The one thing that tends to gloss my eyes over was the multiple claims about how genes or evolution care about us living until reproducing and then we can be tossed aside (okay, not quite what you said but....)
Neither genes nor evolution really gives a damn about that or anything else. Neither have any awareness of anything. We’re really just talking about chemicals and chemical reaction that occur in what seems a fairly stable organism. Yes, the species, and pretty much all larger life dies out if it fails to reproduce at some rate. But I find the claims that something cares or is following some type of plan (certainly not of the Intelligent Design type but seems to be some purpose or telos implied). I think that is mostly humans projecting and doesn’t really help understand.
So for me the focus more on the how rather than some why aspect is of significantly more interest.
Thanks for the feedback! I plan on anthropomorphizing evolution freely in this series of posts, because I think that for most readers, describing evolution in this way is more intuitive. I am making the assumption that any serious reader is fully aware that evolution has no actual teleology. Since this isn’t focused on explaining the basics of evolutionary theory to readers, it unfortunately won’t cure somebody who’s so confused about evolution as to think it actually has a teleology or goal.
Good question. Anthropomorphizing isn’t necessary, it is just easier to write quickly in colloquial language, which is the tone I’m striving for here. I can’t think of a clearer short colloquial summary of antagonistic pleiotropy than “evolutionary favoritism of the young,” and though it does anthropomorphize, I think it gets the point across effectively as long as one doesn’t object to anthropomorphizing evolution on principle.
I am interested in seeing more of these. Thanks.
The one thing that tends to gloss my eyes over was the multiple claims about how genes or evolution care about us living until reproducing and then we can be tossed aside (okay, not quite what you said but....)
Neither genes nor evolution really gives a damn about that or anything else. Neither have any awareness of anything. We’re really just talking about chemicals and chemical reaction that occur in what seems a fairly stable organism. Yes, the species, and pretty much all larger life dies out if it fails to reproduce at some rate. But I find the claims that something cares or is following some type of plan (certainly not of the Intelligent Design type but seems to be some purpose or telos implied). I think that is mostly humans projecting and doesn’t really help understand.
So for me the focus more on the how rather than some why aspect is of significantly more interest.
Thanks for the feedback! I plan on anthropomorphizing evolution freely in this series of posts, because I think that for most readers, describing evolution in this way is more intuitive. I am making the assumption that any serious reader is fully aware that evolution has no actual teleology. Since this isn’t focused on explaining the basics of evolutionary theory to readers, it unfortunately won’t cure somebody who’s so confused about evolution as to think it actually has a teleology or goal.
This seems a bit counterintuitive. The “serious reader” by definition is willing to spend more time to carefully read something that’s unintuitive.
Why is the anthropomorphizing for more intuitive reading necessary if that’s your target audience?
Good question. Anthropomorphizing isn’t necessary, it is just easier to write quickly in colloquial language, which is the tone I’m striving for here. I can’t think of a clearer short colloquial summary of antagonistic pleiotropy than “evolutionary favoritism of the young,” and though it does anthropomorphize, I think it gets the point across effectively as long as one doesn’t object to anthropomorphizing evolution on principle.