Some articles have been published about the previsibility or predictability of biological evolution, as opposed to the gouldian view of an unpredictable and highly contingent evolution ("Beautiful Life").
Teleology is most frequently violently rejected by scientific researchers. However, a few authors, like James Shapiro and Francisco Ayala, consider living organisms to be teleological.
I wonder whether a logical link might be established between previsibility and teleology. As a matter of fact, if some genotypes or phenotypes appear to be predictable, they might be seen as evolutionary inevitabilities or even as goals.
Is such a view some kind of heretic position or an audacious perspective?
I would very much appreciate some comments or ideas about this fascinating topic.
Hello David; Let me begin with the fundamental logic of science. The practice of science is operationally deterministic. Explanations for sets of observations or the structure of hypotheses as the basis of experiment about the natural world must be testable and falsifiable by some method, and the explanations that come out of them must be mechanistic. Teleological explanations for natural phenomena imply a purposefulness that requires an identification of who's purpose. I've never read a teleologist who didn't mean God's…either implicitly or explicitly. In demonstrating such a proposition, it is the claimant's responsibility to follow the requirements mentioned above. None have ever done so.
You mention the predictability in the patterns of inheritance. Since the Enlightenment people have been aware of the patterns. It was Mendel who figured out how to render the question of the causes of the patterns into his pea experiments. So, genotypes became an operational explanation for the causes of the patterns of the phenotypes. It wasn't until Watson and Crick that the chemistry of DNA was shown to be the mechanism for the characteristics of genotypes. All mechanistic.
The predictability and "inevitability" of some of evolution is being worked out by ecologists, evolutionary biologists and statisticians. Island biogeography, Bergmann's rule, industrial melanism are all classic explanations for repeated themes in evolutionary processes under specific environmental circumstances (the contingency part). All are purely mechanistic explanations, highly patterned, statistically analyzable and distinctly not teleological. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
As far as I can see, there's simply no need for any teleological explanations. Mutation*, selection** and drift*** appear to suffice to explain all of evolution, all of biodiversity.
* Random. Some of it truly random, i.e. not deterministic, because some of the causes of mutation lie in quantum physics where few probabilities are 0 and none are 1.
** Determined by the environment.
*** Stochastic.
The loudest proponent of some kind of predictability in evolution has been Simon Conway Morris. He points to such things as the fact that saber-toothed carnivores have evolved something like six times among mammals and their close relatives. I think he overlooks a lot of contingency: if a big carnivore evolves from something with a single-piece skull, like a mammal, a crocodile or a tuatara, larger teeth at a mechanically advantageous position in the jaw provide an immediate advantage; if a big carnivore evolves from something with a more flexible skull, that doesn't work, and so there've never been saber-toothed tyrannosaurs.
BTW, I'm not sure I've heard of James Shapiro. Francisco Ayala is a Jesuit priest, though; finding evidence for teleology would definitely make him happier than not finding it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research