Evolit: Week 3--Darwin's story and story telling

It seems as if Darwin has almost become a mythological type figure in society today. His work being seen as absolute truth for some (with an almost religious fervor) and complete bullox to others. It's odd that something that was written as an observation of a trend can be taken as the true hypothesis and seen as factual although there have been many amendments on his original ideas. I read Origin of Species in high school, and re-read it again for class. I thought, even then, that he sounded more like a scientist merely stating his observations- not trying to tell people what exactly they have to believe his ideas as the perfect truth. Darwin preludes many of his observations with disclosures saying that he may not be completely correct in his assumptions, but he's trying. How could people turn that into Darwinism?

The cultural significance of Darwin in our day and age makes it seem like he wrote non-fiction, but all in all, he wrote fiction with non-fiction tendencies because it was an observation of the ecology that he studying. I've read his other books on Plants and Animals, and found that they were much like Origin of the Species. He is making his conclusions on the history of life, but haven't people been doing that for centuries? Yet those stories are still seen as being fictional- even though they are the observations of some about the beginning of life.

Seeing cars driving by with the fish and "Darwin" firmly written in the middle always interests me (well, bumper stickers in general do.) It is the sign that they see evolution as not only written by one man, but that a theory of science is the same as a theory of religion. 

Where does religion start and science stop? 

So far as I can tell (and correct me, please, if you find evidence to contrary,) Darwin seems to be non-foundationalist (as in he doesn't believe there was any predestination for the creation of humans or any other species) in a negative, not a positive sense. What I mean is, he has no proof or emirical evidence to refute any notion of some sort of foundation or ultimate direction that natural selection should lead to, but since there are also no facts that he's included to support a foundationalist stance, he's not about to claim something that has no basis in his evidence. So, revising that title, I would say he's "not a foundationalist," but he's not a non-foundationalist even though interpretations of his texts may lead to this theory. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, natural selection (from my reading) only negates a foundationalist mentality if you assume that anything not supported by fact isn't true. Note that there's a difference between something not supported by fact and something that is dis-proven through fact-- the notion that the world is flat, for instance, is disproven by fact. The most basic notion behind intelligent design, however, that there is some divine agent giving direction to the development of people, is not disproven by the facts and conclusion of natural selection...just not included. It's not a theory based in fact, it is not a result of an empirical study/story. It's a different type of story with a different type of development that only clashes with natural selection when one or both sides insist that their type of story is superior.  

What has stayed with me since class on Thursday is our closing discussion on the assumption of competition in Darwin's theory of speciation. I think this has something to do with a misinterpretation of what “survival of the fittest” means. I have taken it to mean the elimination of competition, however, I have been thinking of this in too narrow of a way. Eliminating competition doesn't necessarily mean defeating a competitor. It can mean (and in the case of natural selection does mean) the elimination of competition through the avoidance of it.

In doing some homework for another class (shocking, I know) I've just started reading The Evolution of Cooperation, by Robert Axelrod. Chapter 5 “The Evolution of Cooperation in Biological Systems” talks specifically about this. Building relationships of reciprocity (i.e. cooperation) between species are actually more likely to guarantee successful reproduction. Rather than an adaptation, cooperation or symbiotic relationships can be seen as an evolutionary result, creating a “evolutionary stability;” that is to say that a population using a strategy of cooperation can't then be infiltrated by another population using a different strategy (a mutant within the population perhaps). This means once a population reaches this level of cooperation, it has become a separate species. It's based off of a theoretical game known as Prisoner's Dilemma. I'm still wrapping my head around it, so I'm not doing the best job explaining it.

Here's a GREAT lecture on the topic (beware; it's an hour long): http://academicearth.org/lectures/evolutionary-stability

I'm very impressed by the idea of Darwin as a wide-ranging empiricist who built his theory based on pyramids of observations from all around. It takes real, copious effort to not only spend a lifetime collecting and thinking about your own vast store of observations, but also to go through the catalogues of contemporaries and the annals of history to incorporate everything into some kind of overarching inductive theory. I'm wondering what kind of formidable summaries of observations it would take to unseat his theory... it seems that so far, his theory has only been refined by breakthroughs in genetics and understanding of DNA, and by punctuated equilibrium which upsets or at least contests his insistence that evolution will necessarily happen very slowly and gradually over time. The classification system of cladistics seems to put to rest disputes about how to catalogue different species based on a common ancestor. In this system, groups are demarcated by evolutionary novelties such as the amniotic egg. Given this type of distinction, it's easier to see where and how groups divide, as well as how vastly different organisms with regard to appearance/ morphology have certain commonalities.

I've been starting to think about how evolution could be applied to human societies. If small separated clusters of organisms can diverge to form different species, this could be analogous to subcultures/ countercultures splitting off from the mainstream and in a sense "evolving" into a different type of human being, if not genetically than at least culturally/ intellectually different. Paul or someone else in class Thursday suggested that perhaps Abe Lincoln prevented the speciation of the United States... he made us all "American" rather than the diversity of what might have developed under the confederation of separate states. Perhaps there are various ideologies that prevent evolution, such as various fundamentalisms, which be definition resist change. Also, groups like the Amish seem to be isolated both genetically and culturally from the rest of the human race. As Paul noted in class, a globalized, worldwide way of life such as modern capitalist society prevents variation, the kind which existed when different societies existed separately albeit contemporaneously on different continents. 

I believe Darwin is most definitely an empiricist. The ideas he writes about all come from his own experiences and knowledge at the time, the experiments he conducted, and what he observed. As a storyteller, however, I do not believe he is as agreeable. I think his overall story is good, but the way in which he tells his story is confusing at times, especially because he explains everything in great detail. Therefore, I sometimes cannot figure out or I forget the point he is trying to make. Professor Grobstein did say in class the reason for his dry writing is because he is an empiricist.

I do not think one can actually say that Darwin’s book is fiction or non-fiction. He was writing a story about what he believed in, but he did not have any tangible proof about whether what he was saying was actually true. Although the examples he provided are real, the idea he conveyed is not necessarily a fact, or at least not yet. I feel that people who like or do believe in Darwin’s story would call this book non-fiction and those who think otherwise may say it is fiction. I think the same concept holds true for the bible to smaller extent.

I also want to point out the branching diagram that was presented in class on Tuesday. I thought it was interesting how there were two branches within the squares (a green one and a blue one). We did not get into it in class very much, but I thought it was interesting because the idea thatmost people have about evolution today is that everything came from a single organism and evolved into everything that exists today. I thought then that the branching diagram should have only had one branch and not two. If so, would those two branches have met up further down the page? It amazes me that the possibility of having two or a few organisms to evolve from did not occur to me. It shows how much I am influenced by what I learn in school. 

Last week, we spoke about the kinds of stories that "we" idealize. Another question asked was "why didn't anybody tell me" that scietists are unsure and full of conjecture. Could it be that the scientists' views of self, purpose, and intent has "evolved" from that of an extreme view of objectivity to a more subjective idea of these purpses? The idealized story of science and the scientist is one of fact and certainty. Though this is not true, it is what we idealize as a society. It is a forced binary which can be meant to simplify things into categories which don't actually exist. Is it truth or conjecture, science or humanity, biology or english, man or woman, male or female, black or white? Where is the love for what falls in between? It might be that it is just easier (or thought to be easier) to make everything fall into a blanket category. Though a deep understanding of this has been harbored by individuals on their own, as Darwin (and some before him) harbored his own views of the origin of species, putting such truths and understandings into the hands of the general public is a somewhat daunting and possibly impossible task.

Thinking back to the conversation we had in class on Thursday, I could never quite get the idea of Darwin's approach to convincing people of the validity of his story out of my head. I think it is interesting that he choose to portray himself as a trustworthy figure who is modest in his findings. I wonder how true to his own character he was actually staying? By that I mean was he really as unsure of all of his findings being so disputable and subject to interpreation as he seemed to indicate in his writing? I think it would be interesting to think about that.

 I was intriuged by Pr. Grobstein's story that humans are defined by their ancestry. It isn't something that had occured to me before though it does make since when considering that there really is no one universal characteristic that seems to ba able to create a better definition, except possibly the existencialist claim that Pr. Dalke described in class on Thursday. I am not sure that I can say that I buy one claim or the other because I beleive they both have a valid argument. I kind of like the idea that people are defined by the past, but I feel that it isn't quite a complete definition of what humans are since it really seems to indicate what we have been.

Extending from my previous question of how we classify the ideal, this week I began wondering how we classify the memorable. We discussed in our group meeting on Thursday about the verses in the comparative debate between Darwin and Lincoln.  Amongst all the responses to the question of which figure was the most memorable, there was one that induced the question of whether there is a time frame requirement when classifying something as “memorable”?  Is the most memorable idea the one that has had the longest influence? I guess on the surface this question appears to seem fairly simple and not all that significant, but looking deeper, I think it deserves some thought. The other thought that I was contemplating was this idea of the necessity of competition in Darwin’s evolutionary argument. I do think that he needed a notion of limited resources in his argument.  Variation cannot exist without competition. There is a consistent movement forward in organisms to try and acquire the optimal formation.  In this movement forward, those that able to survive in a specific environment longer and with less energy outweigh the weak. Those that are able to reproduce more progeny outlive the weaker.  Evolution is a process of continual, optimal change. This definition would not be viable unless competition was understood.

As far as the foundationalist/ nonfoundationalist, fiction/ nonfiction opposites that we began discussing in Pr. Dalke's section on Thursday, I think there is sometimes but not always a correlation. A nonfiction story can clearly be either foundationalist or nonfoundationalist-- it can begin with a certain viewpoint and explicate it, or begin with a set of observation and construct a conclusion from them. I think that by definition, useful scientific theories are nonfoundationalist, because they begin with observations and the conclusion follows. In cultural anthropology right now, we're reading a lot about early anthropologists who were foundationalists, and who collected data to support their set ideas rather than the other way around-- mainly in the construction of racist theories. This kind of pseudoscience has been (largely) discredited. So all scientific stories are by nature emergent in the way they develop. Other types of nonfiction (history, biography, etc) I think could be either foundational or emergent, I'm not sure.

Fictional stories I think could be either foundational or emergent-- dependent on the ideas of the author, and constructed to promote those ideas, or written to explore certain themes without leaving a clear message. In a story that includes the perspectives of various characters, for instance, a more complicated picture emerges than could be told through one.

I'm not sure if I'm using the terms foundational and nonfoundational exactly as we did in class, but these ideas seem related. I'm writing more about whether the process of storytelling begins with a set foundation, than whether the story itself explains a phenomenon in terms of a foundation and destination.

     In Prof. Grobstein's Thursday section, we briefly thought about what Darwin's theories would have to about phenomena such as women living long after their childbearing years. I have been thinking about this concept more generally, and I had one semi-spooky thought: is Natural Selection analagous to what scientists refer to as 'potential energy'? That is, can we reasonably believe that Natural Selection is some sort of looming power (not in the sense of a divine being) that reveals its 'desires' for the future evolution depending on what humans 'activate'?

     I think that the answer is YES, and I do not intend to personify Natural Selection, but I do find it very curious that Alzheimers, osteoporosis, and diseases that mostly affect the elderly didn't appear when the human life expectancy was maybe 30-40yrs of age. Such predicaments seem to have come into existence ONLY once humans better adapted and began to live longer. Perhaps this was/is a way to keep population dynamics in check?  The creepy part about this, though, is that with all of our modern technologies today, if we somehow figure out how to raise the life expectancy (among many possible ways we could change our lives) to 120yrs old...what kinds of things would Natural Selection (if applicable) have in store for us?

One of the discussion topics I found most interesting this past week was in reference to education, especially elementry school. Someone, I apologise for not remembering who, mentioned that a possible explanation for why the stories we're learning now are new, and why "no one told us before" was that elementry education has to be black and white, truth and fiction, for a basis of understanding to be built up by children.

I recenty asked my little sister, who is in fifth grade, what she thought about this. Admitedly, she's probably not the average student as she woud read 24/7 if given the chance and reads anything written she can get her hands on, from novels to non-fiction--perhaps giving her a wider range of stories to work from, but, nonetheless, she is constsntly frustrated by the single story fed to her by teachers. For example, her class is currently learning about the begining of the American Revolution and Rebecca told me she would really like to hear the British point of view. (Honestly, growing up next door to Lexington and Concord, it probably wouldn't happen anyway, even if other stories WERE offered.)

I think that students of all ages should be given more credit and given access to different stories. I also think that location, as per my example of living near the start of the American Revlution, background, etc. all influence which and perhaps even how many stories are told. It would be interesting to see what others' opinions on the matter are.

One of the things that most interested me in this week's discussions took place in our small-group discussion when Professor Dalke's group talked about the concept of existentialism.  Although we did not discuss it in detail, the juxtaposition between a foundationalist point of view and an existentialist point of view got me thinking about why some people are so opposed to the current story of evolution.

A foundationalist's view of life is essentially the opposite of that of an existentialist.  That is, a foundationalist believes that any evolution that occurs in the species is bringing that species closer to a fixed or pre-set ideal that gives purpose to the existence of that species.  An existentialist believes that a human's "existence precedes essence," or that there is no set or fixed purpose for the existence of human life, but that through the fact of existence we are able to give ourselves an "essence" or a purpose.  The currently "accepted" story of evolution (i.e. the one we are most often taught in school) is that changes in the species occur as results of random, but strong, environmental stimuli.  This is directly opposed to the idea that human life and evolution exist for the purpose of achieving some greater purpose or reaching some sort of ideal end.

Obviously, the idea that humans only evolved from monkeys as a means of making existence easier (walking upright being a prime example) is scary to many people.  The idea that we as human beings do not have a set purpose and must create one for ourselves probably induces in some people a panic about 100 times as strong as the panic one feels upon having to choose one's major and presumably one's career life-long career path.  However, now that I can see the story of evolution as a story that I can choose to like or dislike rather than absolute fact, I think I prefer the existentialist story.  The idea that we as humans do not exist for any specific reason is empowering to me, because it means that we each have the opportunity to choose and fulfill a purpose for ourselves as individuals.

As a second, real post, I was watching the movie "Big Fish" yesterday with my room mate and I was struck by one of the lines of dialogue from the film. The movie tells the story of a man who always tells stories about his life and his son reconciling with him as he is dying. At one point the son gets frustrated and demands facts from his father who replies, "I've told you a thousand facts, Will, that's what I do. I tell stories."

As I heard this line it struck me that, that was the big distinction between literature and science. Science is liek the stories told by the son, fantastic but full of details and facts because that is what he thinks is important. Science must verify the story, quantify it and prove that that story is 100% true. Literature is like the father, it tells stories because it thinks it is more interesting that way. Literature wants to gives truths in its storytelling but it weaves it in in a way that can never be repeated or quantified.

Towards the end of the film the son talks to the doctor who delivered him as a baby. And this exchange takes place which, for me, exemplifies why stories in general are important and literature is often more loved than science.

Dr. Bennett: Did your father ever tell you about the day you were born?
Will Bloom: A thousand times. He caught an uncatchable fish.

Dr. Bennett: Not that one. The real story. Did he ever tell you that?
Will Bloom: No.
Dr. Bennett: Your mother came in about three in the afternoon. Her neighbor drove her, on account of your father was on business in Wichita. You were born a week early, but there were no complications. It was a perfect delivery. Now, your father was sorry to miss it, but it wasn't the custom for the men to be in the room for deliveries then, so I can't see as it would have been much different had he been there. And that's the real story of how you were born. Not very exciting, is it? And I suppose if I had to choose between the true version and an elaborate one involving a fish and a wedding ring, I might choose the fancy version. But that's just me.

My understanding of a foundationalist is that it is an individual that believes in something (idea, concept, etc) if the something is epistmically justified by basic beliefs.  To that end, a foundationalist may be more inclined to write non-fiction as in the case of Darwin’s text. Darwin made observations and then developed a story based on those fixed beliefs. But, at the same time, Darwin as an individual and the story that he developed, could be viewed as entirely non-foundational in that his basic beliefs are comprised of a foundation that is not consistent with the basic ground or foundation of inquiry. Maybe the reason that Darwin’s story is such a good one, as we discussed in earlier lectures, is because there is no right answer. For every criticism there is a counter-argument to a point, as discussed in our small group on Thursday, that the argument is a never-ending circle.

The never-ending circle that is comprised of believing and doubting epitomizes most concepts, theories and “laws” that we observe and practice today- evolution, morality, value, duty, virtue, free will, consent, etc. With all of these concepts, there is a never-ending circle ideology that is consistent with Darwin. We will never know if Darwin was truly a pluralist or a non-pluralist, if he was a true foundationalist or non-foundationalist- with increased discussion about the matter, the faster we spin around this never-ending circle. 

 

 

From On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should be due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  This suggests that Darwin did believe that a Creator, or divine being, created the underpinnings upon which his theory of natural selection rested.

 

I also noticed an apparent inconsistency: "And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporate and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." I wondered if Darwin took this position because he lived in an era when species loss may have been less apparent. Reading on however, on page 221, I found: " Natural selection will not produce absolute perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can judge, with this high standard under nature."    

 

For starters I feel like Lincoln has been taking over the spotlight.  Comparing him with Obama and Darwin has now kind of made me sick of hearing about Lincoln.  Throughout our two discussions I really haven't had any amazing thoughts.  I definitely had fun figuring out if mammals or dinosaurs were better then one another and match.com trying to make the world pretty.  Now I'm just trying to understand Darwin and the Origin of the Species in my own words.  As I was reading I have focused on his tone and the different stories he uses about plants and animals.  All I keep thinking is where are the stories about humans?  Why did Darwin have to hide behind plants and pigeons?  I know he could and probably would have been shunned considering the time but I also feel like Darwin was unsure about some topics.  At the beginning of every chapter he states some questions and then he'll keep playing safe by saying well I don't have all the answers but from my data this is my theory.  I can see that he leaves his theories open to be proven wrong or added to but I feel that Darwin wasn't very confidant about some of his ideas.  And if he wasn't confidant why should I believe his theory?  I think I'm finally starting to step out of my comfort zone of rules that have been taught to me in school and questioning them.

The definition of a foundationalist is still a bit confusing to me.  But if I take this definition as a person who bases his observations on a foundation, a fixed base, something that he is sure of, then we could think that a foundationalist would write non-fictional texts.  However, in one of my French classes, the teacher gave us the definition of a fictional text as reality which encounters some inexplicable facts.  If we take into consideration this definition, we could imagine that a foundationalist can write fictional texts since the text is based on a certain reality, and in which we might find some mysterious facts.  But wasn’t this Darwin’s case? Wasn’t he writing on observations, (which could represent his foundation), and weren’t there some unexplained facts in his texts since he did not have enough knowledge at his time to explain them? So, Darwin could have written in his time a fictional book. 

In another course I am taking this semester, we are talking about how the story of evolution contributes to the field of biology.  The particular perspective is how genetics, evolutionary, and developmental biology are integrated into a paradigm of enormous scope.  All of this is history is taking place post Darwin, yet his name is thrown around a lot.  I am struggling with reading papers about limitations of natural selection as a story concurrently with Darwin’s initial description it.  I keep wondering what he might think about it?  Would he agree with the words that Gould and Lewontin put in his mouth in their paper The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.  They present the argument that no observations are capable of disproving evolution.  According to the philosopher of science, Karl Popper, this property renders the story of evolution as not scientific.  Outside of Popper’s philosophy, it is problematic when the story supplied by evolution is neither interesting nor useful.  Gould and Lewontin provide several examples where the story that adaptation tells about empirical evidence is inferior to the story told by developmental biology.  The authors argue that Darwin would readily accept a broad approach.  They state, “We welcome the richness that a pluralistic approach, so akin to Darwin's spirit, can provide.”

As our prompt for this week’s post was to discuss whether or not Darwin was a foundationalist? Empiricist?  I would like to add the question was he a pluralist?

I had an issue wih your statement that humans are labeled as human solely based on their ancestors. I simply don't understand how a speciation event can be marked if a species is based on their parents rather then their attributes. I don't understand how it is rational to argue that humans are humans because their ancestors were humans when our ancestors were only human, relatively recently. I think a large part of what Darwin was saying was based on the attributes of a species as being an important marker of different species. I am just still confused about how that statement works in tandem with what Darwin was positing.

I do believe that Darwin was an empiricist in practice, however when it came to writing his data, he was cautious because his ideas were so revolutionary.  (His cautiousness is also seen with his actions when he did not publish his findings until years after his research and conclusions were reached).  When we analyzed the actual semantics of The Origin of Species, he used ‘I’ and ‘we’ many times when presenting his evidence, so as to make it more personal and read more like a novel.  Despite this, I still feel as though Darwin had concrete and substantial evidence supporting his claims even if he did not present it in a conventional scientific manner.  I also think that Darwin reached his conclusions of natural selection and evolution because he had empirical data and from this data he formed his theory.  The data that he had was from his own research with the finches and pigeons, as well as the information that other scientists, such as Malthus, had uncovered.  I believe he used a combination of all of this data to influence and shape his theories.