A new synthesis: Four dimensions of Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 21:26 (3271 days ago) @ xeno6696

A hearty welcome back to xeno (Matt). We have missed you! I am transferring this part of your post from Animal Minds to the new thread, as I think it's more relevant herehw: Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.
MATT: Agreed, although to me, the only "drive" in evolution is the instinctive desire to stay alive, one of the few instincts that we *know* all life forms have. (Even the non-sentient ones.) Evolution can move "forwards" or "backwards." To be a hero, you don't need to step forward, if everyone else steps back!-We have discussed this at length, and the counter to what you have said is that there was no need whatsoever for single-celled life to evolve into the complexities of life as we know it today. Bacteria have survived very nicely through adaptation, and so there must be something else that led to cells combining in ever more complex forms. (See below)-MATT: For those who haven't seen me post here in some time--if ever, I'm probably the closest thing to a materialist the site has, as I buy 100% into methodological materialism, (as does anyone who believes science is reliable) and I'm 99.99% of the way there for naturalistic materialism.-Like David, I'm eager to hear more, but as you have been away for so long, I don't know how abreast you are of the discussions we've been having. (It's quite possible they haven't advanced in all this time!) I doubt if David will go along with your naturalistic materialism, but I am happy to work with both sides, and my current hypothesis fits in with both. I'll summarize it, and then relate it briefly to your (Eva Jablonka's) four categories, as you describe them:-Adaptation does not explain evolution, which advances through innovations. The complexities of even the simplest of organs and organisms make me extremely sceptical of Darwinian (and Dawkinsian) random mutations, and gradualism is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion. Some modern scientists are convinced that cells are sentient, cognitive, cooperative, decision-making beings, and every organ and organism is a community of cells. I am therefore suggesting that as environmental conditions change, while some cell communities (organisms) perish or adapt, other cell communities cooperate not just for the sake of survival but also for the sake of improvement. In other words, they do not merely adjust themselves to the new environment, but they exploit it. Nobody has witnessed the innovations that have led to speciation (broad sense: not species within species), but adaptation - which we witness all the time - has to entail the cooperation of the cell communities interacting with the environment, so innovation takes us one step further. A giant step, but for me much more likely than randomness. Cellular intelligence itself can fit in with natural materialism and with theism, depending on what you believe may have been the source of that intelligence. In the simplest of terms: did life/intelligence originate by chance or by design? This question, however, is irrelevant to the actual process of evolution.
 
MATT: The book divides evolution into four main categories, Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic.-Genetic clearly involves mutations, but instead of these being random, they would be engineered by the intelligent, cooperating cell communities themselves as they work out how to exploit new conditions, as above. These would be the most radical changes.-Epigenetic changes would not be as dramatic as major innovations, but again they result from interaction with environmental conditions, and whatever may be the seat of the intelligence will be able to issue the appropriate instructions to make and pass on the changes.
 
Behavioural evolution would be a clear example of intelligence at work externally, and any form of behaviour that is beneficial will be passed on. But if, as you say, it is so fundamental as to lead to speciation, again it will require the internal cooperation of the cell communities to make the necessary adjustments. With your example of changed diet, I don't know how you (Jablonka) would distinguish it from epigenetic change. I should add that I would hate to have to draw borderlines between adaptation and innovation, and between genetic, epigenetic and even behavioural if it leads to speciation (broad sense). -It's not clear to me how symbolic fits in with evolution, but the passing on of information is clearly essential to all forms of life. We have had long discussions on the subject of information, and again to update you, we have concluded that it is absolutely necessary to distinguish between information itself and the intelligence that uses it. -I don't know if any of this is relevant to the book itself, but it might save us from going over well trodden ground. Once again, welcome back. You always bring us a fresh approach!