This is the silliest thing you've ever written about darwinism, Orrin. The theory of natural selection is not only about humans (who are not referenced in "Origin" except, famously, in the very last sentence) or even about food as such (it works with plants as well).

That Darwin got the idea of permanent scarcity from Malthus is certain (he said so himself). That does not mean he took in all of Malthus's other ideas.

Nor does the fact that his theory was influenced by general intellectual currents of his time count as a criticism. How could it not be? (One author, whose name I've forgotten, pointed out that the idea of circulation of the blood [in Europe at least] came about very shortly after Dutch engineers improved pumps, leading to the analogy of a heart as a pump; and there are other similar examples of how people develop ideas.)

As for capitalism requiring an internalized morality, then we're never going to have the one because we are never going to have the other. Capitalists as we know them are not famous for morality.

OJ - I applaud your efforts. This is such a majestic work of sophistry than I barely know where to begin with it.

Now that my head has stopped reeling, I think I discern a line of argument as follows...

Taking 'Darwinism' to mean 'the theory that evolution is explained by natural selection':

1)Darwinism took its inspiration from an economic theory
2)That economic theory is flawed
3)Therefore Darwinism is flawed.

A hopeless non-sequitur, not to mention a dubious first principle? It certainly looks that way. But perhaps the argument is actually:

1)Evolution works in the same way as the free-market economy.
2) but far from being being truly 'laissez-faire', a free market requires a 'superstructure' element of intelligent design
3)therefore evolution requires a superstructure of intelligent design.

Which seems a speculative argument at best.

But perhaps the argument is just that Darwinists should lay off the comparisons with free market economics, becuase they don't understand free market economics.

I might even be prepared to buy that one...is it too much to hope that that's all you're arguing?

Harry:

But permanent scarcity being wrong the rest is wrong, no?

You're certainly right that he was influenced by the ambient philosophy of his day, but that's all he rendered is a philosophy, not a science.

Brit:

It would suffice for now if Darwinists stopped comparing natural selection to systems of articifial selection developed by men--such as breeding, economics, language, etc. But the more you discern is also my point.

"if Darwinists stopped comparing natural selection to systems of articifial selection developed by men--such as breeding, economics, language..."

It is important not to accidentally (woolly thinking) or deliberately (disingenuous) confuse somebody asking you to look at certian aspects of x in order to help explain y; and somebody saying x is directly analagous to y.

So while a Darwinist ('natural selection-ist') might talk about breeding to explain basic genetics, only an intelligent design theorist would go on to say breeding is directly analagous to evolution.

I think permanent scarcity _does_ describe the condition of animals in the wild, which is all that Darwin requires.

Orrin, are you seriously suggesting that scarcity does not affect populations in nature? It isn't only about us.

Why do you think the birdlovers put up nesting boxes for bluebirds in Virginia? Scarcity of nesting places means fewer bluebirds.

Evolution through natural selection worked very well before there ever were humans.

Furthermore, with respect to the Hayek quote, you're forcing anarchists under the "libertarian" umbrella if you think libertarianism is inconsistent with the following:

[I]n order that competition should work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required and that neither the existing nor the past legal rules are free from grave defects.

As I recall, Virginia Postrel's The Future and Its Enemies spent a chapter or more making exactly this point. If she's not a libertarian, then who is?

Postrel is a libertarian, of course, but she is something of a special purpose libertarian. She is no longer at Reason because she strayed from the true faith or, depending upon who you ask, it did. In this context, she is, like me, a Coasian, which is more of a tool than a philosophy. We Coasians prefer, as far as contracts are concerned, law to equity; that is, we think it more important that contracts exist within a hard and fast framework of immutable bright line rules and much less important what the rules actually are.

Harry/Charles:

I'm perfectly willing to cede the point that Man is Artificial rather than Natural and not subject to even the theory of Darwinism, that Darwiniam applies only in certain limited circumstances.

Charles:

No one is--that's the secret--my freedom always sounds good until it requires yours.

Charles:

Note that Smith doesn't mean a mere legal framework but an internalized morality.

OJ -

On the contrary, there's still one scarcity, and that's the one that matters - grandchildren.

Mike:

But only in countries where subsistence for such exists in plenty-thereby reversing the rule.

"we think it more important that contracts exist within a hard and fast framework of immutable bright line rules and much less important what the rules actually are."

What the rules are matter very much.If the rules are such that obeying them makes my efforts futile,then I simply won't play or I will simply have a great incentive to cheat.
Something feminists are discovering with the emerging marriage boycott.

Within the realm of contract, Coase's insight is that what the rules are matters much less than that the rules be known ahead of time and not subject to change.

Law is secondary--it is peoples' behavior that must be predictable, thus with an established and universal morality you can have fairly few laws but as morality slips away you need more and more law until you've no meaningful freedom.

If one accepts the claim (I do) that permanent scarcity is a condition of animals in the wild, the same could also be said to apply to man for most of his tenure on Earth. To the extent that permanent scarcity does contribute to the explanatory claims of natural selection, then why exclude man from its provence. (Other than because man's intelligence may have endowed him with means to adapt which are not as neatly explained by natural selection -- i.e., no remarkable adaptive organs, colors, etc.)

Why do we find so many acorns on the ground? Shouldn't the squirrels breed until they're consuming them all? Why is there grass? Shouldn't grazers breed until they're consuming it? Ever notice how animal populations doon't have these big starvation die-offs? It's all just theory, and wrong.

"Within the realm of contract, Coase's insight is that what the rules are matters much less than that the rules be known ahead of time and not subject to change"

You miss the point,this could define "Jim Crow" laws.If the rules,no matter how hard,fast or clearly known,are rigged against me,I have NO incentive *what*so*ever* to play by those rules,period.I will either cheat or simply not play at all.
What the rules are matter,very much.

"Law is secondary--it is peoples' behavior that must be predictable, thus with an established and universal morality you can have fairly few laws but as morality slips away you need more and more law until you've no meaningful freedom."

OJ is perfectly right.
Give people incentive to cheat on some laws and soon they will cheat on all laws,leading to a flood of often contradictory laws wide open to abuse by interpretation of those with authority,leading to a de-legitmization of all law,leading to chaos,leading to autocracy.
The drug war is one exapmle of this abuse.

OJ:

That is very simplistic.

In order to avoid extinction, populations have to exist over time. But food supplies vary significantly over time. If the population in question was just barely subsisting during a time of plenty, then any subsequent significant dimunition in the food supply would result in a complete population crash.

Why doesn't that happen? Time delays between conception and birth, predators, and disease. The first acts as a flywheel, the last two act to limit the population below what it would be in their absence. In other words, the system is self organizing in such a way that what you pose does not (generally) happen.

"Ever notice how animal populations doon't have these big starvation die-offs?" Actually, I have noticed the exact opposite. Certain populations with large litters and short breeding times (limited flywheel effect) do just that. Several years ago there was a rat plague in Australia. Followed by a big starvation die-off. Another classic example is how rabbit and fox populations vary over time--opposite in phase, and prone to starvation die-offs, particularly for rabbits (large litter, short breeding cycle).

Finally, the presence of some internalized moral code most certainly does not vitiate the analogy between capitalism and Darwinism. That moral code, whatever it may be over time, is part of the environment. The system will self organize over time with that as a component, and different life-forms (industries, companies, etc) will thrive and die over time absent any sort of plan or planner. Looking back, you could see why. Looking forward, you can see nothing. Just like Darwinism.

And there will also be mass die offs. You do remember the dot-com bubble, don't you? (Huge infusion of resources, no existing competition, massive population increase followed by equally massive die-off. Couldn't possibly be a parallel, there, right?)

Jeff:

The very infrequency of such die-offs demonstrates that there is no such constant pressure at the margin.

Yes, the dot.com bubble is exactly like evolution--a function of intelligent decision processes.

"Yes, the dot.com bubble is exactly like evolution--a function of intelligent decision processes."

Pets.com was intellegent?What would you call "New Coke"?

Intelligent does not imply smart.

Internal moral codes are largely unnecessary when dealing with local producers and consumers, but absolutely vital when dealing with global producers and consumers, or the likes of E-Bay.
At the very least, a strong Smithian dedication to duty is required.

In fact, E-Bay HAS become a haven for criminals, including con artists, frauds, and those wishing to fence stolen goods.
E-Bay doesn't want to do anything about it, and current laws require those victimized to file their complaints in the jurisdiction of the criminal's origin, where often they are understandably reluctant to devote many resources to pursuing the case.

OJ -

Because, Malthus notwithstanding, food isn't usually the limiting factor. Acorns sitting out in the open aren't worth the risk to a squirrel if there's a 1% chance a hawk will notice you wandering after it. For most dynamics you'ld expect predator and prey populations to be in equilibrium, although they certainly will oscillate in the right conditions.

Mike:

Thanks! That effectively removes subsistence and population pressure from the equation.

Maybe you haven't noticed it, Orrin, but other people have. It works for humans, too. I recommend Washington Irving's "A Journey on the Plains" (because it was written decades before "Origin") for an example of how that worked, with politics thrown in.

Seldom do dieoffs lead to extinctions, though rarely they do; nor do periods of abundance lead to infinite extensions of predator populations. Natural selection works, most of the time, to restore populations toward a mean.

In unusual situations (founder events), the swings are interrupted, and a trend proceeds to completion (either extinction or speciation).

Humans have more control over their environments than squirrels do, but ours is far from complete.

Maybe you haven't noticed it, Orrin, but other people have. It works for humans, too. I recommend Washington Irving's "A Journey on the Plains" (because it was written decades before "Origin") for an example of how that worked, with politics thrown in.

Seldom do dieoffs lead to extinctions, though rarely they do; nor do periods of abundance lead to infinite extensions of predator populations. Natural selection works, most of the time, to restore populations toward a mean.

In unusual situations (founder events), the swings are interrupted, and a trend proceeds to completion (either extinction or speciation).

Humans have more control over their environments than squirrels do, but ours is far from complete.

Of course if population truly increased up to the point where subsistence was exhausted we'd all notice it.

"Thanks! [Factoring in predation] effectively removes subsistence and population pressure from the equation."

Not at all; it just adds a new term to the equation. And also, perhaps, makes the cycle so chaotic that it fails to settle into the sort of equilibrium that you predict, as every species in the food web depends both on the supply of its food and the abundance of its predators. (See Harry's point.)

But I'm semi-with you on the morality vs. laws issue. As for your comment, "No one is [actually a libertarian]--that's the secret--my freedom always sounds good until it requires yours.": I believe if I were an NBA player I would deserve a tic in the "Assists" column.

Charles:

But given the supply of uneaten acorns and of uneaten squirrels we're left with the questioon of why the hawks don't just keep increasing until they're falling from the sky due to starvation--especially since their predator, us, leaves them alone these days.

[Assist duly noted.]

oj:

My guess is that due to urban sprawl, hawk nesting sites are limited.

THX:

You haven't been to the Northeast lately have you? Hawks are as thick as roaches in a slum.

the point is that there are so many parts to the population equation - food scarcity, predators, habitat, disease, climate and environmental changes - that if you were so inclined you could devote a lifetime to the study of the population fluctuations of the lesser-spotted blue-footed booby.

making your question "Why do we find so many acorns on the ground? " a valid one... but as the starting point of a whole science rather than a refutation of darwinism.

Rather, the point is that populations do not in fact expand to the limits of subsistence, as your caveats concede.

sometimes they do. Jeff has provided examples.

And so what? how does the complexity of population patterns affect the validity of natural selection?

Mayr

http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/009588.html

"1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.

4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.

5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation."

No steady population pressure = no need to adapt = no survival of adaptation = no Darwinism

OJ:

But there is steady population pressure. Absent modern humans, only a portion (sometimes a small portion) of any generation's offspring survive to multiply themselves.

Since there are a great many sources of mortality other than lack of food, "population pressure" is a complex, multi-variate problem.

That you focus on acorns laying around indicates you are looking at this simplistically. Any conclusion that fails to take in to account inertia and all the factors affecting population dynamics is almost certainly going to be wrong.

So, you're arguing both that population multiplies until it collapses and that few survive each generation? You really will believe any two completely contradictory thoughts in your faith, eh?

OJ -

No, the point is that there are selection pressures so long as different individuals have different numbers of surviving offspring.

One possible scenario for this is a high breeding rate and no preditors to speak of, with a steady population due to a limited food supply and the resulting high mortality rate, but it's certainly not the only arrangement that provides that. That's a sufficient condition but not a necessary one.

What steady population? I thought population increased until it imploded? Or is this like Goldilocks where you get to a point where it's "just right"?

Here's an easy example to visualize: sharks. Two thirds of the world is water and there are--if my memory of Finding Nemo serves--7 trillion fish in it for them to eat. Why isn't their population correespondingly huge and the fish population decimated?

Why on earth would it do that? I'd believe increasing until competition for food cuts reproduction back to replacement rate.

If you want to hear about the inevitability of population implosion, go talk to Paul Ehrlich.

re: Sharks

Well, there *are* a lot of sharks; I've seen estimates (which I don't know if I believe, but serious ones) that 0.1 billion sharks are killed by fishermen each year.

More to the point, many once common shark species are near to extinction. Fishing boats are more efficient than sharks, and continue unabated as the fish population declines, making hunting more difficult for the sharks. There's a lot of room in the ocean for 7 trillion fish to hide.

mike:

So we're agreed that population pressure is a canard.

It's adequate as a description of some specific circumstances, but as a general explaination of selective pressures is an oversimplification at best and flat-out wrong at worst.

Mike:

Could that statement not be made about all of evolutionary theory?

OJ:

You forget that population pressure exists over time. Which means that surviving populations are an average of various conditions.

Here is one demonstration of how your argument is simplistic: Most species fledge over very short, specific, times, resulting in sharp spikes in the food supply to predators. However, over time, the average amount of the easy to get fledgling food source is relatively low, making the predators less prevalent than they would be otherwise.

You should spend some time reading about self-organizing systems. It is really a quite fascinating subject.

So population pressure is not a constant thing, seems sudden and almost random, and can not therefore be the driver of "selection". It's more likely that when a die off occurs the cows that were up on the hill and got deeper snow all starve and the ones that were by the river got less and more survived--with adaptation playing no role.

Well, it does mean that, over the eons, we would expect to see fewer cows frolicking on the hills, and more staying by the river.

Also, population pressures serve to weed out the culls, but the real test of fitness comes when conditions change, either abruptly, or for long periods. Then, species either change, or die.
Usually, die.

Well, it does mean that, over the eons, we would expect to see fewer cows frolicking on the hills, and more staying by the river.

Also, population pressures serve to weed out the culls, but the real test of fitness comes when conditions change, either abruptly, or for long periods. Then, species either change, or die.
Usually, die.

No, the lack of constant pressure mitigates against mutation and adaptation and such sudden events inevitably reward random survivors rather than better adapted ones.

For crying out loud, think about the math.

It doesn't matter if the population is increasing or decreasing. All that matters is some members of the species have more offspring in others; and that this is influenced (not controlled) by genetics.

That's it! That's enough!

Worrying about total population is a classic case of trying to outrun the bear.

"No, the lack of constant pressure mitigates against mutation and adaptation and such sudden events inevitably reward random survivors rather than better adapted ones."

What impresses me is the way you make these extraordinary statements with absolute certainty. No question of pussy-footing about with "it seems to me"s, or "then isn't it the case?"s.

Remarkable.

Brit:

Do you couch your opinion of psychics and astrologers?

mike:

So you've now completely abandoned the ideas of population pressure, adaptation, and survival of the better adapted? There are just some who survive and some who don't. I agree.

OJ

I am perfectly capable of uttering things with as much forceful certainty as you, but i prefer to hold that tactic in reserve for occassions when i have some idea what I'm talking about.

I expect your views on natural selection and evolution might be taken a little more seriously if you:

a) provided some evidence that you were not in fact hopelessly out of your depth; or

b) demonstrated a little modesty.

Taken seriously? What is this the Nobel Committee? No one here knows their butt from their elbow. People mouth the idiocies their 9th grade biology teachers told them or garbage they read in politically motivated texts. Darwinism is a faith, nothing more and nothing less.

heh heh, i regret to say that for some reason i have been overlooked for the Nobel Committee this year.

however i do know nonsense when i see it. Here's a couple of examples:

"Darwinism jusitifies genocide"
"Darwinism is a faith, nothing more".

I didn't mean faith to be pejorative. Everyone needs a faith of some kind.

You're sticking to that line then?

I know exactly why you say 'Darwinism is a faith, nothing more.'

In a nutshell, it is this:

Let's call 'Category A' such things that the reasonable independant observer will accept as the most plausible current explanation for natural phenomena; eg. newtonian physics.

Now let's call 'Category B' such things that require to some degree a 'leap of faith' to beleive as truth. eg. christianity, buddhism.

Now you want to show - through an intriguing mixture of scientific 'logic' (this thread) and scaremongering sophistry (the genocide thread) - that a belief in natural selection must by its nature belong to Category B.

Unfortunately for you, it belongs firmly in Category A - because while i am willing to concede that there may be a few loonies out there who worship Darwin the man as some kind of semi-deity - the vast majority of natural selection 'believers' have come across the theory from a position of neutrality, and far from having an emotional attachement to it, simply see it as the most plausible current explanation for evolution.

Which is to say, it is backed up by countless examples of evidence and, while disprovable, has yet to be disproved.

That's not what Ernst Mayr says--he concedes it's just a philosophical faith set up to oppose Judeo-Christianity::

"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials", he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories..." (One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought)

I did say influenced by genetics, didn't I?

There is a certain amount of variance in the gene pool, either from natural diversity or mutation. Some will have more children than others. Ergo, the genes of those (the 'fittest') will be more common in the next generation. It doesn't need to be more than a little non-random.

'Adaptation' has a connotation of intent that isn't really there, except in the same way that water adapts to a hole in the riverbed by filling it.

Sigh. IHBT.

So we're left with survival of the survivors--a truism--and no method of mutation, adaptation, or selection. Thus, a faith.

OJ

the passage quoted is a nice bit of writing which the author uses to explain, in a slightly effusive manner, what "brought all the so-called Darwinians together".

what motivated the pioneers of evolutionary theory is an interesting question but of little consequence to my attitude

here's my attitude to natural selection. I suspect it is the attitude of most 'believers':

1) that evolution has happened is an observable fact that I'm willing to accept

2) the most plausible explanation for evolution that i have so far encountered is that it occurs through natural selection

It is the most plausible because it fits the evidence, is disprovable yet so far not disproven, and requires no further leaps of faith and none of the difficult 'why' questions which confront the intelligent design theorist.

3) therefore i will accept the theory as the best, and most minimal, current explanation for the observable fact of evolution.

If someone can convince me that natural selection is incorrect by showing me a piece of evidence that disproves it, or by explaining how the evidence more powerfully suggests a different theory, I'm all ears. (That's fundamentally how it differs from 'faith'.)

In order to convince me that I'm wrong to believe in natural selection - in the absence of your ability to come up with a disproof or a better theory - you need to show me how the logic of this reasoning is flawed.

Brit:

You all have proposed a more plausible theory of natural selection right here, though you've no mechanism for speciation: rather than constant pressure to survive there are sudden and periodic (punctuated) die-offs caused by random events--introduction of a new predator, weather event, etc. and the survivors of such events survive not because of any superior adaptation but by freak circumstance. They are selected but such selection has nothing to do with genetics or fitness. Natural selection occurs but has nothing to do with evolution.

oj:

You keep trying to postulate an end goal for evolution.
Mike Earl is right.

Yes, it's the "survival of the survivors", but although the survival of any given animal might be random, the mass survival of great numbers of said animal generally is NOT.
Evolution is ALWAYS driven by environment. Where conditions are stable for long periods, species rarely die out. When conditions change, some species "win", and survive; Most don't.
The species that do survive have less competition for the same resources, and expand.

That's all that "adaptation" is. Random chance, with the effects playing out over all life forms.
It was chance that caused the two meteor strikes on Earth, (that we know of), and humans are the end result. If the dinosaurs live, probably no humans.

We were not inevitable, unless you're correct.

THX:

The point being that the failure of the dinosaurs had nothing to do with evolutionary fitmess but with freak meteor strikes. Survival seems more random than a function of fitness, no?

"Survival seems more random than a function of fitness, no?"

OJ, it seems to me that you have difficulty with this because you fundamentally fail to grasp that the theory of natural selection is:

a)not intended to be a universally applicable, proscriptive law about all particular present and future instances
b)not teleological.

To elaborate: The law of natural selection absolutely does NOT say what you think it says. That is, it does not say that all evolution must be determined by genetic superiority in every instance, with a view to ultimately producing the most genetically fit species.

Natural selection is a historical explanation about why some species are still around on this earth, and why they are like they are, given the fact that genes self-replicate in the environment.

Yes, it'sthat self-replication that makes evolution unlikely.

It's self-replication, plus environmental pressures, plus mutation, plus differences in the reproductive success of different individuals, that makes evolution inevitable.

Yes, well, y'all have already conceded the absence of any steady pressure, substituting sudeden random events, which does away with mutation, which leaves no evolution.

no we haven't. and sudden events come within the remit of my term 'environmental pressures'.

Yes, those sudden events leave no room for the mutation and adaptation though, it's all just random survival.

why on earth should sudden events exclude mutations?

"genes self-replicate"

and?