[asa] Memes and Phylogenic trees

I haven't read Dawkins, but I was considering the implications of his
argument that things like morality and altruism could have evolved naturally
over time, because (for instance) altruistic behavior could prove to be more
beneficial to a species or group than non-altruistic behavior to the
survival of the group. On one hand, this sounds on the surface like it has
some merit, even if I don't like or believe that that is the source of
altruism or morality in general.

However, I was also considering one of the key arguments from Ken Miller and
others regarding the evidence for biological origins, which is that the
evolutionary model (descent with modification and common ancestry) requires
that new discoveries fit into their correct place on the phylogenic tree.
If you find mollusks with feathers, or recent mammals with scales, or any
sort of randomly distributed pattern of characteristics that didn't fit into
the phylogenic tree of common ancestry of species, it would be evidence
against evolution. The argument, as far as it goes, says that both genetic
and heritable characteristics in biology fit perfectly into such a pattern,
whereas in things like automobile design (2 or 4 doors, paint color, size,
shape, weight, body style, etc.) do not. Automobiles can essentially mix
and match features, because they are each designed uniquely, and do not
share a heritable common descent through a progressively branching lineage
through time.

Before I go further, is this essentially a correct statement of the argument
from biology?

So now, applying this to "memes", such as altruism, or charity, or empathy,
etc., it seems to me that this fails to fit an evolutionary phylogeny, in
anything like biological evidence seems to show. One can find just in the
known course of human history those individuals and cultures and
sub-cultures which had these characteristics in varying degrees, and others
which don't. You find sub-cultures or individual philosophies anciently
which were peaceful and were open to accepting foreigners, and then you find
in modern history Hitler exterminating Jews, Christians, and others. Even
in animal populations, you find some which care for their young, and some
who kill or eat their young or their mate, etc. Unless Richard Dawkins
could show a progressive evolutionary development of something like
affection for one's young, it seems his idea is in trouble on this basis.
Just as Ken Miller makes the case that biological evidence which falls
outside the predicted phylogeny would have meant trouble for evolutionary
biology, doesn't this argument do the same for Dawkins' theory of memes?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 6 17:59:48 2008