The Story of Evolution and the Evolution of Stories: EvoLit

Thursday’s discussion group made me consider the extinction of certain genes from our genetic makeup. While the idea of certain qualities dying out is romantic and self-important (i.e. pointing to certain traits as ‘special ones’ worth passing down), a classmate of mine voiced the point that recessive genes do not disappear entirely from populations. Instead, they may lie dormant until they are joined with other recessive genes. In this way, people carrying such recessive genes may not be expressing their traits phenotypically, but they are carrying them amongst all the other recessive genes that are denied expression.

 In Tuesday's discussion, we talked about the difference between computers and humans.  I think it might be safe to say that most people believe the difference to be our concept of free will and the confinement that computers experience because they run accordingly to their program coding.  The computer outputs whatever the coding of its program tells it to.  However, what if we stretch this idea of a program in a broader sense?  What guides us in our actions, what we say and our behavior is due to our morals, principles, beliefs, etc.  We develop this code of ethics due to influences from out respective cultures, parents and other institutions (educational system, religion, etc).

Thursday’s discussion with Professor Dalke touched briefly on the concept of memes, which Dennett describes as “a handy word for a salient (memorable) cultural item, something with enough Design to be worth saving—or stealing or replicating” (143). Memes are an important part of what separates humans from other species. Dennett states, “we are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture” (338). Without culture, that which has been designed by humans would not be maintained. As described by Dennett, “a meme’s existence depends on a physical embodiment in some medium; if all such embodiments are destroyed, that meme is distinguished”(348).

On Tuesday, we discussed how humans think, and whether our lives are ruled by just a bunch of algorithms. Computer intelligence is possible because of these algorithms, but does our brain work the same way? While discussing this concept with a friend, she told me about a documentary she had watched about a grand chess master (which can be watched online for free.

One of the things I like best about Darwin's idea is the fact that it's conceptual.  I mean that you don't have to have a strong background in biology or chemistry to understand what he's talking about  You couldn't read and really comprehend someone like Newton or Einstein without a strong background in physics and math.  Dennett underlines this perfectly.  He's a philosopher, not a biologist, but he can still change the way we think about evolution and natural selection. 

Also, Dennett has a series of awesome TED talks, <http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_dennett.html> that I definitely recommend watching. 

Dennet writes, "what we are is very much a matter of what culture has made us" (Dennet 340).  I am interested in bridging the gap between cultural perceptions of humanity and scientific perceptions of humanity.  A big question since the dawn of civilization has been where do we come from and why are we here?  I don't understand why when science was created to explore all possibilities and find the answers to existence, its conclusions are so easily rejected.  Can we ignore the truth if we don't like it?  Can something still be possible if we cannot quite imagine it?  I can't begin to imagine billions of years of history and change, but just because it's scary and different and something I don't fully understand doesn't mean that it is not valid.

Daniel Dennett's discussion of the "meme" as a cultural equivalent to the "gene" is supposed to be geared towards applying the theory of evolution to other concepts, such as the development of culture. But the problem I see in this model is the conflict between the inherent idea of randomness in evolution, and what seems to me to be an inherent element of design in culture and in cultural memes.

 Something interesting Dennett points out in Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that while Darwin did not point out specifically a 'creator' as the cause of variation or evolution, he does rely on the idea of a 'mechanism' pushing the process forward.  The parallel to Hume was actually quite striking, who wrote of a grand 'mechanic' who tried and failed until he got the world right, "Many fruitless trials made: And a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages of world-making" (Dennett 31).  Though Hume did not his own idea seriously and was merely musing for the sake of argument, it is certainly interesting.  Hume did not imagine that there were nothing at all behind the evolutionary process, and to a certain extent, neither did Darwin.

I must admit that evolution is no easy task to conquer. I would like to now place Darwin right up on the pedestal with Albert Einstein and other great geniuses. Why wasn't he there before? I am not sure, maybe my gut reactions and morals were holding me back from holding him to such esteem but after attempting to piece together a course syllabus on evolution I found that the subject is not only complex but never ending. It pours into other disciplines and weaves its way into society and popular culture. I can see how some people can find great excitement from such a theory because, I feel like there's so many questions that still need to be answered and so many answers that still need to be understood. I think I might have a crush on evolutionary theory.