The Imperfection of Evolution

There is a common misconception that evolution continually seeks highly refined and optimized biological structures and organisms. Evolution, through natural selection, is limited to the materials provided by self-organization, which is imperfect, rather ad hoc, and the result of highly variable processes. When organisms compete for limited resources, the organisms that are best suited to the local environment tend to be more successful in a survival and reproductive sense. Characteristics of organisms are endowed through mutations caused by various anomalies and permutations that are the result of sexual reproduction. These mutations and permutations are not directed in the sense that one would often think. The laws of physics and biological processes place limits on phenotype and genotype changes but there is no master plan or foresight.

Unable to find adequate resources, the organisms that are less suited to the environment are often pushed out of the local environment, marginalized, or driven to extinction. This is the result of limited supply of materials necessary to sustain life.

It is very possible that there are numerous other possible biological designs that would be much more efficient and better suited to any given environmental niche. However, the mutations and permutations provide a limited number of often much less efficacious forms. In the rather random walk of slowly accumulating small changes, evolution is provided with a relatively limited number of designs to test. 

With some careful analyses of the environment, consideration of biological possibilities, and thoughtful design organisms could probably be developed that would out-compete the most successful organisms found on earth during any period. This is not to say that life forms are not elegant, adaptive, and robust. Because of the continual pressures from the environment only durable and successfully reproducible structures have survived. However, all organisms have only had to compete against other organisms designed by the same imperfect, ad hoc, organic mechanisms. Pitted against a carefully designed foe, most organisms would succumb.
 

The idea that evolution is backward looking, meaning it only acts on the last generation’s designs, is evident in mass extinction events. Things that are adaptive in current environments are often maladaptive to new environments caused by things such as severe atmospheric or marine environment changes. Some nutrient demanding body forms that survived and thrived in the relative lushness of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous perished quickly in the dearth that followed the K-T boundary impact event. Small organisms, particularly mammals that had inhabited a very narrow niche before the K-T impact were able to survive because of fewer nutritive demands. Mammals were then able to gradually expand into some of the niches left open by the newly extinct species. 

Through large extinction events and the ever present background extinctions, natural selection has sifted through the available options for roughly 1.5 billion years for eukaryotic organisms. The sifting was present for almost 3 billion years prior to that albeit with much more rudimentary cells and various building blocks. The farther back one goes the sketchier the actual structures become. We will probably never know exactly how life evolved from amino acids, lipids, etc. to first prokaryotes and then eukaryotes. However, science is uncovering general patterns such as the self-organization of lipid vesicles. Such discoveries continue to point to the laws of physics as the guidance provided for evolutionary processes.

Connecting the dots

The world consists of many dots that when connected can reveal meaningful patterns based in reality. There are also many times when people connect the dots in ways that seem meaningful but are actually fictions. Similar to finding patterns in clouds we place order and meaning onto things that are unconnected, truly amorphous, or random. In such instances we are connecting, or in other words correlating, things that are not connected in any way other than within our own minds. From this arises the saying, "correlation does not imply causation."

For instance we pray and what we pray for comes true. Because these two events happen in close proximity in time one may conclude that the prayer caused the desired event. However, there are many other explanations for why the desired event may have happened. If there is no connection and a person determines incorrectly that there is they are exhibiting an example of superstitious learning. He or she has falsely concluded that some action taken caused something that was really just a coincidence.  

In other instances things may meaningfully happen together but we make an incorrect assumption about the causal relationship. A for instance could be the tides and the location of the moon. Someone could come to the faulty conclusion that the more subdued light from the moon causes the tides rather than the moon's gravity which we cannot detect.

This would all seem to be very obvious to those schooled in logic, statistical analysis, and the experimental method. However, it is very common to encounter arguments that commit the fallacy of “cum/post hoc ergo propter hoc” or roughly translated “with/after this therefore because of this.” For instance, I recently encountered an argument that vaccines do indeed cause autism. The rationale given was the fact that this parent’s child had been diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving a vaccine. There is a possibility that vaccines are in some way causative to certain cases of autism. However, the argument provided does not support that assertion. Just because the two events were in close proximity does not support the claim. There is also the problem that it is basically a “study” with only one participant specifically that one child. 

There are often very good arguments for many opposing positions. Arguments are often based on constructed based on the unknowns and unknowables. It is also common for those in the debate to overlook the solid arguments and grasp the fallacious defenses that actually weaken the position.

Your beliefs are crazy but mine make perfect sense

Two of my colleagues were discussing early Mormonism, the golden plates, and how they magically disappeared. I cannot agree more with the problems of claiming there were golden plates. However, their exchange made me chuckle because of their beliefs.
 
These two people can see the problems in Mormon claims but are utterly blind to their own. Both are very religious and one does not believe the scientific communities claims on several issues. They cannot see the problems with the ten commandments being carved in stone by the finger of god, the universal deluge, manna from heaven, parting the Red Sea, stopping the waters of the Jordan River, floating iron axe heads, killing a thousand with the jawbone of a donkey, magical strength adding hair, fire from heaven consuming the priests of Baal, water turning to blood, staffs turning into snakes, and all of the other thousands of problems that can be found throughout the Bible.
 
So Biblical literalism, or near literalism, makes sense to them even though the claims are as unbelievable as angels taking away golden plates.

Evolutionary theory and eugenics

Evolution through natural selection actually indicates that eugenics or a dog-eat-dog, survivor-take-all mentality is maladaptive. Natural selection is actually about probabilities for reproductive opportunities and not about annihilating "the weak." Any attempt at eugenics is almost certainly be doomed to fail in the long term. There are numerous factors that influence adaptability, health, and success in perpetuating the species. Such a narrow approach as specified by any eugenics plan would likely result in also selecting for weaknesses that are artifacts or covariates with the specifically selected traits.

It is precisely the situation that occurs with naturally selected field crops and animals. The result are organisms that have a few overdeveloped traits but that are often vulnerable in disconcerting ways. Viruses, bacteria, and parasites often then able to evolve to exploit those weaknesses with devastating results. Without consistent outside help in the form of antibiotics and other human created countermeasures, these very narrow strains would become extinct or be incorporated into the naturally occurring collection of genes in a relatively short amount of time. Diversity is actually very adaptive and necessary for a species to have a pool of genotypes from which to select when stressed by the environment.


There is actually substantial evidence that altruism is adaptive and is likely to be selected for over the course of many generations, which is a topic for another time. 

"In Sheep's Clothing

Most people would greatly benefit by learning how to spot tactics used by manipulative people. The following is one of the best summaries I have seen of such tactics:
 
Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior.

Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.

Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.

Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.

Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.

Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.

One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.

Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html

See also:

http://www.amazon.com/Sheeps-Clothing-Understanding-Dealing-Manipulative/dp/096516960X

A User's Manual for the Mind

It is unfortunate that our minds do not come with a user's manual. If that were the case there would probably be a lengthy "Cautions" section that would read something like the following.
 
When processing information be careful to avoid the following weaknesses and traps in reasoning and argument construction: 
 
- Card stacking:

Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm


-Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition

An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can't learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoantiquity.html


- Appeal to Wealth

The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.

In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtowealth.html


- Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn't an authority at all, or isn't an authority on the subject about which they're speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtoauthority.html


- An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


- Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences


- Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

- Glittering generalities

Use attractive, but vague words that make speeches and other communications sound good, but in practice say nothing in particular.

Use linguistic patterns such as alliteration, metaphor and reversals that turn your words into poetry that flows and rhymes in hypnotic patterns.

Use words that appeal to values, which often themselves are related to triggering of powerful emotions.

A common element of glittering generalities are intangible nouns that embody ideals, such as dignity, freedom, fame, integrity, justice, love and respect.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/glittering_generalities.htm

- Stereotyping

Cast those who you want to denigrate into an unpopular stereotype. Talk about the stereotypes as 'them', downplaying their rights as humans. Describe them as threatening, unworthy, disgusting and other negative frames.

Put emphasis on the stereotype words and the associations you want link to the stereotypes.

Name their leaders. Give exaggerated and distorted examples that 'prove' the stereotype and so condemn all who follow them.

Stereotyping can also be used to cast a group of people as good, perfect and otherwise wonderful and desirable.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/propaganda/stereotyping.htm

- Argumentum verbosium

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by the familiar quote: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity

"The Daily Me" and confirmation bias

In the 1995 book "Being Digital" a method of selecting all news feeds based on personal preferences is described. This tool is referred to as "The Daily Me." I have to remind myself to go out and find opposing perspectives and to avoid only selecting materials that agree with my current views.
 
Uncertainty and questioning can be disconcerting but it is a state that seems to be necessary for progress. As Jacques Monod stated, "Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science." I think this goes beyond science to all aspects of life.