This comment is quickly going the way of "correlation doesn't equal causation" style of karma-whoring. It's so overused, and more often than not misplaced, that it's a net negative to the discussion.
Yes, evolution doesn't have intentions or goals, but scientists, actual zoologists and evolutionary biologists, speak of "intentions", "goals", etc when speaking of evolutionary processes (just open a Dawkins book). Anthropomorphizing a natural process is a short-hand that allows one to communicate ideas more effectively and more naturally. Everyone knows that there isn't an actual Gaia-like being pulling the strings of nature. Pointing this out is just noise in an otherwise productive conversation.
It's possible that some readers of the article will interpret the phrase that way. For people with a less nuanced understanding of natural selection it suggests that evolution is a directed effort towards certain ends, as though turtles had a say in how their species evolved. Alternatively, that there is some other agency that is deliberately influencing the evolution of species.
Personally I feel like the idea of evolution as a directed effort is a common misunderstanding of natural selection, and I wonder if better science reporting could start to mend those kinds of misconceptions.
I think the idea that evolution has a purpose and a direction is more than common enough that when someone says something like that things that evolve never lack a purpose, they've gone wrong in their understanding of evolution, even if only in subtle ways they may not be aware of themselves.
Anyways, I think the juxtaposition is funny no matter how seriously they meant it. We all want to believe that consciousness is something that can be easily defined and yet our use of aspects of it is extremely fuzzy.
> 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.
There is far too much personification of evolution. It shows up in sloppy science writing, that then shows up in the way people think about it.
"what DNA (or evolution) really wants" "Eventually, some pre-living ribosomes would have associated with bubbles of fatty acids" - as if they have wants and desires, or ability to act with intent.
I think evolution is a kind of alternative religion for many people.
The intentionality it carries is the problem. A lot of the problems in discussing evolution with (amongst other things) religious is the literalism they routinely apply to this meaning.
Evolution has no intent. It's just shit that happens. And we humans are at a technological point where we can modify our culture, our technology, or our own biological nature much faster than evolution, making it a non-issue.
You're right. In fact, most write-ups on Darwinism (and evolution in general) incorporate too much intentionality in their tone when there might be none.
I agree with the sentiment. A lot of this stuff seems to be retrofitted to the observation. You can explain a lot of things through evolution, but to explain all behaviour in terms of it leads to a lot quackery and pseudoscience.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of rigor in these types of papers; a lot of hand waving.
reply