Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Hi,

Perhaps this is a bad place to post this. If so, apologies, and
suggestions would be appreciated on where I should post it.

Some 15 years ago now I studied for a PhD in Molecular Biology which
included elements of Molecular Evolution - the result being that I
remained ignorant of some of the trends in broader evolutionary
biology. I did not go on to pursue a job in science but I maintain an
active interest and frequently pick up pop science books on the
subject.

My latest one is Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". I've
found it very thought provoking. However ever since I reached his
critique of Stephen Jay Gould, I've been struggling with some of the
concepts around "adaptionism" and the arguments for and against it. I
wondered if I presented my nagging doubts about what's being said
here, someone might be kind enough to help me resolve them.

The issue is this - Dennet characterises adaptionism as the belief
that *all* characteristics of an organism can be explained in terms of
*maximal* evolutionary advantage (my emphasis is important). This
seems to me to be self evidently and obviously false and what's
further confusing me is that some of the examples he gives would seem
to be self contradictory. Consider the flatfish for instance - how
can you seriously imagine that moving the eyes in such a way as to
align them on one side of a organism which is lying on it's side is a
*maximally* better way of making a flat swimming organism than having
the thing lie on it's stomach with it's eyes on top? How does one
explain functionally pointless elements of human anatomy such as the
appendix, the coccyx and the tonsils?

My confusion reached tipped point and prompted me to write this post
in the chapter on Chomsky. Here, Dennett outline three positions, all
of which are given out of context and without evidence and so are
difficult to assess. Chomsky, he claims, says that language cannot be
a characteristic which has evolved. Gould is pictured as saying
language is a characteristic that might not have evolved (i.e. been
selected for) but might have been a by-product of something else, such
as increased processing capacity in the brain. Steven Pinker is then
presented as having the viewpoint that language must have evolved, a
view which Dennett heartily endorses. What bugs me about this is that
although it seems both plausible and likely that language is an
advantageous feature which could be a product of selection, how can
Dennett - or anyone - so completely dismiss the suggestion that it (or
any other aspect of an organism) could have come about as a by-product
of selection for something else?

Cheers,
Matt

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Beyond Freedom and Dignity: A Philosophical Review
    ... and I believe there's food in the larder but you lock it up and hide ... be intrinsic to human language" etc IMO indicates that whatever ... organism, which we might hope a sufficiently advanced technology could ... attitudes or intentions, etc, then relatively brief observation of the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection
    ... the millipede would come out ahead. ... descriptive language. ... organisms is more complex than an individual organism. ... So if I see an increase in complexity, is it aa increase in complexity ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Contradictions
    ... niches or environments that the organism was designed to, possibly, ... Language isn't you first language, ...
    (talk.origins)