Re: [asa] Memes and Phylogenic trees

> 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?

Not entirely-there is the role of convergence and the possibility that
a disused but not totally lost feature may be revived in some fashion.
 Also, there are complications from possible lateral transfer,
inherited polymorphisms (i.e., ancestor has more than one version;
descendants discard one or another producing an irregular pattern of
presence/absence relative to genealogy), etc.

> 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.

Three separate issues are somewhat conflated here:

1) Are there parallels between the relationship of ideas and human
cultures and the relationship of genes and evolution?

2) Do ideas now strongly influence human evolution, such that purely
gene-based models are inadequate?

3) Does biological evolution provide an explanation for the origin of ideas?

1: It is true that the spread of ideas is much more complicated than
that of genes. Although similar events can occur in genes (lateral
transfer, exon shuffling, etc.), there is somewhat more constraint
than for the average idea, which can be transmitted and selectively
subdivided with ease, not to mention the complication of human
intention deciding what to do with ideas. However, there are several
general similarities between the spread and change in an idea within a
population and the spread and change of a gene in a population. (No,
this isn't universal evolutionism. This is merely the fact that
similar mathematical parameters can describe anything spreading and
changing.)

The key flaw in Dawkins' approach here is that he makes arguments like this:

Genes and ideas spread by similar patterns [True.]
Some genes can spread in a parasitic fashion [True.]
Ideas could do the same [True. Cf. the difficulty missionaries have
in avoiding becoming missionaries for their home culture rather than
strictly focusing on the spiritual and other needs of the people they
reach.]
Religion is a very successful idea. [True.]
Dawkins thinks religion is bad, so its success must be parasitic.
[Assumes inerrancy of Dawkins' assessment; ignores the fact that bad
genes and bad ideas might also spread in other ways.]

2) I suspect that the influence of ideas on human evolution is
generally underappreciated by biologists; there are lesser roles for
ideas in the evolution of other intelligent animals. As a way of
transmitting information without requiring genetic descent, it plays a
very important and complex role. However, I'm not sure that "meme" is
anything more than a fancy name for "communicable idea".

3) Explain "explain". Biological evolution provides the physical raw
materials used in generation of ideas (neurons, etc.) and certain
constraints on implementing them (our physical abilities). Many ideas
can potentially convey an advantage for biological evolution,
depending on the exact set of circumstances. Add in such
possibilities as parasitic ideas, and essentially any idea can be
credited with an evolutionary function. Thus, the reasons for a
particular set of ideas, as opposed to some other set, are not
well-constrained by biological evolution. Even if they were, that
would not be very good at persuading many people to adopt them.

The moral law is not a set of arbitrary rules to test for abject
devotion to God; rather, it is what's good for us. As such, it is
unsurprising that a) one can envision scenarios in which biological
evolution favors those holding to similar beliefs, b) many people can
observe humanity and reach the conclusion that similar principles are
a good idea.

Part of the confusion here comes from Dawkins et al. assuming that the
physical world is all there is; therefore a physical explanation of
the physical origins of something is considered a complete
explanation.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.