Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Fri 15 Jul 2005 09:38 AM PDT
043 d&j. Re: Request for help from those who are familiar with both biological science and Integral Yoga
From: "Jan Maslow" <jmaslow@jps.net>
To: scienceandspirit@sriaurobindocenter-la.com
Subject: Re: Request for help from those who are familiar with both biological science and Integral Yoga
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:37:37 -0400
Message - 043/149
Hi Michael
Thanks so much for your helpful and insightful comments. We do try in
earlier portions of the book to lay out the metaphysical foundations
for what we're presenting. The book has evolved (!) from a somewhat
academic style to a more experiential style, so we generally avoid too
much purely scholarly discussion (I was originally planning to have a
whole chapter laying out some 6 or 7 different theories of
consciousness, from physicalism to pan-experientialism; mercifully,
that idea was laid aside long ago). We do point out in the chapter from
which the evolution excerpt was taken that the data of science ï¬t
equally with materialist, dualist and idealist views. Early in the
course of working on this book, I came across a very interesting book
by neuroscientist Donald Hoffman from California Institute of
Technology in which he elaborates Matthijs' point about the illusions
of our sense perception in some detail, and explains why idealism and
dualism are as good (and in many respects better) explanations for the
data of science than physicalism (otherwise known as materialism or
"the view from nowhere").
As I mentioned, we received comments from 2 biologists. Most of
what they wrote consisted of surprisingly heated and defensive
reactions which showed a general misunderstanding of the philosophic
background of what we're writing. In their defense, we only sent them
this limited section, which doesn't fully lay out that background.
Anyway, here' are two comments that one professor made which are
strictly about biology. Since, as we said in the previous letter, we
have little background in biological science, we assume he's correct
and we've made some errorr. But I don't even know enough to be sure -
we used texts by Elisabet Sahtouris and Mae Wan-Ho as our main
reference, and thought we were reporting accurately what they said. If
anybody on this list understands evolutionary biology (or knows someone
we could write to who does) we'd really appreciate their help. We do
plan to write to Sahtouris and Wan-Ho, but we'd really appreciate
comments from someone who is familiar with Mother and Sri Aurobindo.
WE WROTE:
According to current evolutionary theory, it is chance biological
mutations that play the fundamental role in determining whether various
plant and animal species survive or die out. The emergence of
altogether new species is thought to be determined in the same way. Are
there ï¬ndings and/or theories which offer a plausible account of how
intelligence might play a role in this process?
Many mutations that occur are maladaptive; as a result of these
mutations, a species can no longer survive and eventually dies out. Is
it possible that there is some process of intelligent choice involved
in the development of such maladaptive mutations? We are not aware of
any scientiï¬c theories which suggest that is the case. However, if we
allow for the possibility that virtually all the processes or "laws" of
physical nature are in some way supported by conscious intelligence,
then there would also be room for some sort of intelligence to be at
work even in maladaptive mutations.
THE PROFESSOR RESPONDED:
It is incorrect to say that species die out because of accumulated
maladaptive mutations. Rather, mutations that are maladaptive are not
passed on and proliferated in the population because the individual
that ï¬rst has them fails to reproduce. Extinctions occur because the
population lacks the diversity of individuals that would increase the
probability that some would survive to reproduce in the face of
environmental change. Extinction is not a result of many maladaptive
mutations, but rather a result of the lack of adaptive ones. Because
future changes in the environment are unpredictable, adaptive mutation
can not happen, especially because each individual is born with the
genes that worked in the last generation and might not work in the
current generation if conditions change. Thus, natural selection is
always one generation behind rather than a generation ahead. The only
example that I can think of where an evolutionary biologist would argue
that accumulated maladaptive mutations could cause extinction is in the
very few, relatively slowly reproducing, asexual species (like some
parthenogenetic lizards), and even in this case the environmental
change argument is more likely.
OUR RESPONSE: As far as I can see, we didn't actually say that
maladaptive mutations "accumulate". But I think we did make the mistake
of asserting that maladaptive mutations lead to extinction rather than,
as the professor said, the lack of adaptive mutations . Our question
is, do we need to anything more in these two paragraphs above than to
correct the error about maladaptive mutations leading to extinction?
WE WROTE:
On the other hand, biologist Elisabet Sahtouris asserts that there
is much evidence that organisms can intelligently respond to mutations
which are recognized as errors: "Rather than being the sources of
variation and evolution, errors known to occur in DNA during
reproduction and by cosmic radiation or other accidents, are recognized
at the molecular level and ï¬xed by repair genes. Thus we see
intelligence at work not only in higher brains, but in the lowliest of
bacteria and cellular components."
Biologists have also found a role for intelligence in bringing
about genetic change in response to the environment. Sahtouris writes
that there is over "ï¬fty years of research evidence that DNA
reorganizes itself intelligently when organisms are environmentally
stressed". She cites biologist Mae Wan-Ho's observations of live
bacteria responding to changes in the environment by means of
appropriate mutations, more rapidly than would be possible through
natural selection. Sahtouris also describes an experiment by Barry
Hall, who "found that when E. coli in a solution of salicin was given
little other nourishment, it underwent two otherwise rare mutations
together at a rate thousands of times higher than in normal growth,
making itself able to use the salicin. [Hall] suggested, 'that cells
have some means of recognizing what would be an advantageous mutation
and increasing the chance that it occurs.'"
THE PROFESSOR RESPONDED:
More to the point she is incorrectly discussing the molecular
machinery that all organisms have that corrects copy errors during DNA
replication. Here she is talking about proteins (not the genes as she
states, but their protein products - the genes themselves are not
involved) and imbuing them with intelligence. The protein is simply
responding to a chemical environment in a particular way. It is
complex, yes. It is amazing, yes. But it is a chemical reaction just
the same. A complex and amazing chemical reaction does not constitute
intelligence itself nor does it suggest that it was designed by an
intelligent being. This argument is misleading as well as logically and
factually incorrect.
OUR RESPONSE: The speciï¬c scientiï¬c point he seems to be making here -
apart from his comments about the role that intelligence plays (or
doesn't play) in the chemical reaction - is that it is a protein, not a
"repair gene" that is responsible for the response. Is that correct? Is
Sahtouris really making what appears from his point of view to be such
a major factual error?
Thanks for any help with this.
Don
Attachment: