Explaining the punctuation of equilibrium

The April, 2010 edition of Discover Magazine profiles biologist Lynne Margulis, famous for her well accepted suggestion that eukaryotic bacteria did not evolve in linear fashion, solely as as a result of natural selection. Rather,

mitochondria and plastids--vital structures within animal and plant cells--evolved from bacteria hundreds of millions of years ago, after bacterial cells started to collect and interactive communities and live symbiotically with one another. The resulting mergers yielded the compound cells known as eukaryotes, which in turn gave rise to all the rest-the protoctists, fungi, plants and animals, including humans.
There was a shocking idea at the time (1967), but, as described in this article by Dick Teresi, the more recent ideas of Margulis are even more controversial. The Discover Magazine article documents her arguments that symbiosis is "the central force behind the evolution of new species." This position runs counter to the holding of modern conventional scientific wisdom, that new species arise through "gradual accumulation of random mutations, which are either favored or weeded out by natural selection." Margulis holds that random mutation and natural selection play a minor role and that the big leaps in the evolutionary record "result from mergers between different kinds of organisms, what she calls symbiogenesis." The Discover article takes the form of an interview, in which the dominant theme is that "natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create." Margulis argues that the laws of genetics "show stasis, not change." She was prompted by the fact that there is no record of major fossil change until 542 million years ago, yet all of a sudden we see the Cambrian explosion. Stephen Jay Gould coined this phrase, "punctuated equilibrium," "to describe a discontinuity in the appearance of new species." According to Margulis, her explanation of symbiogenesis explains these discontinuities and should thus be considered the primary mechanism for evolution. Margulis carefully distinguishes her approach from arguments based on "intelligent design." She holds that those who advocate for "intelligent design" have nothing meaningful to offer to the scientific conversation. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingExplaining the punctuation of equilibrium
Read more about the article God is on MY side now

God is on MY side now

I’m tired of justifying my actions based on moral and pragmatic grounds; it’s too often too much work trying to explain that I am motivated to make my tiny corner of the world a better place, or that I’m trying to avoid needless suffering. Justifying my actions based on real-world consequences often requires planning, empathy and evidence-gathering, and I’ve decided that this is too much work. What’s the solution? I have quite recently realized that I am a believer in God, which makes me special and unquestionable. My new outlook germinated about a month ago when I noticed Rick Perry having such an easy time justifying anything he desired, based on things God allegedly told him. Why are you running for President? Because God told me to. Why are going to dismantle social security? Because God told me to. What are you going to do about Wall Street Banks? God will tell me after I allow those nice men to wine and dine me. Such freedom! I was jealous of Rick Perry, so I adopted God too. I like this new power. Because I am now one of God’s special people, when you question me, you question God Himself . . . so you’d better not ever have the arrogance to question me or God. You want to fight me buddy? God’s me Buddy. I like being God, Jr. It’s armor to protect me from all forms of intellectual and moral challenges and evidence. Having God as my Pal lessens my cognitive load, making life much easier, and it’s going to allow me to quickly cut through a lot of moralistic red tape. It’s going to let me invoke my program without having to explain myself. [more . . .]

Continue ReadingGod is on MY side now
Read more about the article The function of reason

The function of reason

Chris Mooney reports on the work of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, who have argued that (in Mooney's words): "the human capacity for reasoning evolved not so much to get at truth, as to facilitate argumentation." I haven't yet heard Mooney's interview of Mercier, which will soon be posted at Point of Inquiry. I do look forward to this interview, because the conclusions of Mercier and Sperber (which I scanned in their recent journal article, "Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory") make much sense in light of the ubiquitous failings of human reason-in-action. Here is an excerpt from the abstract from their article:

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found. Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought.Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.
These ideas resonate strongly with me. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe function of reason

Belief engine running amok

In the June 23, 2011 issue of Nature (available online only to subscribers), A. C. Grayling reviews Michael Shermer's new book, The Believing Brain (2011). He notes Shermer's double-barreled explanation for why humans are so ready and willing to believe things that aren't true:

One is the brain's readiness to perceive patterns even in random phenomena. The other is its readiness to nominate agency--intentional action--as the cause of natural events. Both explain belief-formation in general, not just religious or super naturalistic belief.
I've written about Michael Shermer before at this website, mentioning, as does Grayling, that Shermer "gives the names 'patternicity' and 'agenticity' to the brain's pattern-seeking and agency-attributing propensities . . ." Once these beliefs are somewhat established in one's mind, it's difficult to turn back, due to the confirmation bias, which blinds us to evidence contrary to our beliefs and makes evidence supporting our beliefs extra salient. [caption id="attachment_19088" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Erich Vieth using Dreamstime Image by FourOaks with permission"][/caption] Shermer suggests that there is an evolution-based explanation for this over-eagerness to find patterns and to attribute agency, and it has to do with whether one should act quickly or not to the rustling in the bushes nearby, which might be a tiger. Grayling also points out that the belief in modern religions could not possibly be a hardwired phenomenon given that these "God-believing religions are very young in historical terms; they seem to have developed after and perhaps because of agriculture and associated settled urban life, and are therefore less than 10,000 years old."   There is thus no evidence for a "God-gene."

Continue ReadingBelief engine running amok

Mars Rover Opportunity is still knocking

As reported by The Independent, the Mars rover called Opportunity is still up and running (unlike its companion rover, Spirit, which stopped sending signals last year). And there is still a lot to explore, including a huge crater at which Opportunity has just arrived. This is an incredible story and a laudable accomplishment for the many scientists who have worked behind the scenes. At least, it's a laudable story for those of us who still appreciate first-rate science. This inspiring story of the Mars rovers makes it all the more frustrating that every year the U.S. spends as much money air conditional soldiers' tents in Iraq and Afghanistan ($20 B), as it spends every year for the entire budget of NASA.

Continue ReadingMars Rover Opportunity is still knocking