Transcript Article discussion

 “I
am convinced that natural selection
has been the main, but not the exclusive
means of modification” (Darwin)
 What exactly does ‘main means’ entail?
• Is 51% of modification due to natural selection?
• Is 98% of modification due to natural selection?
 What
traits or behaviours should be
considered as adaptations?



E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The new synthesis,
1975
Evolution of social behaviours, humans and nonhumans
“adaptationist programme”
• Identify trait/behaviour under selection
• Determine how that trait/behaviour may have adaptive
value (environment of evolutionary adaptedness)
• Determine ‘trade-offs’ for sub-optimal traits (best
compromise)
 Panglossian

“It’s all in our genes”: biological determinism
• A Natural History of Rape



“Evolutionary psychologists believe that the
belly-button is an adaptation for storing small
berries on the long trek back to camp.” (Kurzban,
2002)
Gould & Lewontin warn of going too far with
adaptationist thinking
Are both sides fighting ‘straw men’?
 “spaces
left over”
 Architectural
constraint
 By-product is then
exapted for current
purpose (mosaics)
 BUT…
were
spandrels really the
only option?
 Dennett argues that
squinches or corbels
can also be used for
dome ceilings
 San Marco was
designed to display
mosiacs.

No adaptation and no selection
• E.g. genetic drift, change due to chance

No adaptation and no selection on specific trait
• Selection on some other trait drives form of trait

De-couple adaptation and selection
• i.e. one or the other, but not both
Multiple adaptations and selection, no selective
bias
 Exaption, spandrels


With so many interactions, trait-by-trait analysis
isn’t ideal; look at the whole
Gould warned of the “dangers and fallacies” (Gould 1997, p.
10750) of over-attributing adaptive functions to traits that
might not be adaptations, but the real danger is to fail to
consider functional hypotheses. Tonsils often become
infected and therefore are (or were) frequently removed by
surgery. Which scientific response do you prefer?: (1) Mock
any suggestion that tonsils might serve an important
function by loudly insisting that not all traits have adaptive
functions; or (2) generate and test as many functional
hypotheses as you can think of to make sure that by
removing the tonsils no lasting harm is done to the patient?
• Hagen, Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology
 History: no, yes, no,??
 Modern
anthropomorphism:
• Critical anthropomorphism/theromorphism
 Put yourself in the place of the animal, but as the
animal
• Biocentric anthropomorphism
 Bekoff, study of animal emotions
 If
we agree animals likely do have
emotions, should the burden of proof be
shared?
 Is saying “there’s no way to tell” really
just a cop-out?
• What about intra-species comparisons?
 Semantics
• Episodic-like memory, personality-like
characteristics, remorseful-like behaviour?
“the difference in mind between man and the higher
animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and
not of kind”
• Darwin, The Descent of Man
 Do
you think human emotions are
adaptations or spandrels?
 What implications, if any, would your
answer have on the use of
anthropomorphism in science?


At what point are you taking adaptationist thinking
too far? When can you safely call a trait a spandrel?
Where should the burden of proof lie in terms of
animal emotions? Proving they exist, or proving they
don’t exist?

Is anthropomorphism merely a semantics problem?

Do you agree that the difference between animal and
human minds is one of “degree, and not of kind”?

How do you define ‘animal intelligence’? Is our
definition too anthropomorphic or anthropocentric?
Should we focus on how well adapted animals are,
instead of how ‘intelligent’ they are?