Everything is not because of evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the role of evolution in explaining various human traits and behaviors, particularly the tendency to attribute all characteristics to evolutionary advantages. Participants explore the distinction between evolution and natural selection, and question the appropriateness of applying evolutionary explanations to cultural and learned behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that not all traits, such as reading and writing, can be solely attributed to evolutionary advantages, suggesting these may arise from intelligence instead.
  • There is criticism of evolutionary psychology for attempting to explain traits without sufficient molecular evidence, with references to critics like Gary Marcus and PZ Myers.
  • A distinction is made between evolution as a historical process of gene change and natural selection as one of several mechanisms that explain how traits change over time.
  • Some participants emphasize that while all biological differences are a result of evolution, not everything is a product of natural selection, advocating for clearer terminology.
  • Concerns are raised about the tendency to attribute all phenomena to evolution, with some suggesting that common sense and necessity also play significant roles in human behavior and invention.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that evolution and natural selection are not synonymous, but there is no consensus on the extent to which evolutionary explanations should be applied to human traits and behaviors. Multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of these explanations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for precise definitions and caution against conflating different evolutionary concepts. The discussion reflects ongoing debates in evolutionary biology and psychology, with unresolved questions about the applicability of evolutionary explanations to cultural traits.

Avichal
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
Evolution answers most of the questions like - "Why are we social animals", "Why do we have nose, eyes etc".
Because they were evolutionary advantageous.

But I have seen this argument being used in wrong places. For eg: - In some book (sorry, I don't remember it now), the author said that we read and write because it was evolutionary advantageous.
I think this is just wrong. We don't read and write because of evolution. Reading and writing perhaps was a natural consequence of our intelligence.
I find the evolution argument is being used incorrectly in this case and in many other cases. Am I right?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Yes, people like to take spandrels and make something of them where there is no molecular story (and thus no concrete evidence). Evolutionary psychology is a field who's contributions are often criticized for this. Gary Marcus is one such critic.
 
It's very common to see people attempt to explain traits as though they must be the product of natural selection, even of cultural traits. It's not only bad science but its often used to attempt to justify a prejudice belief. Be wary of it.

Pythagorean said:
Yes, people like to take spandrels and make something of them where there is no molecular story (and thus no concrete evidence). Evolutionary psychology is a field who's contributions are often criticized for this. Gary Marcus is one such critic.

PZ Myers is as well. I found this post of his on the topic and its example of learned behaviour in zebras use particularly interesting:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...e-motives-of-evolutionary-psychology-critics/
 
Avichal said:
Evolution answers most of the questions like - "Why are we social animals", "Why do we have nose, eyes etc".
Because they were evolutionary advantageous.

As Pythgorean and Ryan_m_b have said, natural selection is not always the explanation, so I just want to make a quick note on terminology that "evolution" should not be equated with "natural selection".

Evolution per se does not necessarily involve concepts like the evolutionary advantage of an adaptation. Evolution is essentially the history of changes in genes, and who inherits which genes. Classically, this history is described on the level of populations of organisms, and is termed "phylogeny". Evolution is fundamentally about what happened, rather than why something happened.

The explanations for particular evolutionary events is extra and not as general as the concept of evolution. These involve theories like natural selection, which you mentioned ("evolutionarily advantageous"). Mechanisms other than natural selection are sexual selection and random drift. These "explanations" are not as fundamental as the history of gene changes and inheritance.

Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations
Sexual Selection
Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow Do Not Act in Isolation in Natural Populations
 
Last edited:
I agree with Atyy. It needs to be noted that all biological differences are because of evolution. Remember evolution just refers to change in allele frequencies in a population over time. The theories of evolutionary change explain how those allele frequencies change. I think what you mean to say is that not everything is the result of natural selection (or maybe call it adaptive evolution), in which case I would agree with you.

Natural selection =/= evolution

It is a bad habit and incorrect to use the two interchangeably.
 
This is a great thread for several reasons including content and character. Thank you. I am particularly impressed with the precise meanings given to concepts like evolution, natural selection, adaptive - related concepts are not synonyms and this thread shows that. I've yet to meet an evolution opponent who could accurately describe natural selection or knew what an allele was. Evolution is a paradigm because of genetics and molecular biology. I enjoyed the "spandrel" metaphor - it fits perfectly - necessary and sufficient - architecture and evolution are great poetic comparisons.
 
Last edited:
People will start to attribute everything to evolution. A lot of things happen because of common sense. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
32
Views
16K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
575
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
18K