must be a closet gay?Homosexuality could easily emerge from reproduction because giving birth to a few infertile children does not lead to species extinction. I am not the one trying to explain homosexuality in terms of evolution.You keep on saying "The *fact* of evolution. This thread is not about whether the general paradigm of evolution is a fact. As I feel I have repeatedly stated this thread is about theories emerging from evolution.However I don't think evolution (as an over arching theory) can be a fact when it fails to explain a lot of phenomena and when there is widespread disagreement within the field (such as the one that has been highlighted on the nature and origin of morality) (speculating that homosexuals are the product of closet it homosexuals is speculation not fact or explanation)The idea is that humans must have evolved therefore we must explain anything relating to humans as stemming from or compatible to evolution. This problematic because what is entailed in explaining things via evolution? As I have pointed out it involves some pernicious and offensive theories.As I also tried to highlight there are different degrees of evidence and different levels of plausibility in theories. As I have also tried to point out some theories are simply speculation, some have weak evidence and some have strong evidence.