Teleological Science?

Thompson in Before Darwin does say that Darwin inverted Malthus, who believed that overproduction of offspring and the struggle for survival precluded change, but Malthus was writing about society, not biology. Malthus was right about society, and Darwin was right about biology. The Gould page seems to be making this point in greater detail. Agreed. Would that he would do that. What he actually does is argue, at length for pages and pages, that his interpretation is what the authors actually meant, and then after a couple posts the abusive behavior begins.--Percy

Thomson also said that Paley interpreted Malthus to say the same would preclude change, and we know Darwin obtained his insight from Malthus. Although Malthus was writing about society and population, his argument was offered against English Poor laws, or laws that provided monetary relief to poor persons. Cruel bastard was attempting to persuade the government to discontinue help for the poor. Agreed.Ray

Well, the word de-evolve isn't really in my vocabulary so I have trouble following your arguments. I'll try and clarify what I am talking about, though.It seems to me that teleology can be reconciled with a genealogical view of life in two ways (not exclusive):1.) There is a purpose driven selector which chooses different variations each generation in accord with its final goal for life2.) Variation each generation isn't random but is being directed towards an ultimate goal.With regard to the first view, I was using an analogy with artificial selection and using Dawkins Biomorph program to illustrate my point. An applet can be found at:Atheism v. TheismEach generation, the user selects the variant with best approximates the final design desired, and that variant acts as a template for the next generation. This would be one way in which teleology can be realized.So there would be two factors that would contribute to the "fitness" of a design, i.e., its chance of being around in the next generation: 1. How well it is adapted to the environment, and 2. How well it conforms to the plan of the "selector". If this is the case, it would seem that there would have to be some designs in nature which are sub-optimal for reasons which cannot be explained by developmental constraint or constraints the environment puts on the organism's design.But also, it would seem unlikely that there would be large periods of little or no change. For even if a design is well adapted to the environment and any new variation would be selected out by stabilizing forces of natural selection, it wouldn't be perfect with regard to the purpose or plan of the selector and therefore change should still be occurring within the lineage.Now with regard to directed mutation or variation, I think that could be demonstrated by direct observation. That is, we should notice variation having bias towards a particular design over another. I dont' think we see that.This issue is very confusing and I haven't come close to exhausting all possibilites. I think this arises because the nature of teleology is so vague, i.e., what plan or purpose is there? Until that can be articulated it is very hard to say whether teleology can be tested or not. Edited by humoshi, : Grammar

Excellent thought from the assumptions made.However, how do we define "little or no change". Have there been such times? How many examples? Maybe not all organisms are in the plan for change?

quote:

---

However, how do we define "little or no change".

---

Maybe look at the gross morphology of fossil organisms and track it through time.

quote:

---

Maybe not all organisms are in the plan for change?

---

Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I wrote: Is the plan for every lineage or just a few? What is the nature of the plan? Are there programmed stops in the plan? Does the selector take a break everyonce in a while?It seems like the topic gets extremely messy and I think the idea of a general telelogy with specifics is unfalsifiable. Edited by humoshi, : No reason given.

oh ..so pretty much the teleo thingy is saying everything was purposeful in its evolution?i believe there is purpose to everything, or else, whats the point in it existing? but the design of nature allows a lot of choice.for instance, in the dog scenario, and flight distance, the scientist watched dogs gathering at garbage. the further the dog ran, the less likely it would return, and instead hunt more aggressively as the wolf would do, but wolves with less flight distance would return to the garbage because it is easier, and after observing man supply it, would eventually by mating with other wolves with less flight distance, evolve to a lesser form that didn't need as much strength and cunning., because it chose to scavenge, instead of hunt.the evidence from the fox study shows how dog could spawn from wolves very quickly given this scenario.i believe personally that there is a purpose and point to everything there is, but that the purpose does not override choice, as nature's design freely gives of it, within the condition it exists.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You may be right. This is a very common complaint from the anti-evolution/pro-ID crowd. I admit I personally find it difficult to conceptualize in relation to what I observe around me. On the other hand, this thread is in some ways an attempt to at least think about the idea. I started by trying to envision what teleology - if true - would look like in relation to my work. So we can at least talk about the idea, even if we never agree on whether or not it actually exists in the "real world". Ya know, I hadn't. Thanks for bringing it up. From my limited perspective, I see teleology as referring to either "purpose" or "direction". The Scarab experiment I mentioned above would be a purposeful change in a population (actually a guild) directed at a specific end state.I'm not much of a philosopher, unfortunately, so I may be somewhat off-base on my understanding of the concept. Indeed. Likewise. So far it's been quite pleasant, actually. Thanks, Ray.

I agree that you've got a good point, but I also agree that it's not watertight. Someone pushing the teleological point of view is usually someone who believes in an eternal God of some kind, and they could easily point out that if you're eternal, you're not pressed for time. What's a few hundred million years here or there when you exist outside space time?A related point that I like bringing up is that if life on this earth has an intelligent designer, it seems to be someone who's primarily interested in micro-organisms, as most of the history of life consists of nothing but them, and I think I'm right in saying that they're still most of the biomass.Good point you made, anyway.

quote:

---

at least think about the idea. I started by trying to envision what teleology - if true - would look like

---

Jacques Loeb sets out a case against “purpose” in biology in his book ”Forced Movements, Tropisms and Animals Conduct (Google Books)’ back in 1918 and this kind of thinking has continued to the present day.I find that IF TELEOLOGY were true that it (statements based on the truth of it) would have to “reject” Stu Kaufmann’s general notion of ”order for free’ (it could still be applicable in particular instances). There would have to be some kind of “deep theory of order” missing from the interpretations of our current data divisions of non-genetic and genetic variance combined, contrary to the position of Dr. Kaufmann as presentedhere. This continues to be my position.I reflect that Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” presents the best text for investigating in one’s own thought, what part of teleology might or might not possibly subsume in reality but it seems largely because his transcendental aesthetic (which in that book depends on the relation of science and art) has been flunked historically(by Bertrand Russell) and that Kant’s 'Critique of Practical Reason' comes mentally before this reflection that there is little space given in academia to considerations of what teleology might look like.The difficult writing on the subject would have to take into accounts, that generally trend that Quine was correct that Darwin got rid of Aristotle’s 4th cause and that Mayr supposedly made some advance with separating proximate and ultimate causation. I tend to doubt this stuff, but heck, it is too much for me to write comprehensively on all this apprehension just now.

Thank you, Quetzal, for an interesting topic. I like this one very much.In the scenarios you outline, I can see where some may see this as evidence of teleology. But what flavor of teleology? If we are going to appeal to supernatural superstition then my magic black box is on a par with any other magic black box and I might interpret the result as evidence of clairvoyance embedded in the genome; like some before-the-fact Lamarckism devoid of the need for direction from some “intelligent agent.”I’m afraid this may be the quandary in any such experiment performed on a wild population.I would like to offer an experiment that might overcome this effect and we have the technology to do this though I can see major problems in my sketchy protocol here.Take two identical bacterium making sure their genome is identical down to the last base-pair. Put them in separate but identical dishes and let them grow for a long period under identical ideal conditions. Once there are billions of individuals in each dish we sequence the genome of each individual.The Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis would predict the result to show multiple populations of x, y, z +- size in dish 1 with unique genomes not seen in any population in dish 2 and visa versa. None of the populations between the two dishes would be expected to have exactly identical genomes.If, however, we find populations of about x +- with exactly the same genome A in each dish, other populations of genome B of roughly the same size in each dish and no unique genomes expressed exclusive to one dish, then we can all scratch our heads and reasonably call this evidence of design and directionality in evolution. Since there would be identical conditions for the two dishes without any major change in environment the clairvoyance issue would be minimized.Just for the fun of it let me stretch the definition of “teleology” a bit and submit that we already see design, direction and purpose in evolution and always have. From the most simple initial replicator 3.8 billion years ago through all the variability in life we see today we see millions of designed survival vessels directed with one goal, one specified purpose; replication. The designs and purpose directed by the blind chemistry of nature.And some think only their gods can perform miracles.

A lovely idea, az.Sequencing a genome costs about 3-4 cents per base pair these days. An average bacteria has several million base pairs (let's say 1.8 Mbp like Haemophilus influenzae just for the sake of argument), so the cost of sequencing one bacteria is $5.4 million.The Value of Complete Microbial Genome Sequencing (You Get What You Pay For)
J Bacteriol. 2002 December; 184(23): 6403-6405.Each colony would have several billion bacteria (let's say 4 billion for the sake of argument), so the cost of sequencing just one petri dish would be $21,600,000,000,000,000. Double that for 2 petri dishes.A bit cost prohibitive, wouldn't you say?Here's a snippet from a proposed project just for comparison's sake. International Team to Sequence 1000 Genomes
ScienceNOW 22 January 2008

Just one of the many "major problems in my sketchy protocol here."Another being how do you put the populations in stasis while the sequencing takes place. And there are loads of others.But these are mere details.

Agreed. What my experiment would show would be more on the lines of possible "fingerprints" - whether of something supernatural (which, by definition I guess, it would not be since we would see actual physical evidence - iow it couldn't be supernatural), or of some unknown natural "purposeful" or "directed" process. 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). Interesting. 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. 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? Not disagreeing, just not exactly seeing what the experiment showed. 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.

You never know until you try eh? I've wondered if they could be used for a source of funding before. Wonder what their criteria is. It occurred to me today that you might have a problem if you did have an instance of anticipation, and that would be discerning if

it was a designer anticipating (or knowing) upcoming changes, or

a population that was sensitive to information we don't notice, a "sixth sense" like the cat that visits the dying ...

​

How would you control for that?

​

Enjoy.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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. 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. 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. 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.