Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Pitfalls of Evolutionary Psychology: Exaptation; Complex Behavior Exaptation Hypothesis
Topic Started: Aug 16 2009, 06:42 PM (713 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Hello there. My name is Jeremy. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biology. I wrote the following essay and shared it with my facebook posse, although I doubt many there would understand or appreciate it. Hence, I thought it would be helpful to find the appropriate forum, and this looks like just the place!

I apologize in advance if in this essay I come off as harsh or abrasive. I think I'm just passionate about this particular topic.

As far as speculative evolution, I think I do raise some important topics here. I assume there are some other folks in here who are relatively well-versed in evolutionary theory and can put me in my place if I need to be. I welcome any dissent, as that's how science progresses.

Synopsis: We are commonly told that evolution has no direction in the philosophical sense. Nothing evolves into something "better" in the sense that we can look at a creature and say that it is particularly better than some other critter, just better suited to its environment. Among other things, I posit that if we were able to run experiments in evolution to determine the features of many different kinds of intelligent beings, I think we would find some universals and some "cultural" and behavioral differences. If we found a variety of universals, would we conclude that evolution does indeed have a direction, rather than an aimless path through the void? I might argue that the existence of intelligent life once it reaches a certain level allows for an "exaptation" phenomenon that combines the adaptations of multiple systems for new "exaptations" that are not directly related to survival. Intelligent being societies require stability in order to progress. The natural focus on stability may yield universals among all societies of intelligent beings in order to facilitate further technological progress and expansion of the intelligence. Transhumanism and artificial intelligence force us to ask questions about our humanity such as, "How would we change ourselves for the best if there were no limits?" What features would we preserve and which would we reject? What is the best? These questions transcend humanity and ask about universals for all intelligent beings.

I also conclude that experimentation with these ideas with technology is inevitable. We will experiment with nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and computer simulation in order to determine the best state of existence as an intelligent and conscious being. Diversity will be abundant. Immortality may be possible. How will this change us?

Finally, I argue that the resultant products of evolution in the form of intelligent life is NOT something entirely random. Using a metaphor, consider that the Golden Ratio (Phi) 1.618 is abundant throughout the universe and can be seen both in the math of the spiral formed by Nautilus mollusks and the spiral in galaxies seen by the Hubble space telescope. Rather than viewing our existence as some unique product of evolution, we might find that other intelligent beings share features with us, and that these universal features concerning intelligent life may be likened to the physical constants of the universe.

Here is the body of the essay:

Pitfalls of Evolutionary Psychology: Exaptation

Evolutionary psychology bothers me. In some respects, it makes me feel as though my humanity is threatened, and I feel some motivation to attack it based on that emotion. I know there is some bias in me. On the other hand, I want to think that this bias is not affecting my intuition, which is shouting at me that many of the claims of evolutionary psychology are wrong.

Scientists espousing an viewpoint on human behavior that is affected by evolutionary psychology will often claim that we do the things we do merely because evolution has selected for traits in our behavior that are conducive to survival.

You may not share my nausea when reading the accounts of evolutionary psychology. Let me explain. Although there are a number of features about our humanity that I think evolutionary psychology threatens, my primary issue is with love and human relationships. Evolutionary psychology might have us believe that the only reason why we display behavior entailing romantic love, platonic love for friends and family, compassion, or sex; all of these things can be reduced to direct byproducts of evolutionary processes. Romantic love and sex only exist in order for reproduction. Platonic love exists because it was necessary for survival of tribes to cooperate and live together in harmony.

Well, I just don’t buy it. There is something more to the features of our humanity that transcends direct evolutionary logic. I do not argue that religion or God have any role in this, rather, I feel that the existence of these features is natural.

I had written a long diatribe against evolutionary psychology that I was revising before I posted it, but then I came upon a term in evolutionary biology referred to as “EXAPTATION”. The term is coined by Stephen Jay Gould. “An exaptation is a feature that performs a function but that was not produced by natural selection for its current use. Perhaps the feature was produced by natural selection for a function other than the one it currently performs and was then co-opted for its current function. For example, feathers might have originally arisen in the context of selection for insulation, and only later were they co-opted for flight. In this case, the general form of feathers is an adaptation for insulation and an exaptation for flight.”

Several years ago, I stumbled upon a version of this phenomena while reading a book by Richard Dawkins. He explains that a moth spirals into a candle or fire at night because moths use the moonlight for navigation and when the flame distracts them, they fly off course. This is a way of describing a behavior that is encoded by an evolutionary adaptation, yet responds to another stimulus, thereby producing an alternate behavior. Unfortunately for the moth, this entails dire consequences.

The thesis of this post can be summed here: Many features of our humanity that philosophy and religion seek to explain are exaptations of human behavior that transcend DIRECT evolutionary processes. In other words, aspects of our behavior and psychology that have emerged over time may be based on adaptations that DID have a real evolutionary purpose, but NOW, those adaptations have been converted and used for entirely different purposes. Hence, to claim that love, compassion, or emotional intimacy amongst human beings can be reduced to direct evolutionary processes may be, and probably IS, wrong.

To establish what I mean by a direct evolutionary process, let me use some examples. Teeth would be caused by a direct evolutionary process because teeth are used for chewing and eating food. On the other hand, consider hair. Hair in humans was originally required for warmth and protection from the elements. Hair on the head now is of enormous aesthetic importance and may even be crucial in mate selection, HOWEVER, the obsession with having a stylish hairstyle probably has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Likewise, something like emotional intimacy between two people might not be entirely based on adaptation and direct evolutionary processes. When we feel a connection with someone, that connection often inspires strong emotions, creative energy for art or music, and it essentially “transcends” evolution. I truly believe that there is something “more” to that intimacy than evolution or reproduction or stable society.

Contrast this with Robin Hanson’s writings: “But you also seem to care about love, humor, talk, story, art, music, fashion, sports, charity, religion, and abstract ideas. In fact, you are often passionately obsessed with these things. You believe that they can help with more basic goals, such as health, sex, and children. And you care about these things far more than seems directly useful in pursuing more basic goals.”

But I think Robin is wrong.

I believe that these goals and features of human existence have emerged because we have significantly intelligent enough brains that are capable of “higher” functions. The original, direct adaptation was based on the fact that intelligence and opposable thumbs helps with survival. Specifically, the structure of our brains allows for learning and problem solving, and the structure of our bodies allows for use of tools and implementation of ideas in such a way that we are able to cope with our environment better, and we are able to acquire food and water better. The marvelous evolution of the brain has yielded something extremely versatile in its function.

I tend to think of music, art, science, and literature as things that were discovered by our minds rather than actively created for the service of evolution. You do not play or listen to music because it is going to boost your chances to reproduce. The joy from hearing music or playing music is intrinsic to itself and not tied to reproduction.

I’m going to label the hypothesis that many features of human behavior are based on the versatility of the brain and NOT individually based on behaviors conducive to reproduction or survival as the “Complex Behavior Exaptation Hypothesis”. CBE Hypothesis for short.

I also want to flirt with four other ideas in considering this topic: artificial intelligence, alien intelligence, the use of computer-simulated worlds for experimentation, and genetic engineering. I don’t bring this up as science fiction entertainment, but rather ideas that have serious implications for the debate on evolutionary psychology.

At some point in human existence, it is reasonable to conclude that we will create artificially intelligent beings. You must also be aware that once artificially intelligent beings have the ability to alter their own programming and make themselves better, these beings WILL make changes that will make them profoundly different from humans. This poses philosophical questions. What traits might artificially intelligent beings preserve that are common with humans? Would artificially intelligent beings enjoy music and art?

If they do, then I argue strongly that Hanson’s view and the views of many evolutionary psychologists are patently simplistic and outright wrong. I think if artificially intelligent beings preserve any human traits, we must conclude that the CBE Hypothesis is true.

Secondly, let’s consider that someday in the future we may be able to write complex computer programs that simulate evolution of humans and OTHER ORGANIC intelligent beings. With this, we could simulate a variety of other conditions on different planets that might give rise to organic beings much different from us. When these beings become intelligent, would we expect them to discover music or art? I THINK YES. This would be a good reason for simulating such worlds, as we would be able to reap the benefits of computerized beings creating music and art for our enjoyment. Once again, I think that the CBE Hypothesis prevails and stamping out evolutionary psychology.

Thirdly, we could consider that there are intelligent alien species in the universe with similar features as humans in some ways. We would need to conclude that there are some things about intelligent beings that are universal… Evolution gets you to the same destination regardless of the initial conditions and parameters. Just as mathematics is universal in all places in the universe, so to would be the behaviors of intelligent beings.

Finally, I ask you to consider genetic modification to humans that would affect behavior. Let's forget genetic modification for health or athletics for a moment. Let's forget about cybernetics and fusing computers with human beings. If a large amount of our behavior is based on genetics, as evolutionary psychologists might claim, we would expect that modification of genes could result in alternative behaviors. I question what we would change and if it would cause more harm than good. I do not buy into the idea that there are fatal flaws in humanity that will lead to our destruction. I might argue that there is much less that we would change if we could. Anger, agression, and hostility exist for a reason so that we may interact with the world in a means conducive to survival. Make us more placid, and it could render us vulnerable. And for this reason, I say that neither evolution nor God are responsible for making us the way we act. Nature may have a way of making all intelligent beings similar in a lot of ways.

In order to continue my assault on evolutionary psychology, I’m going to divert to some other topics. My next argument is that the logic of evolutionary psychologists is often flawed because it assumes the origin of a behavior is based on ADAPTATION and not EXAPTATION. It essentially starts with the premise that all human behavior can be explained by some evolutionary benefit to human survival… and when we start from this premise, we are capable of creating many divergent and often opposing evolutionary accounts to describe behavior. In sum, the evolutionary psychologist’s attempts to describe behavior amount to total pseudoscientific nonsense with no support. The evolutionary psychologist essentially becomes a creative writer who uses his imagination to concoct any kind of wild fantastical explanation for behavior that seems reasonable (a priori) but lacks ANY real empirical proof.

I was listening to a radio broadcaster citing a evolutionary psychology research on flirting and human sexuality. The broadcaster claimed, among other things, that women extend their necks when they are flirting with men on the basis that it is a submissive position. They note wolves as another mammal in which this behavior is observable. Men, they say, are likely to puff out their chests as a sign of dominance and reproductive virility.

I say both of these statements are completely bogus. Recently, I read an article in Time magazine on evolutionary psychology regarding human mating. Previously, conventional wisdom suggested that men are evolutionarily predisposed to adultery and cheating because it would ensure the greatest number of offspring. In addition, one might argue that men would be less likely to care for the child of a mother whose spouse had died because he did not share the genetic material of the offspring. More recently, the thinking has reversed. First, the thought about adultery was overturned because it seems more logical that a man would want to have an active role in the development and upbringing of his children to ensure their survival. It seems as though it's not just about impregnation, but also about development. In addition, it is thought that a man would be apt to care for step-children to demonstrate to a woman his ability to provide and take care of children, thereby improving his chances of mating with her to bear his own children.

So the problem I have with evolutionary psychology is that it relies almost entirely on interpretations and logical reasoning, and has very little to do with experimentation or real scientific data. It is pseudoscientific speculation and likely to be biased by the whims of whichever crackpot evolutionary theorist is spewing his nonsense. How are we to argue that one theory on human behavior is more rational and more likely than another? I think the explanation for adultery was pretty convincing either way. Both make sense. How do you choose? And how do you respond to someone who claims that we have a genetic propensity to be adulterous? I might argue the hypothesis that evolution cannot coherently account for adulterous behavior.

I would claim that there are many byproducts of evolution that result in human behavior that has absolutely nothing to do with survival of the fittest or genetic propensities that are directly linked to a behavior.

With respect to adultery I might argue that a primary genetic code for behavior is the sensation that sex feels good. There are also neurochemicals and hormones that facilitate feelings of attachment during and after sex. The behavior of non-monogamy is probably much more related to the feeling of sex feeling good than the unconscious need to spread one's seed. If you listen to the thoughts of evolutionary psychologists, almost always they claim that there are unconscious instinctual urges that relate to fertility and reproduction.

I think the fundamental flaw in the evolutionary psychology of sex is that it fails to account for conscious brain processes and assumes that everyone behaves based on unconscious evolutionary vestiges. We can pawn off unconscious automaton behavior on animals, but humans are not the same. Even if we are influenced by certain evolutionary vestiges, our ability to consciously think about our behavior, I think, rescues us from the evolutionary psychology net. In fact, I was reading one book recently that stated that our ability to go on a hunger strike and avoid eating food is significant in separating us from other animals. No other animals are known to be able to exhibit such behavior. Likewise, humans can choose to disobey our urge to have sex and either stick to one partner or abstain altogether. (Read Montague: Your Brain is Almost Perfect.) The fact that humans are conscious of our decisions makes us accountable for them. Because we can create the idea of monogamy and the idea of commitment, our ethics can dictate that it is wrong for someone to break a commitment. One is free to be with as many partners as he or she pleases so long as they are not in a relationship or they are in a relationship where such behavior is mutually accepted and both parties are aware. Although breaking such commitments is not unlawful, it is certainly considered to be unethical.

Thus, evolution does NOT dictate every aspect of human life or human ethics. We create some rules of behavior based on choices that are not guided by unconscious preferences and desires that are dominated by evolution.

I do not believe that we can reduce all human behavior to evolution. In fact, I might argue that for many human behaviors, the link to evolution is distant and not direct.

In essence, I argue that evolution did select for a human brain that was highly intelligent and capable of complex thinking, and that once we reached this cognitive capacity, the link between evolution and human behavior dissolved and became less important.

You do not do things becuase your genes force you to do them.

One very simple way to illustrate this point is with cultural differences. This is my final argument against evolutionary psychology. A tribe in Papua New Guinea is documented to have cannibalized their dead family members because they believed that this would somehow allow their family members to live on inside them spiritually. I personally find it difficult to objectively justify that this behavior is wrong besides it being irrational, yet when a prion disease called kuru was found to be causing serious illness in the tribes due to the consumption of human brain, one could effectively argue that the practice was "bad" on the basis that it is unhealthy.

In most human cultures, cannibalism is taboo. We tend to think of cannibalism as eating for nourishment while this particular tribe ate only their family members due to religious significance. I use this particular example because it is the most graphic. Can anyone possibly argue that cannibalism is a human behavior that is based on evolution? Only indirectly. One might argue that religion in general is an evolutionary adaptation that led to social cohesiveness and that it has some mental health benefits. The idea of cannibalism as an extension of religion would mean that cannibalism is not directly related to evolution. Thus, we may exhibit certain behaviors that are culturally-based and not universal throughout all humans.

Thus, there are some cultural differences in humanity that are indirectly based on evolution. There are some universal human behaviors that are present in all human cultures. Furthermore, I question whether or not we would expect there to be some differences and some universals amongst all forms of intelligent life. My mission throughout this essay is to warn you against believing any of the claims of evolutionary psychologists that are spouted off in pop science, because they neglect to consider that exaptations exist in human behavior, and they fail to consider that there may be some universals in intelligent life that evolution moves toward. Hence, we should not feel an emptiness over the idea that the features of our existence are ARBITRARY, SUBJECTIVE, or RANDOM. It may just be that random evolutionary processes progress toward a goal. We do not need God or supernaturalism for this.

Your humanity is more sacred and amazing than evolutionary psychologists imply, yet we do not need religion to justify it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Giant Blue Anteater
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Instincts like eat, drink, mate are products of evolution and that advanced thoughts like science, philosophy, religion, sentiments, emotion, etc. are the products of the brain. Is that what you are trying to convey here? I am no expert on evolutionary psychology which here you claim is false, but it is a controversial idea from what I read.

What do you mean by extraterrestrial sapients being similar in someways? Surely a hypertrophied concentration of nerves would be one, but what do you mean exactly?

I disagree with your implication that evolution works towards a goal. Evolution, as you know, is random, although to feeble sapient minds, it seems that creatures become more morphologically 'advanced' over millions of years, and when a sapient species evolves, and once they discover evolution, some would believe that it is ultimately working towards a goal. But this isn't so.
Ichthyostega

Posted Image

cdk007
 
Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ashwinder
Member Avatar
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
As an evolutionary anthropologist/psychologist I shall give my full critique tonight! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Dodo
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
A lot of the more unusual human behaviours might be a bi-product of a more complex brain, I wouldn't know I'm not an evolutionary psychologist.
On the subject of cheating or staying loyal to your partner could be just two different human behaviours, not all people will be the same, if they were evolution wouldn't work. Again I'm just speculating, I'm not an evolutionary expert.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Giant Blue Anteater
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
ashwinder
Aug 17 2009, 03:41 AM
As an evolutionary anthropologist/psychologist I shall give my full critique tonight! :D
I'll be anticipating. Is there any popcorn?
Ichthyostega

Posted Image

cdk007
 
Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Giant Blue Anteater
Aug 16 2009, 11:21 PM
What do you mean by extraterrestrial sapients being similar in someways? Surely a hypertrophied concentration of nerves would be one, but what do you mean exactly?

I disagree with your implication that evolution works towards a goal. Evolution, as you know, is random, although to feeble sapient minds, it seems that creatures become more morphologically 'advanced' over millions of years, and when a sapient species evolves, and once they discover evolution, some would believe that it is ultimately working towards a goal. But this isn't so.
I should have been more specific in my wording about the implication that evolution has a goal. I'm claiming that I would expect multiple intelligent species to have similar features. Because of those similar features, such as an appreciation of art or music, or sexual reproduction with some aspect of pleasure, that the morphological advancement would favor certain universal features among intelligent life forms, even given different initial conditions on different planets. I use the word goal improperly because it implies intention, which is not what I meant to convey. Obviously nature has no intentions.

But nature can have tendencies. Especially in biology. This is why I use the analogy of physical constants in the universe. Likewise there may be biological constants -- these universal evolutionary tendencies. Hence, evolution TENDS toward certain features or elements that are high probability. Does that make more sense?

Here's a simple idea: Why bipedalism? Why not 3 legs or 3 arms instead? Would we expect to see bipedalism or quadrapedalism throughout life on other planets? It's a matter of physics and math, most likely, that make bipedalism or quadrapedalism likely to occur -- likely to be selected for in most if not all planets with terrestrial animals.

So why not behavior? Are there certain behaviors that would emerge on a similar basis?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Dodo
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Is it just me, or does this sound like convergent evolution?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
what do you mean why bipeds? we did it because we only have four limbs and it is the most stable, if we had three legs and one arm we'd be hunched over and both walking and manipulating would become more difficult for such a creature than the previous four legged one, a one legged three armed creature would have to hop everywhere on a single leg which is not that safe when your predator has four good legs and can knock you over. if we had six limbs we would walk on four of them and use two for manipulating since four would be much more stable.

i hope we don't have any set expectations for the body designs of other sapient life, because it's possible that they don't even have limbs!

When dealing with the idea of alien races having similarity to humans you are assuming as much as if not more than evolutionary psychologists -btw i liked the writing, but then i am biased since i hate psychology in general-

also you have to consider that the only lifeforms you have to work with are lifeforms with the same building blocks (watery oil cells) living on the same planet and had dealt with several massive extinctions which have narrowed down the body designs that life has to work with here, so i don't think it is best to even use experience to set up expectations for alien life. again with the 'also's, you seem to have forgotten that the often fish only have four side fins which are the ancesteral parts for legs, if fish were to have had twelve fins side fins we would likely have twelve limbs.

but i do think that it is very likely that an alien race would have some appreciation for what they would consider music, it might not be music to us though since our music tends to be of the moving air variety.

as for reproduction it might develop with them as something done involuntarily and without physical nor mental pleasure, such as once an adult their skin constantly releases some kind of pollen or w/e into the air which is then absorbed into blisters on their skin and develops into their tiny grub children which are born within week and released into the pasture to latch onto a host cattle creature, it could be considered nothing more than a weekly chore.

then you have to consider that they might develop forms of sensory which cannot work on Earth or never had developed, so they could have forms of art that we do not have.

Either way i look at it though if it is a race of people with free time on their hands, even if it's just a few hours break from harvesting, i think it is likely that they will develop something that they would consider art, even if we might not recognize it at first.
Oh Fine.

Oh hi you! Why don't you go check out the finery that is SGP??

v Don't click v
Spoiler: click to toggle

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
colddigger
Aug 18 2009, 01:08 PM
again with the 'also's, you seem to have forgotten that the often fish only have four side fins which are the ancesteral parts for legs, if fish were to have had twelve fins side fins we would likely have twelve limbs.
Not to mention that athropods have a different amount of legs than vertebrates. If anything it just shows, that we with our measly 4 limbs are the oddballs.
We have a discord. If you want to join, simply message me, Icthyander or Sphenodon.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Giant Blue Anteater
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Hey ashwinder, where's our critique? I really want to hear your response to this guy, as I am no expert in psychology.
Edited by Giant Blue Anteater, Sep 3 2009, 03:49 PM.
Ichthyostega

Posted Image

cdk007
 
Intelligence is awareness of ignorance. Stupidity is ignorance of ignorance. Think about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paralith
Member Avatar
Infant
 *  *  *  *
Jeremy O,

I remember the days when I was first becoming acquainted with the ideas of evolutionary psychology, and I too felt more uncomfortable the more I learned. I didn't like the idea that the generosities and the beauties of the human spirit are really just selfish desires in disguise any more than you do now, but I think there is good reason for that. I will come back to that in a minute.

The first point I'd like to make is this: an animal's genes don't require that the animal understands and/or is consciously aware of why they act out the behaviors that they do; an animal's genes only require that the behavior is done, and done well. I very much doubt a peahen, when confronted with the vibrant tails of the peacocks in front of her, is thinking "Let's see, vibrant color requires more energy to produce and if they have enough energy to produce all that color they must have plenty of energy to spare so they must be really healthy and strong..." No, if she has any thoughts at all, it's probably along the lines of "Now THAT is one handsome peacock. Wow!"

For the peahen to even be cognitively capable of understanding the adaptive ins and outs of her mate preferences would probably require more of that incredibly expensive tissue, brain, and with no real benefit to gain from that understanding to outweigh the cost of that brain, there is no adaptive reason for her to evolve to that point.

The same thing goes for humans. Our genes don't require that we understand why we cooperate so well with each other, only that we do it. But here's a question: if cooperation is so beneficial to humans (and I have reason to believe that it is), how do you make good cooperators out of the vehicles of selfish genes? Cooperation is fairly rare across the whole animal world, because for the most part if you put your reproductive future in someone else's hands, they're just going to burn you and take what they can get. Usually that's the most adaptive option. So the evolution of cooperation would be rife with the problem of these selfish cheaters showing up to take advantage of the nice cooperators. So if you're a gene that "wants" cooperation to happen, how do you make all these selfish individuals get along? Well - for all intents and purposes, don't make them selfish. Make them, in their conscious minds, have a genuine desire to trust and be trusted, gain a genuine joy and pride out of maintaining pleasant relationships with the people around them.

Unfortunately for us humans, we also have the brain power it takes to understand the possible adaptive reasons for why we do what we do - and we don't like it! How are we to trust others, and expect others to trust us, if really we're all just being sneaky selfish tricksters? How can we you feel secure in a romantic relationship if all the other person truly cares about is how you'll help them reproduce successfully? You most certainly do have a bias against accepting adaptive explanations for love and trust - and the fact that you do is a compliment to you. The fact that most humans do is a compliment to our genuine conscious desire to love and trust each other, even if our genes benefit from it (or at least did benefit at some point in the past). I value the relationships in my life no less for knowing the evolutionary history of my feelings. They don't have to "transcend" evolution in order to bring joy and value and to my life.




Secondly, I would say you have good reason to be suspicious of some evolutionary psychologists, because unfortunately a lot of them tend to be extremely adaptionist; in other words, they think every little tiny thing humans do must have some adaptive purpose. And I agree with you that this isn't necessarily true. To use a classic example, what is the adaptive purpose of male nipples? There isn't one. They're the biological byproduct of an adaptation in females and the fact that all humans, regardless of sex, share a common body plan developmental pathway. We are one species, after all. Or, to think of a behavior - marriage, or at least semi-formalized pair bonding of some kind, is common to all human cultures. To say that every little variation in marriage practices from culture to culture is a specific adaptive response to conditions in that specific region is a little extreme; certainly, pair bonding and cooperative raising of offspring is adaptive for humans (and many other animals), but many of the specific mores and traditions may be the result of more random processes.






Those are the major points I wanted to make. I could get nitpicky and go through every single one of your points, but I don't think that's necessary. Some of what you said, based on my knowledge, is true based on reliable scientific testing, some of it isn't, and some of it we just generally don't know yet. I'll just make a few more general points based on comments you made that really stuck out to me.




As far as evolution having a direction - the main point, I think, of academics insisting that evolution doesn't have a direction is to drive home the point that evolution doesn't have a goal - we're aren't marching inexorably towards the bigger and badder no matter what. And most importantly, there's no real evidence that a guiding supernatural intelligence is rising us up towards some ideal. But it's certainly true that, given a certain set of conditions, some evolutionary paths are more likely to be taken than others. In the case of intelligence, some researchers hold that once a certain level of intelligence evolves, competition with other smart individuals alone will drive the overall intelligence of the species up and up and up. How far and how fast will be dictated by the specifics of the species and the environment, but the increase in intelligence could be one of the more likely paths.

I think you may be a little mixed up on the definition of exaptation. The idea is that a trait started out being an adaptation for one purpose, is still an adaptation now, but for a different purpose. You used the example of human hair; increasing your likelihood of getting a good mate is a powerful adaptation, not to be underestimated, and though exactly how you show it off will certainly vary from culture to culture, I think we can agree that in most cultures women's hair plays a role in how attractive they are to men, and vice versa.

Edit: This is a study done on the mate preferences of humans, conducted across 37 cultures in 33 countries on 6 continents, with data from over four thousand males and over five thousand females. The results of this paper show incredibly strong statistical significance and lend great support to the hypothesis that there are indeed some universal human mate preferences. There is a lot of bad ev psych out there, but there is good, solid science too. Don't get too burned before you dig deep enough.
Edited by Paralith, Sep 5 2009, 03:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ànraich
Member Avatar
L'évolution Spéculative est moi

That's interesting Paralith. Cooperation amongst animals IS rare now that I think about it. The only reason I can think of that humans can work so well together without, as you say, "burning each other" is our concept of morality. Which leads me to ask; is it possible that morality itself is a concept encoded into our genes? Is it possible that morality evolved as a means of better cooperation and socialization in groups?

Of course that's probably not true, as different cultures have different concepts of morality. But if you think about it there are common themes throughout all philosophies of morality; don't kill each other, don't steal from each other, etc.

Again, I doubt there's any merit to that idea, I just thought it was interesting.

EDIT: Haha, oh wow. Look what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Edited by Ànraich, Sep 5 2009, 11:31 AM.
We should all aspire to die surrounded by our dearest friends. Just like Julius Caesar.

"The Lord Universe said: 'The same fate I have given to all things from stones to stars, that one day they shall become naught but memories aloft upon the winds of time. From dust all was born, and to dust all shall return.' He then looked upon His greatest creation, life, and pitied them, for unlike stars and stones they would soon learn of this fate and despair in the futility of their own existence. And so the Lord Universe decided to give life two gifts to save them from this despair. The first of these gifts was the soul, that life might more readily accept their fate, and the second was fear, that they might in time learn to avoid it altogether." - Excerpt from a Chanagwan creation myth, Legends and Folklore of the Planet Ghar, collected and published by Yieju Bai'an, explorer from the Celestial Commonwealth of Qonming

Tree That Owns Itself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Add Reply