3 ms·

Articles like this satisfy some tiny general interest (wrinkles! neat!) but then squander any good will by predisposing the public to completely misunderstand e

Articles like this satisfy some tiny general interest (wrinkles! neat!) but then squander any good will by predisposing the public to completely misunderstand evolution. The trait may stick around if it's useful, but it didn't evolve "for a reason."

sudont 15y ago
"had ended up neatly filling a need"? Passive voice is discouraged grammatically, however evolution is pretty much the embodiment of a passive voice.
lutorm 15y ago
I would argue that it (unlike all the other things that did not evolve) did evolve for the reason that it was useful. It's not like all of a sudden there was someone that had wrinkly fingers and that "stuck around because it was useful". In all likelihood, there were many incremental changes that were progressively selected for and the "reason" for that selection is that it was useful. It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent. Your comment reminds me of Feynman responding to the question of why magnets attract each other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM) which, while inscrutable from a physical point of view, seems not to be a fruitful way of approaching questions. There are always levels of deeper understanding, but you have to take it one level at a time.
- ianterrell 15y ago
  > it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent Sure, but that's not the case here. While existing traits are selected for based on fitness (which has absolutely no meaning outside of environment, another rant), new traits (whether wrinkly fingers in one leap or in several small ones) are evolved by chance. Evolution has no intent, no direction. Each individual trait has no reason other than, "Hey, I'll try this out!" In a society where a good chunk doesn't even believe evolution is an accurate model, I think it's helpful to be precise with the language to minimize misunderstanding which further inhibits the idea's acceptance.
  - zem 15y ago
    the problem is, scientists find it very handy to talk in terms of directed evolution simply because it tightens up the language and everyone knows what it's shorthand for. (where by "everyone" i mean other scientists)

sudont 15y ago

"had ended up neatly filling a need"? Passive voice is discouraged grammatically, however evolution is pretty much the embodiment of a passive voice.

lutorm 15y ago

I would argue that it (unlike all the other things that did not evolve) did evolve for the reason that it was useful. It's not like all of a sudden there was someone that had wrinkly fingers and that "stuck around because it was useful". In all likelihood, there were many incremental changes that were progressively selected for and the "reason" for that selection is that it was useful. It seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent. Your comment reminds me of Feynman responding to the question of why magnets attract each other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM) which, while inscrutable from a physical point of view, seems not to be a fruitful way of approaching questions. There are always levels of deeper understanding, but you have to take it one level at a time.

ianterrell 15y ago
> it's perfectly acceptable language to say that a cause is the "reason" for an effect, even if it's not possible to assign intent Sure, but that's not the case here. While existing traits are selected for based on fitness (which has absolutely no meaning outside of environment, another rant), new traits (whether wrinkly fingers in one leap or in several small ones) are evolved by chance. Evolution has no intent, no direction. Each individual trait has no reason other than, "Hey, I'll try this out!" In a society where a good chunk doesn't even believe evolution is an accurate model, I think it's helpful to be precise with the language to minimize misunderstanding which further inhibits the idea's acceptance.
- zem 15y ago
  the problem is, scientists find it very handy to talk in terms of directed evolution simply because it tightens up the language and everyone knows what it's shorthand for. (where by "everyone" i mean other scientists)