Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:27:09 -0500 (EST)
"Larry Moran" <lamoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dtvaoo$dcc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:53:20 -0500 (EST),[snip]
Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<feedbackdroids@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtq8i4$16p0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is kind of a naiive question from an engineer, and not an
evolutionist, but does anyone SERIOUSLY think that evolved biological
systems are actually "optimized" or maximized" in many ways? Even to
the casual observer, they appear to be cobbled together out of reused
parts, more than evolved to any semblance of optimality. Take almost
any part of any organimsm and analyze it for "optimal design".
Evolution is a tinkerer, not a designer. No?
Our engineer has the right idea. Most of us look at organisms and see
things that look more like Rube Goldberg constructions than precision
pocket watches.
But even a tinkerer can produce something close to optimal if he
tinkers long enough. And there is a long research tradition that has
taken parts of organisms and analyzed them for 'optimal design'. ...
Most debates in evolutionary theory are not about the *existence* of some
mechanism. They are usually about the relative frequency of competing
explanations. Although we could quibble with your specific examples of
optimal design, that's not the point. There may very well be some examples
of optimal design in nature but how often does this occur? Aren't most
characters more like Rube Goldberg machines? Is Dawkins right when he says,
"... the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with
the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the
illusion of design and planning"?
I agree with pretty much everything Larry has said here. But, still,
the answer to your question - "... does anyone SERIOUSLY think ...?" -
has to be that many people have thought that, and that some still do,
for at least some aspects of some systems.
Larry points out that the debate is about relative frequencies. Such
debates frequently last for a long time and to follow a pendulum-like
trajectory. The pendulum has definitely been running against the
optimizers for some 40 years now. Since Kimura and others, it is now
understood that even 4 billion years is not enough time for NS to
optimise EVERYTHING. Someday the pendulum will swing back in the other
direction. But uncritical belief that evolution is a perfect optimizer
will never again reach the level that it had at the time of the first
centennial of "The Origin of Species".
.
- References:
- RE: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- From: John Edser
- Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- From: feedbackdroids
- Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- From: Larry Moran
- RE: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Prev by Date: Re: Caloric restriction and longevity?
- Next by Date: Re: About certain stubborn stiff-legged axiomatic assertions that sources of heritable variation exist (was Re: Questions for athiestic evoltionists
- Previous by thread: Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Next by thread: Re: Most Important Unsolved Problems?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
