Synopsis: What’s Wrong With the Darwinian Argument?

In another series of posts, I develop a critique of the Malthusian argument as first introduced by Thomas Malthus in 1798 in his “Essay on the Principle of Population.” Part of this is a proposal for a non-Malthusian explanation for population dynamics. You can find an overview of all my posts here that I will keep updated: Synopsis: What’s Wrong With the Malthusian Argument?

The Malthusian argument formed the basis for Darwin’s original argument. If the former is in trouble, so is also the latter. That does not mean that both fall together. It is entirely conceivable that the Darwinian argument can be fixed. And while I think the Malthusian argument is completely false, I also think that the Darwinian argument contains a part that can be salvaged. However, there are quite a few implications if you pull the Malthusian rug under it away, some of them quite interesting. One of the conclusions is that the Darwinian argument is much less general than is usually assumed.

It was natural that my critique of the Malthusian argument would evolve also into a critique of the Darwinian argument in this way, just like there was an evolution of the Malthusian argument into the Darwinian argument (pun consciously intended). That is also true for the associated worldviews: The Darwinian worldview is the Malthusian worldview writ large. By a “worldview,” I mean an intuititive understanding of how the world works (see for more information below). It can have a huge impact when it becomes popular, and that is what has happened with the Darwinian worldview that is perhaps even more a part of our culture than the Malthusian worldview with which it is intertwined.

The Darwinian argument has been fixed in many ways over time. Already Charles Darwin started with this when he introduced “sexual selection” as a separate explanation from “natural selection.” There have been a lot of additional developments since then, eg. the so-called “Modern Synthesis” that mended Darwin’s thinking on how features are inherited, the discovery how the DNA and RNA work, the acknowledgement that also random processes may play a role: the neutral and nearly neutral theory of evolution, bottlenecks, various additonal mechanisms like founder effects, bottlebecks, genetic hitchhiking, stabilizing selection, exaptations, puncuated equlibria and so forth. Still I would say that while the theory has indeed evolved, the worldview has been more sluggish and is basically still where it started, even with many of those who have absorbed the newer developments.

I have by now written a few posts that turn more around the Darwinian than the Malthusian argument although that is often hard to separate. I first linked to these articles in my overview regarding the Malthusian argument. That’s become too unwieldy by now, though, and so I herewith start a separate overview for those who are more interested in my critique of the Darwinian argument than the Malthusian argument. I have to admit that the former is not yet as far advanced as the latter. That means that my thoughts are still evolving. It is possible that I will change my mind on quite a few things in the future. Some of it may even turn out to be wrong.

Hence you should read my posts in this series with the adjective “tentative” added. I still hope that I get it mostly right and even when I don’t that I fail at least in thought-provoking ways. Criticisms are encouraged because I need quality control here. As perhaps everybody, I am stubborn and do not give in easily. Don’t expect an immediate conversion, but I really appreciate counter-arguments even if I have to force myself on a rational level to engage with them.

One thing I have to make absolutely clear is what my critique of the Darwinian argument is not. I am an atheist. That’s why I have no stake in “creationism” or “intelligent design,” which I just find silly. Even if the Darwinian argument were 100% false, which I don’t think it is, that would show nothing about whether one specific account of many is true that various religions have come up with over time. If I thought there were a higher being, then I would probably be a pantheist (the view that the cosmos is God) or a deist (the view that God created the world at the start and the natural laws according to which it evolves without interference). But I would certainly not be a theist (the view that God meddles on a continual basis).

One other misunderstanding to clear up: As I will explain in a future post, a critique of the Darwinian argument is not a rejection of the idea that there was evolution. The question is about how it worked, not whether it happened. Strictly speaking, the Darwinian argument does not explain evolution, It does so at most in a tautological way or only for an inessential part of it. I have not the least doubt that there was evolution, ie. that different species evolved from each other over time, that it all began with one, and all are hence related, that humans are a part of it, that we have a common ancestor with apes and then also with monkeys, and so forth. The evidence is too overwhelming to doubt this. Maybe long ago you could be unsure, but not these days any longer.

— — —

Here is now the list of posts so far with short summaries. The first ones are more for starters before I get to the point.

• Your Genes Are Boring: If you think you have some special genes that have to be propagated, this may only mean that you are not particularly smart and misunderstand a simple fact: Genes are ubiquitous for humans, we share most of them with tens of thousands, probably with millions and sometimes even with billions of people. What makes people special is not some specific genes they have, but a specific mix of very common genes. Since that is so, many popular conclusions fall apart.
• A Very Simple, But Common Mistake: If “natural selection” in the original sense — a superabundance of offspring with too few slots and selection of those with higher chances of survival — can explain why a feature is ubiquitous in a species, then it does not follow that a feature that is ubiquitous has to be the result of “natural selection.” That would only be the case if nothing else could result in a feature becoming ubiquitous, which is clearly false.
• The Eugenic Nightmare: One of the offshoots of the Darwinian argument was Eugenics, which was very popular not only on the political Right, but also on the Left. Here I analyze the eugenic message in H. G. Wells’ “The Time Machine,” published in 1895. What may seem like an innocuous adventure story is actually a vision based on the biological theories of E. Ray Lankester. Both he and Wells were committed Socialists, and as I show their political views were intertwined with their support for Eugenics.
• Evolution With Relaxed Natural Selection: If a feature used to be selected for, but is no longer so, this should lead to evolution which is not an adaptation to anything in the environment (apart perhaps from general physical constraints). I explain why this may be the reason for a phenomenon known as Foster’s Rule: small species may grow larger on an island and large species smaller.
• The Missing Link in the Darwinian Argument: The tautological definition of “fitness” is as the number of descendants for those with a heritable feature. Darwin’s original explanation was that it is wholly explained by the “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection,” ie. the chance of survival until fertile age for those with the feature versus those without it. — However, that cannot be true as Darwin conceded himself when he introduced also sexual selection as another explanation, ie. the chance of finding a mate after survival to fertile age. That can only determine “fitness,” though, if surviving and finding a mate leads to a fixed number of descendants. Darwin thinks that it is the maximum number possible where he draws on Malthus’ unfounded claim to the effect. — Yet, there is no reason to think that the number of descendants after survival and finding a mate is a constant. If it depends on a feature, then it may become ubiquitous although it lowers both the chance of survival and the chance to find a mate. If the number of descendants also depends on other inputs and is a rule, not a fixed number, the conclusions become even more interesting: It is possible to have outcomes that are adaptive although natural and sexual selection do not play a role.
• Further Explanations Regarding “The Missing Link in the Darwinian Argument”: I flesh the argument in the previous post out. The concept of a “rule” for the number of children after survival and finding a mate may have been obscure. But I give it a concrete meaning with a sketch of a non-Malthusian explanation for population dynamics. The implication for “fitness” in a tautological sense is that a feature can become ubiquitous if it interacts with this rule for population dynamics. This would happen without any “selection” in a reasonable sense and in the absense of natural and sexual selection in particular, ie. differential chances if survival and finding a mate. I apply this to the puzzle how the giraffe could grow such a long neck. I also speculate whether Neanderthals were not exterminated or otherwise driven out by modern humans, but were instead sucked into humankind or at least that part of them that did not cut against being modern humans.
• Computation by a Population: This is a “bleg,” a post where I have a question. To have control over population dynamics, a population effectively has to do computations. I am thinking here not only a human population, it could also be some other species because I think this is a ubiquitous phenomenon. Such a population has to estimate inputs, apply certain rules to them to obtain a result, and then it has implement it and control and adjust the outcomes. Populations can do all this in other regards. There are many ways how they can do estimations, calculations and steer processes. However, the basic operations should be different from computers. There are also constraints. Now my question is: Has anyone already thought about what can be computed with a limited set of operations that may not be perfect? Note also my remarks in the comments: A population might also be one within a body, especially the population of brain cells. I also refer to various topics that may be relevant here.
• Estimating Population Densities: As a constructive argument against Malthusianism, I try to develop a non-Malthusian explanation for population dynamics. What I presuppose is what I also discussed in my post “Computation by a Population.” I conjecture that two major inputs are involved: population density and a measure for general distress, centered around nutrition. Before a population could use this to control its dynamics, it needs to estimate the inputs. In this post, I focus on esimation population density. While it may seem as if this were extremely hard, I show that many species including humans should be able to do this easily, and probably really do. I discuss examples for bacteria, locusts, birds, whales, various territorial species, and also humans. My conclusion is that density estimation is eminently feasible.
• Why Are There So Few Lions?: My theory is that human populations target a reasonable size that depends on conditions. One reason many will reject this is the belief that all other species do not do this and are “Malthusian.” However, that is not true. Here I discuss an interesting empirical finding. If you look at the biomass of prey and the biomass of predators (biomass=their combined weight) in a biome, a community of species, you might expect that the latter increases superlinearly or at least linearly in the first. If there is more prey, there can be proportionally more predators, or even more than proportionally because hunting becomes easier. Yet, the regular finding is that the relationship is sublinear: there are more predators with more prey, but less than proportionally so. With abundant food, the ratio between predators and prey goes down, and does not remain the same or even increases. That is baffling from a Malthusian or Darwinian vantage point. In the article I analyze, the authors think they find a power law here with an exponent of 0.75. But as I show there is a simple explanation that leads to the same result and that in what we can also find for human populations. If that is correct, the relationship is not a power law, which is only an artifact of the analysis.

— — —

There is the Darwinian argument, which is on a rational level, but there is also an associated Darwinian worldview, which is on an intuitive level. The thrust of my critique goes perhaps more against the latter than the former. To understand my perhaps somewhat idiosyncratic take on “worldviews,” please refer to these posts:

• Worldviews, Narratives, and Ideologies: The main point here is that a worldview is an intuitive panorama of how the world works. It has static parts for relationships between different entities, but also dynamic parts, which work as “narratives.” And a worldview is also intertwined with moral and sometimes even aesthetic judgments. — The human mind is built for worldviews. We can do this intuitively and with ease. By constrast, rational thought is hard. Humans can do it, but often find it too laborious. — Rational arguments about the world are organized into “ideologies” (in my definition). Most people may not have an explicit one, but we all have our worldviews. There is an interplay here where ideologies shape worldviews, but also worldviews ideologies. What matters more, though, are worldviews because they are intuitive and popular, which does not necessarily imply that they are irrational. They only have a far lower standard of stringency than rational arguments. — To understand many developments, it is too shallow to only focus on the ideologies and miss the worldviews through which they have an impact.
• More on Worldviews and Ideologies: As the title suggests, I explore the topic more deeply here, especially how worldviews and ideologies are intertwined. I also demonstrate what I mean by that with some concrete examples.
• Everyone Has a Worldview: My analysis that there is a Malthusian or a Darwinian worldview might seem like a blanket argument to dismiss it because I can call it a “worldview.” I further flesh my understanding of the term in this post out and why that would be silly. You have to tackle the argument. Only if it is false, can you then wonder whether the mistake stems from a worldview. Everyone has one and so this is no slam-dunk argument against specific claims without addressing them outright.

— — —

Both Malthus and Darwin suffer from a misunderstanding. They treat it as if it were possible to derive empirical results from first principles. But that cannot work for a very simple reason:

• You Can’t Prove an Empirical Claim Apriori: This is a very basic point. Empirical claims are those that can be true or false and not just one of the two. I explain why it is not possible to obtain them only from assertions that can only be true or false. Although that is not difficult to see there are many cases where someone gets this wrong and thinks they can do it.

And as already mentioned at the beginning: My critique of the Malthusian argument is foundational. You can find an overview here:

• Synposis: What’s Wrong with the Malthusian Argument?: Basically what I do here blog is about a book project. The Malthusian argument is an integral part of our culture. It has had a deep impact on many ideologies on the Right, but also on classical liberalism and libertarianism. The channel is not necessarily on a rational level, but via an associated Malthusian worldview that is widely shared. As I argue, the Malthusian argument has no merit, but not for the reasons that many people assume.

I will keep this post updated as I write more articles on the topic. So stay tuned …