NoShips » July 6th, 2017, 5:40 pm wrote:On reading the link I posted, it occurs to me that Fodor and David Stove (remember him? -- "
Darwinian Fairy Tales") share much in common.
For one thing, they both point out that evolutionary biology is replete with intentional (in the philosophical sense) so-called "
façons de parler" -- "
selection" and Dawkins'
selfish genes, for example -- which, we are repeatedly told must not be taken literally; they can be cashed out in non-intentional language any time you like, baby.
Yes. And then Dawkins goes on diatribes about "survival machines", with a kind of childish excitement, almost like he is "figuring out how it all fits" and he loves his own cleverness.
Pretty sure Dan Dennet and Rich Dawkins are considered by academia to be
ultra-orthodox Darwinists. They are zealots committed to the original 1850s theory. ( I kind of made that word up on the spot. they use a different word in more formal contexts).
Dawkins becomes angry (nearly unhinged) when anyone suggests the possibility of epigenetic traits in his presence.
Braininvat is trying to reinforce NS by referring to the syntheses in the 20th century. I think there are still problems outside this kind of Fodor attack : which might be entirely semantic as far as I can see.
I will give some examples now. Species of ants and some wasps are
eusocial. Their hives or colonies contain male drones who have given up their capacity to reproduce. This should bother us -- because I don't know how a species would give up its capacity to reproduce. The trait "giving-up-of-reproducing" would get passed on, but how? I only have some just-so stories to explain this, that involve queens hopping between hives. I admit I'm reaching for straws.
Our bodies contain mitochondria that contain DNA. (
mDNA) But the DNA is alien to humans. It is its own genetic line distinct from the DNA in our cells that orchestrates our regular growth. Furthermore, human mitochondria do not contain necessary enzymes to replicate their own DNA. Instead the mitochondrion will hijack the replication machinery already present in human cells. One grad student told me that the "mitochondria don't have their own keys because their landlord has a copy." To first approximation, Darwinian NS
does not explain this at all. Some other scientific theory is needed.
If living organisms gain traits and cellular mechanisms by
osmotically absorbing them through viruses , then Darwinian NS has a serious problem (as Fodor likes to say).