If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I don't get how you are separating the two. If an environment suddenly runs out of tuna and now all the organisms have to eat chicken, that diet will effect both the organism and their genetics.

Sure, but not in any way that can be predicted, by the organisms or by the environment. In fact, most organisms that eat tuna will likely die off. In a small number there might emerge some kind of genetic mutation with increased chances of survival, but the specifics of that mutation do not inhere in the environmental change. In other words, the sudden disappearance of tuna doesn't provide specs for what the genetic mutation will be.

How environment do not encourage mutation seems baffling to me let alone the second half of the statement. Just don't get how you can separate the organism from the genealogy of that organism

Mutations occur inter-generationally, not within the duration of a single generation (unless radically infiltrative substances are introduced, which isn't common). All I'm saying is that when we think of mutation we can't attribute it to some predisposition within the organism itself; the organism isn't working toward some most suitable form.

We both agree and have mentioned there's no 'agency' within organisms in relation to mutation, but it sounds like you're scared to take the next step in the logical process. Obviously not all mutations are 'more beneficial' in relation to survival, but it seems likely that the vast majority of organisms that carried on certain mutations did so because those mutations were improvements for that organism in that environment.

Actually, just the opposite. Far more organisms have perished on this planet than are currently alive. The vast majority of mutations that have occurred throughout the history of life on this planet were mostly duds.

Environments absolutely put pressure on individual organisms. The presence of biological diversity (mutations) may be predetermined at birth, but it is *primarily* environmental pressure that dictates which of those mutations will be favorable and conducive to propagation. You have cause and effect entirely backwards. It's the environment that "causes" a finch to evolve a different beak; without that pressure, you'd just see a genotypic average of all available beak alleles, with no particular preference between potential mates.

Environments don't "cause" mutations to occur. They provide circumstances in which certain mutations prove beneficial, and those organisms pass their genes on to future generations. The finch evolves the beak it does entirely by accident. The finch perpetuates because its beak is conducive to its particular environment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Environments don't "cause" mutations to occur. They provide circumstances in which certain mutations prove beneficial, and those organisms pass their genes on to future generations. The finch evolves the beak it does entirely by accident. The finch perpetuates because its beak is conducive to its particular environment.

Your second paragraph began "Environments don't put pressure on individual organisms, since individual organisms don't mutate during the course of their lives (generally speaking)." and your third paragraph began "It may look like environments direct organisms through channels, but environments themselves don't dictate the anatomical consequences that any given mutation will assume. An organism's anatomy cannot be shaped by the pressure of its environment.", which were what I was responding to. What you're saying right now seems to be what I'm saying and in contradiction to your previous post.

In the context of previous posts about the why vs the how, I think it's clear that environment dictates why various organisms evolved different mechanisms of sexual dimorphism. Angler fish live in large, dark bodies of water with low population densities; therefore, a mechanism where the male permanently fuses with the first female it comes into contact with evolved to maximize reproductive potential in response to environmental pressures. Same thing with giant squids holding onto sperm for long periods of time. In contrast, land animals are able to cope with more elaborate, competitive modes of reproduction, usually involving a physically stronger and showier male attempting to attract a female, due to a very different kind of environment. In humans, that divide between the sexes is retained and we see obvious biological reason for gender roles.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm disagreeing with you because it sounds like you're saying environments provide a reason for mutation--in broader terms, evolution. While I absolutely agree that there is a circuitry of sorts between environments and genetic mutation, I would stop short of saying that environments gives organisms a reason for mutating. It's not as though an organism's genes are responding to the conditions of an environment when a mutation occurs. That's not what's happening (at least, not in any directly observable or causal way).

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

This is my reason for focusing on why versus how. "Why" implies some kind of purposiveness behind a mutation, as though the very change in genetic structure was somehow directed by environmental conditions--but genetic mutations are accidents, that's all (again, unless induced somehow). "How" attends to the fact that mutations have occurred, and that some prove more successful than others--in this case, the environment intervenes only in the process of selection, meaning some mutations allow an organism to survive, while other genetic variations dwindle.

So yes, environments put pressure on organisms, but only after the mutation has already occurred. They don't pressure the organisms to mutate. Mutation just happens.

Sorry if this is what you've been saying all along.

 

[rms]

In other words, the sudden disappearance of tuna doesn't provide specs for what the genetic mutation will be.

specificity is not necessarily the point, it's that tuna eating organisms will have to mutate or die. And you were right that the one paragraph was backwards, it should have been the mutations that prolong said organisms do so because its more beneficial rather than the best way etc.

All I'm saying is that when we think of mutation we can't attribute it to some predisposition within the organism itself; the organism isn't working toward some most suitable form.

no duh, but this feels different than what that dude said in his piece and what you said you agree with.

Biological essentialism sounds like 'evolutionary biology as a social construct' and nothing since has steered me away from that or clarified your position on that.

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

but the process of selection is a byproduct of environmental pressures, no?

 

[Einherjar86]

(sorry for the lengthy response...)

Biological essentialism sounds like 'evolutionary biology as a social construct' and nothing since has steered me away from that or clarified your position on that.

I guess this is the crux of the disagreement, which comes down to how we read the original text. I don't see it as ascribing a constructionist process to the field of evolutionary biology, and I definitely don't think the author is trying to say that organisms are evolving toward some ideal form. I do think that biology describes real things in a constructed/conditioned way, but that's not to say that the physical hardwiring of our bodies is socially constructed; and I don't think the author is trying to suggest that.

The author doesn't use the phrase "social construction," and we aren't working here with strict binaries. In other words, just because we reject something as essentialist, that doesn't mean we're beholden to calling it constructionist. It's not an ultimatum.

I see biological essentialism, when it comes to gender, as basically saying the following: that our gendered practices correspond to some internal essence or substance, and that this internal substance remains unaffected by social or environmental conditions. In such a model, evolution has a predetermined plan and is working toward the realization of that plan. Those who oppose transgender identification appeal to essentialism in order to make the claim that non-cisgender people are rejecting some natural order, and that doing so is harmful to themselves and to others.

The author is simply saying that this isn't the case, and that evolutionary biology doesn't support the idea of biological essentialism. We have bodies, and they're structured a certain way--but they aren't evolving toward some ideal form or essence, or approximating some optimal model. After all, environments change too; it doesn't make sense for organisms to be evolving toward some best possible solution.

If we reject this kind of biological essentialism (which is what I think the author is talking about), then it doesn't make sense to say that transgender subjects are denying any bodily essence. Of course, the problem with this position, which is also what the author is commenting on, is that we also can't permit transgender subjects to say they're identifying with some other kind of internal essence or substance--some metaphysical sense of self that is alternative to what biological essentialism would proclaim. The author is saying that our current mode of identity politics is still imbricated in the ideology of the metaphysical self, and this contradicts the arguments made against biological essentialism. It's an inconsistent set of practices, basically.

but the process of selection is a byproduct of environmental pressures, no?

In short, yes. I was simply objecting to where that pressure falls. I'm saying that environments don't have a direct impact on the kind of mutation that happens. To take the tuna example once again, it's not as though the environment intervenes with the genetic makeup of tuna-eating organisms and says "alright, time for a mutation so that these fellas can eat some shrimp instead!" Mutation just happens, and the environment directs selection ("directs" in the most non-intentional way, of course).

 

[rms]

I definitely don't think the author is trying to say that organisms are evolving toward some ideal form.

we don't really know what he thinks, because most of his piece is his own conflicting biases and how to best use those. it's the rambling of a liberal arts academic mad man, quite frankly. I can't believe how much attention trans people get in this sphere. Gotta get a thesis going, I guess.

In such a model, evolution has a predetermined plan and is working toward the realization of that plan.

now, why are you ascribing agency to the invisible hand of evolution?

Those who oppose transgender identification appeal to essentialism in order to make the claim that non-cisgender people are rejecting some natural order, and that doing so is harmful to themselves and to others.

I guess you're going to have to cite this since I don't see how this leap is made, especially in the harm of yourself&others.

but they aren't evolving toward some ideal form or essence, or approximating some optimal model

this is a weird claim to make. how would we know what the ideal form is or that there is such an invisible agent that wants all organisms to be the next step?

Why isn't everything just a natural evolution from past environments? Not all evolutions are the best, but I think we can safely say that all evolutions that elongated the survival of a species is a good thing, as all beings are (or should) be mostly self interested in survival.

it doesn't make sense for organisms to be evolving toward some best possible solution.

this just makes no sense for me. the 'best possible solution' is impossible to define as it is ever changing and limited by the scope of the organism viewing it (or understanding it, if they are conscience beings). maybe that's why these people are in the liberal arts?

then it doesn't make sense to say that transgender subjects are denying any bodily essence

define 'bodily essence' pleaseeeeee

It's an inconsistent set of practices, basically.

yes, I imagine most would agree here that identity politics is ideologically and logically inconsistent if not hypocritical.

In short, yes.

great, glad that's settled

 

[arg]

Gender non-conforming

that shit is hilarious

 

[Einherjar86]

we don't really know what he thinks, because most of his piece is his own conflicting biases and how to best use those. it's the rambling of a liberal arts academic mad man, quite frankly. I can't believe how much attention trans people get in this sphere. Gotta get a thesis going, I guess.

It's actually not conflicting or contradictory. You're reading your preconceptions and biases into this piece, methinks.

now, why are you ascribing agency to the invisible hand of evolution?

I'm not. That's a description of biological essentialism, which I disagree with.

I guess you're going to have to cite this since I don't see how this leap is made, especially in the harm of yourself&others.

You've never heard a Christian say that transgender people are violating a natural order that hurts themselves and others in their family? That's an appeal to biological essentialism (albeit a grossly simplified one).

this is a weird claim to make. how would we know what the ideal form is or that there is such an invisible agent that wants all organisms to be the next step?

Exactly. How would we know? We can't, because it isn't observable. To claim it's there would be bad science.

The vast amount of evidence for evolution doesn't point to any mechanism that is subtly guiding the evolution of all species toward some better form. All it does is explain the variant morphologies across species.

Why isn't everything just a natural evolution from past environments? Not all evolutions are the best, but I think we can safely say that all evolutions that elongated the survival of a species is a good thing, as all beings are (or should) be mostly self interested in survival.

It's neither a good or a bad thing. It just is. The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

this just makes no sense for me. the 'best possible solution' is impossible to define as it is ever changing and limited by the scope of the organism viewing it (or understanding it, if they are conscience beings). maybe that's why these people are in the liberal arts?

Jesus Christ, and you think I'm condescending!

Yes, the "best possible solution" is impossible to define because it doesn't exist. That's what I'm saying. It isn't within the purview of evolutionary biology to guide an organism toward any model or form that would best suit that organism to its environment. "These people" in the liberal arts get that; and I think you do too, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

define 'bodily essence' pleaseeeeee

Why? My point is that it doesn't exist. It's made up. It's an illusion. It can be whatever you want it to be. As far as biological essentialism goes, organisms' anatomies are dictated by some internal essence or substance, as I've been saying, which informs the way they evolve. From this perspective, evolution appears like teleological progress in which all organisms are striving to realize their optimal form, which would be whatever their "essence" is.

That's how you define it. It's a metaphysical determinant that gives rise to biological form/anatomy.

yes, I imagine most would agree here that identity politics is ideologically and logically inconsistent if not hypocritical.

Which is what that author is saying! But even better, explains why.

 

[rms]

It's actually not conflicting or contradictory. You're reading your preconceptions and biases into this piece, methinks.

he spends a considerable amount of time about the word choices for trans people from in the Academic West and the Academic India. That's probably the largest aspect of his post

You've never heard a Christian say that transgender people are violating a natural order that hurts themselves and others in their family? That's an appeal to biological essentialism (albeit a grossly simplified one).

so now academics respond to random Christians in wordy lengthy pieces like this? come on Ein. This is not subject matter for the mainstream audience

I'm not. That's a description of biological essentialism, which I disagree with.

so who coined this term and who uses it in their work? you aren't defining and I spent .02s in a google search.

All it does is explain the variant morphologies across species.

AND it also explains that the current species adapted to the current environment better than their predecessors. and that adaptation was random/fools gold whatever you wanna call it

The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

I don't agree with this line. The ability to survive in spiders is separate than the interest in flies. The increased survival rate of spiders DOES force the fly to adapt or die though (and subsequently force the spider to adapt its diet or die) but making survivability a term that requires comparison makes little sense to me. The "survival" question: Does this mutation make it easier for spiders to live? If so, great. If not, let's hope it dies off instead of spreads.

Jesus Christ, and you think I'm condescending!

you have that elitist snobbery to you, that's probably why you cited this dude's post. Hasn't popped up here though

Why? My point is that it doesn't exist. It's made up.

I just wanted to know it since I don't know what it means. The "pleaseeeeeeeee" was off base but I was actually just curious

"These people" in the liberal arts get that; and I think you do too, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

because apparently liberal arts people think that because there isn't a "best outcome" that can be defined that the whole idea of evolutionary biology a social construct made by westerners to advance some sort of white-christian theory (extrapolating here with no certainty but I imagine this is true for some in this sphere).

Much of our hard-won struggles against biological essentialism

not to be repetitive, but I don't think anything you have said has countered this statement from the FB post. It just seems that the discourse is overly interested in making sure that everyone knows biology has no inherent agency. But you already seemed to have ceded the point that the environment doesn't force organisms to adapt so I feel like you agree with me and not him.

Which is what that author is saying! But even better, explains why.

I don't think he gets at anything, I think that other article was much, much better in demonstrating the futility of identity politics. This FB post comes off to me as some strange conflicted piece about trans people. Especially focusing on how the original author did things so terrible within the trans academic field to which the author was unfamiliar with

 

[zabu of nΩd]

it has to exist if you think the term is stupid or shouldn't exist.

Best argument ever

 

[rms]

seeing that in quotes makes me think that response is a little too cold

 

[Einherjar86]

I like to think that Grant is being sarcastic there.

Those who promote biological essentialism believe it does exist. I'm saying it doesn't. What's so hard to understand?

 

[rms]

I don't think it's appropriate to speak on it anymore without a set in stone definition that we both can look on

 

[Einherjar86]

I already gave a definition. You ignored it.

That's how you define it. It's a metaphysical determinant that gives rise to biological form/anatomy.

It's amazing how much of these threads fills up with useless exchanges likes this.

 

[rms]

my b my historical skimming prowess came into play when I noticed your topic sentence

I agree with your take on that definition but I agree with the Oxford reference one;

the belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture).

bleh, then it seems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then it seems.

 

[EternalMetal]

It's neither a good or a bad thing. It just is. The prolonged survival of spiders might be good for spiders, but it's bad for flies. It doesn't make sense to talk about evolution as good or bad, because--once again--there's no teleological endgame guiding the evolutionary process.

We arent talking about spiders though, we are talking about human beings. Us. Do you really view the success and propagation of the human race like you do bacteria in a test tube? Im all for objectively oriented science, but to deny human beings to have pride for their species is where I duck out. How do you even come full circle to tackle social issues with this degree of disconnect from the human race? This sounds kind of like nihilism to me, which I guess makes sense if you are trying to justify something like the transgender identity crisis.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm disagreeing with you because it sounds like you're saying environments provide a reason for mutation--in broader terms, evolution. While I absolutely agree that there is a circuitry of sorts between environments and genetic mutation, I would stop short of saying that environments gives organisms a reason for mutating. It's not as though an organism's genes are responding to the conditions of an environment when a mutation occurs. That's not what's happening (at least, not in any directly observable or causal way).

So, when mutation occurs, the specific mutation itself hasn't been directed by the environment in any way--what has been directed is simply the process of selection.

This is my reason for focusing on why versus how. "Why" implies some kind of purposiveness behind a mutation, as though the very change in genetic structure was somehow directed by environmental conditions--but genetic mutations are accidents, that's all (again, unless induced somehow). "How" attends to the fact that mutations have occurred, and that some prove more successful than others--in this case, the environment intervenes only in the process of selection, meaning some mutations allow an organism to survive, while other genetic variations dwindle.

So yes, environments put pressure on organisms, but only after the mutation has already occurred. They don't pressure the organisms to mutate. Mutation just happens.

Sorry if this is what you've been saying all along.

You're acting as if selection isn't an innate part of evolution. Yes, mutations provide the "how", but so does competition for reproduction, with environmental pressures providing the "why". Mutations have no inherent purpose, they just happen (though arguably low-fidelity polymerases found in primitive lifeforms like bacteria are evolutionarily preferable due to their ability to create novel adaptions quickly in a population) but the environment creates a purpose for keeping or getting rid of mutations. If there was no inherent reason to evolve, we wouldn't, we'd just remain inorganic particles on a lifeless planet.

 

[Einherjar86]

We arent talking about spiders though, we are talking about human beings. Us. Do you really view the success and propagation of the human race like you do bacteria in a test tube? Im all for objectively oriented science, but to deny human beings to have pride for their species is where I duck out. How do you even come full circle to tackle social issues with this degree of disconnect from the human race? This sounds kind of like nihilism to me, which I guess makes sense if you are trying to justify something like the transgender identity crisis.

It's perfectly fine to talk about survival as a good thing from the point of view of a single species. For humans, yes--we want to survive, and that which contributes to survival can be evaluated as "good."

From the point of view of evolution, humans are just another species. We aren't special. Mutations that enable the survival of a particular species are neither good nor bad.

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

You're acting as if selection isn't an innate part of evolution. Yes, mutations provide the "how", but so does competition for reproduction, with environmental pressures providing the "why". Mutations have no inherent purpose, they just happen (though arguably low-fidelity polymerases found in primitive lifeforms like bacteria are evolutionarily preferable due to their ability to create novel adaptions quickly in a population) but the environment creates a purpose for keeping or getting rid of mutations.

Hmm, I'm not sure how I'm suggesting that. I do think that selection is a part of evolution--a crucial part, actually.

I wouldn't use the word "purpose," but yes--environments provide the conditions in which some mutations work, and others don't. I don't see that as "purpose.

If there was no inherent reason to evolve, we wouldn't, we'd just remain inorganic particles on a lifeless planet.

"Inherent reason" makes evolution sound quasi-spiritualist. I don't think species are bestowed with an "inherent reason" to evolve. They just need to mutate in order to better their chances for survival, since staying exactly the same will guarantee extinction (eventually). There's no way for us to observe an inherent connection between mutation and some pre-established purpose; this would imply that, before evolution even began, genes already knew they had to mutate in order to guarantee survival.

It makes just as much sense to say that organisms just mutate--there's no significant rhyme or reason for it. Lucky for us.

 

[rms]

I should have specified that above, as it strikes me now that rms was probably speaking from a position similar to yours.

on essentialism, yeah. since the definition talks about innate human behavior that is genetically transferred, not culturally

but for the rest, was only talking about organisms

I don't think species are bestowed with an "inherent reason" to evolve. They just need to mutate in order to better their chances for survival, since staying exactly the same will guarantee extinction (eventually).

Saying there isn't an inherent reason to evolve and then your next sentence says there is a need to evolve is so confusing and has been confusing throughout this entire thing. I don't get how you don't think "the need" to evolve hasn't permeated all levels of all beings throughout Earth's history which then becomes the "inherent reason" one evolves