[Recording Start]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With evolution gaining more acceptance in America and intelligent design facing setbacks, what’s your perspective on this shift towards mainstream scientific theories?
Rick Rosner: Most people lack a deep education in evolution. So, even if, as you suggest, a majority now believe in evolution, their understanding is likely superficial. You, having discussed evolution extensively and being familiar with alternative, non-scientific theories, know that there are many ways evolution can be misunderstood or misrepresented. A common error is teleological thinking, attributing purpose or desire to evolution.
Jacobsen: Like saying the human eye was designed for seeing, which incorrectly implies intentional design.
Rosner: Exactly, it’s challenging to eliminate such notions from our thinking. Moreover, the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ has been politically distorted.
Jacobsen: Initially, it was used more as a social tool rather than a scientific concept.
Rosner: So, Darwin’s theory was co-opted, as you’re implying.
Jacobsen: I was actually referring to the intelligent design movement.
Rosner: Right, I was discussing ‘survival of the fittest.’
Jacobsen: My mistake, I misunderstood. Yes, ‘survival of the fittest’ has been misappropriated by some as a justification for social Darwinism, which is a misapplication of the concept. It’s meant to be understood in the context of long-term biological evolution, not immediate social dynamics.
Rosner: Precisely. My own perspective on evolution gets a bit speculative, and I haven’t verified this with experts, but I feel that mainstream evolution theory, except in the case of humans, doesn’t adequately consider individual agency. Let me explain. Humans can deliberately influence their own evolution and that of other species, as we’ve seen with selective dog breeding. We’ve created numerous dog breeds by controlling their mating to enhance certain traits. This demonstrates an aspect of evolution that goes beyond natural selection, incorporating human intention.
Jacobsen: Animal husbandry is an established practice. It’s based on an intuitive understanding of evolution and Mendelian genetics, even before these concepts were formally understood.
Rosner: Absolutely. To grasp the concept of breeding, both in animals and plants, one must understand that traits are inherited from parents. We’ve significantly altered plants like corn and tomatoes through selective breeding, essentially making them reproduce with chosen partners. The key idea is recognizing that mating leads to offspring inheriting traits, a concept that almost no species other than humans seems to understand. For instance, dogs don’t connect mating with producing puppies, nor do they select mates based on desired traits for their offspring. They lack the series of logical connections that would allow for intentional breeding. So, while this removes a degree of agency in most of nature, it doesn’t eliminate it entirely. It impacts breeding, but not all aspects of it.
I often think of this in terms of ‘jocks versus nerds’ throughout evolution, though this analogy applies more to sentient beings than to plants. In the animal world, you have those well-adapted to their environments (the ‘jocks’) and those less so (the ‘nerds’). My theory, which might not be unique but I haven’t encountered elsewhere, revolves around cognitive thrift. The brain, with its limited resources, aims to prepare for future scenarios, helping to model the world, predict outcomes, and make optimal choices. A well-adapted organism can afford to make safer, more conservative choices due to its fitness, thereby requiring less cognitive effort.
The things that come naturally to an organism, based on its evolved characteristics and adaptive comfort, can be likened to the stereotypical blonde football player in 1972, who effortlessly wins over the blonde cheerleader, at least in movies and, to some extent, in reality. Such individuals, being well-adapted, might not need to think too deeply about things; opportunities come to them easily. Then there are the ‘nerds’ – those who are spindly, club-footed, uncoordinated, short, among other things. They are compelled to think more due to their circumstances, especially in an era like 1972. I choose this year because it represents the height of the jocks versus nerds dynamic, though this began to change in the 80s and 90s with the rise of ‘nerd chic’ and wealthy nerds, somewhat eroding the traditional jocks-on-top scenario.
These ‘nerds’ had to take risks, which likely encouraged mental flexibility. They might have been forced to adopt alternate behaviors or simply had to scramble more, leading to more adaptable thinking. I speculate that there could be evolved mechanisms in the brain that facilitate different thinking styles. Or, it could be a result of learning – for instance, continual frustration might naturally lead to non-conservative thinking. This could be a fundamental aspect of feedback loops, or perhaps stress from not fitting into one’s environment triggers changes in brain function, like dendritic activity, leading to more original and flexible thinking.
Clearly, a crab won’t have the same level of mental flexibility as a human. A ‘nerdy’ crab might not display a vast array of behaviors, but it could be more adaptable than a ‘jock’ crab. We’ve discussed before how nerdy animals might develop alternative behaviors to survive. Animals with brains could retain and understand these behaviors to the extent of their cognitive abilities. Thus, each species could have its own culture, to some extent. We know that animals closely related to us evolutionarily can pass on culture – they can teach behaviors, unlike some other animals like birds and others. I’m not sure how much research has been done on the basis for animal culture, whether it’s purely learned behavior passed on or behavior that becomes instinctive over time. There’s a mix of learned and hardwired behaviors in different species, but generally, there’s some room for cultural development among animals.
The concept here is that animals, inherently unaware that they are selecting for specific traits through breeding, can inadvertently do so. Consider a ‘nerdy’ animal, one compelled into flexible behavior due to its less-than-ideal physical attributes. If this animal develops a new behavior that enables it to thrive, it could potentially enhance its reproductive opportunities compared to others who failed to adapt successfully. For instance, if a crab with a disadvantaged claw discovers a novel use for it, this behavior can become advantageous. Should this successful behavior be culturally transmitted within its group, it could shift the ecological niche in favor of this previously less-favored animal. This new behavior, once adopted, becomes a part of the adaptation process and is reinforced culturally.
This perspective isn’t commonly emphasized in discussions about animal evolution. Some evolutionists might consider the role of individual animals making breakthroughs that become culturally ingrained and, over generations, increasingly hardwired. However, I believe this aspect doesn’t receive enough attention. The implication is that such individual adaptations could accelerate evolution beyond what traditional survival-of-the-fittest concepts suggest, which typically focus only on the physically fit reproducing and the less fit struggling to do so, unless a mutation directly confers an advantage.
In conclusion, I think there needs to be more consideration of the agency of individual animals in their survival and how their unique actions can be adopted by the group and contribute to evolutionary change.
[Recording End]
Authors
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
In-Sight Publishing
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 