Support for one of Darwin's hypotheses

[lucaspa]

Large theories (and evolution is a large theory) are composed of several major theories and many more minor hypotheses. Imre Lakatos called these relatively minor hypotheses "auxiliarly hypotheses".

Evolution continues to be tested. Altho there are very few tests that have not already been run on the major theories of evolution, the auxiliary hypotheses have many tests yet to be run. A study has been done testing Darwin's hypothesis that competition (the "struggle for existence") is stronger between more closely related species than more distantly related species. The idea is that more closely related species are going to be more similar, thus occupy very similar or the same ecological niches, and therefore compete for the same resources.
Study supports Darwins hypothesis on competition between species | R&D Mag

Now there is strong direct experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis:
"We found that species extinction occurred more frequently and more rapidly between species of microorganisms that were more closely related, providing strong support for Darwin's theory, which we call the phylogenetic limiting similarity hypothesis," said Lin Jiang, an assistant professor in the School of Biology at Georgia Tech.

"conducted experiments with 10 common ciliated protist (creatures that contain a nucleus but are unicellular) species in artificial, simplified ecosystems called microcosms. Diana Nemergut, an assistant professor in the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and the Environmental Studies Program at the Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, helped the team generate a family tree of the 10 microorganisms to determine how closely related the species were.
"We selected bacterivorous [eat bacteria] ciliated protist microorganisms for this study because they rapidly reproduce, allowing us to examine species co-existence over multiple generations in a closed system during a period of a few weeks, which wouldn't be possible if we were testing the hypothesis with plants or animals," said Jiang.
The researchers set up 165 microcosms that contained either an individual protist species or a pairing of two species, along with three types of bacteria for the organisms to eat. They collected weekly samples from each microcosm and examined them under a microscope, recording the presence or absence of species. After 10 weeks, the researchers estimated the density of the protist species in each microcosm.
The study results showed that all species survived until the end of the experiment when alone in a microcosm. However, in more than half of the experiments in which protists were paired together, one of the two species dominated, leading to the extinction of the other species."

"The researchers found that the frequency and speed of this extinction process—called competitive exclusion—was significantly greater between species that were more closely related. In addition, in microcosms where both competitors coexisted for the duration of the experiment, the abundance of the inferior competitor was reduced more as the phylogenetic relatedness between the two competitors increased. "

 

[juvenissun]

Extinction does not have to be an auxiliary hypothesis to evolution. The essence of evolution is the appearance of new species (?), not the disappearance of old species. If I were a reviewer, I will not support this research for the said purpose.

 

[lucaspa]

Extinction does not have to be an auxiliary hypothesis to evolution.

sigh. The auxiliary hypothesis is more competition between closely related species. The result of the competition is reduction in number of individuals in one of the species that might result in extinction of that species. Extinction is an outcome of the competition.

The essence of evolution is the appearance of new species (?), not the disappearance of old species.

Darwin did entitle his book Origin of Species. However, as new species originate, that does raise the question of the fate of existing species, does it not? It also raises the question of the relationship of new species to existing ones. Darwin hypothesized that they would compete for resources. This supports that hypothesis.

If I were a reviewer, I will not support this research for the said purpose.

Since you didn't understand the purpose of the research, your reason for not supporting it would not be valid.

 

[juvenissun]

sigh. The auxiliary hypothesis is more competition between closely related species. The result of the competition is reduction in number of individuals in one of the species that might result in extinction of that species. Extinction is an outcome of the competition.

If so, are we deadly wrong in trying to save some endangered species?

 

[lucaspa]

If so, are we deadly wrong in trying to save some endangered species?

No. That would be the Naturalistic Fallacy. Also, what this study would pertain to is not endangered species. Most of them are not closely related to us. What this study is like is the replacement of the other species of Homo by Homo sapiens. It appears that Homo sapiens -- us -- drove H. ergastor, H. erectus, H. pekiensis, H. neandertals, and H. floriensis to extinction. H. sapiens did this by out-competing the other species for resources.

1. Nearly all endangered species are endangered not because of competition between closely related species, but because humans are destroying their habitat or themselves thru our technology. That technology is not part of the normal biological, climatalogical, or ecological processes on the planet.

2. When we lose a species, we lose biodiversity. Those genomes are lost forever. From a selfish standpoint, humans could need one or more of the genes in those genepools someday. Remember, antibiotics originally came from the genes of molds.

3. As another selfish reason, if the endangered species go extinct, it will disrupt the ecology. Disrupt enough of the ecology, and even our technology cannot keep enough of the biosphere going for our survival. So saving other species and preventing another massive extinction event (which humans are causing) could well prevent our own extinction.

 

[shernren]

microquibble: In Lakatos' use, an auxiliary hypothesis is a minor hypothesis that is sacrificed to save a major hypothesis.

So, for example, when the orbit of Neptune was found to not match theoretical predictions, the major hypothesis of Newton's gravitation was saved by jettisoning the auxiliary hypothesis that there is no unknown massive object perturbing the orbit of Neptune. This jettisoning was justified by the evidence of the discovery of Uranus. But when Mercury's orbit was also found to be anomalous, this time all the auxiliary hypotheses held true (such as that there was no unknown massive perturbing object), and so the major hypothesis had to fall.

I am not aware of any situation where evolutionary researchers have said "Okay, either natural selection is wrong, or natural selection is right but we were wrong to believe that closer species experience stronger competition." Indeed, if there were such a situation, the new discovery would immediately cause the major hypothesis, natural selection, to fall, since the auxiliary hypothesis can no longer be sacrificed.

As such, the hypothesis that "closer species experience stronger competition" is not really an auxiliary hypothesis in Lakatos' usage of the idea. It is still really cool to see how many things Darwin did get right though!

 

[lucaspa]

microquibble: In Lakatos' use, an auxiliary hypothesis is a minor hypothesis that is sacrificed to save a major hypothesis.

It is not necessarily sacrificed. It is a hypothesis that, if wrong, does not affect the central hypotheses of a theory. For instance, phyletic gradualism is an auxiliary hypothesis to natural selection and the gradualness of evolution. In arguing for PE, Gould noted that the core theories of evolution do not depend on the pace or evolution or that natural selection happens on large populations. Evolution is still "gradual" when natural selection works on small, isolated populations. Phyletic gradualism and PE are both auxiliary hypotheses.

So, for example, when the orbit of Neptune was found to not match theoretical predictions, the major hypothesis of Newton's gravitation was saved by jettisoning the auxiliary hypothesis that there is no unknown massive object perturbing the orbit of Neptune.

Sorry, but this is the classic example of an ad hoc hypothesis. There was no auxiliary hypothesis of no extra planet. Instead, the orbit of Uranus appeared to falsify Newtonian gravity. In order to save the theory, an additional hypothesis was advanced: another planet beyond Uranus whose gravity was influencing the orbit of Uranus by Newtonian gravity. The ad hoc hypothesis is designed to save a favored hypothesis from falsification. In this case the existence of another planet beyond Uranus could be tested by the science of optics independent of Newtonian gravity. When Neptune was found, the ad hoc hypothesis was supported and Newtonian gravity avoided falsification.

You will find this example discussed in any general work on the philosophy of science as an example of an ad hoc hypothesis.

Ad hoc hypotheses are one way Popper said theories shielded themselves from naive falsification.

Lakatos said that major theories shielded themselves from naive falsification by belts of auxiliary hypotheses. These are made before testing, not made up after an apparent falsification. That's why you can't rewrite history and the philosophy of science by saying now that there was an auxiliary hypothesis of "no additional planets". No one had ever stated that nor did they invoke it in the discussions.

But when Mercury's orbit was also found to be anomalous, this time all the auxiliary hypotheses held true (such as that there was no unknown massive perturbing object), and so the major hypothesis had to fall.

Newtonian gravitation did not fall upon discovery of the precession of Mercury's orbit. Notice your use of "fall". This is a tip-off that you are in Popper's philosophy of science with falsification instead of Lakatos'. Instead, other ad hoc hypotheses were proposed but all of them failed, too. Still, Newtonian gravity did not "fall" until Einstein proposed Relativity which provided a theory that did explain the orbit.

I am not aware of any situation where evolutionary researchers have said "Okay, either natural selection is wrong, or natural selection is right but we were wrong to believe that closer species experience stronger competition."

Had the data turned out differently, that is what evolutionary biologists would have had to say. That's why the test was done.

Indeed, if there were such a situation, the new discovery would immediately cause the major hypothesis, natural selection, to fall, since the auxiliary hypothesis can no longer be sacrificed.

Shernren, you are mixing up 2 different views of the philosophy of science: Lakatos and Popper. According to Lakatos, the failure of an auxiliary hypothesis does not affect the major hypothesis. That would be the case here. If it had turned out that competition is equal between closely related and distantly related species, natural selection is fine. The competition for scarce resources between individuals of the same species is unaffected, and that is necessary for natural selection. Natural selection does not depend on competition between different species. If the hypothesis was wrong, it would simply mean that there was the same amount or more competition coming from distantly related species. So the hypothesis is exactly an auxiliary hypothesis as Lakatos' meant it.

Lakatos' doesn't use falsification much. He uses the idea of "progressing" or "degenerating" research programmes. In Lakatos' terms, but creationism and evolution are research programmes. Evolution is a progressive programme and creationism is a degenerating one.

 

[juvenissun]

1. Nearly all endangered species are endangered not because of competition between closely related species, but because humans are destroying their habitat or themselves thru our technology. That technology is not part of the normal biological, climatalogical, or ecological processes on the planet.

So you are saying that our way of "competition" is different from the ways of other species? Why should we be different? Are we also evolved animals? Why is our way of competition be treated as an unfair one?

 

[lucaspa]

So you are saying that our way of "competition" is different from the ways of other species? Why should we be different? Are we also evolved animals? Why is our way of competition be treated as an unfair one?

1. Yes, we evolved.
2. We differ from other species in 2 adaptations:

a. The ability to make tools to make other tools.
b. The ability of complex speech for abstract thought
​

From these 2 adaptations comes our technology. A technology that no other species has or has ever had. That technology can alter environments to an unprecedented degree, extent, and speed in earth history. Many species alter environments, such as beavers when they build a dam and turn a meadow into a pond. However, humans alter environments over a much greater area whenever we put in a new subdivision of houses. And we do thousands of subdivisions. We also alter thousands of lakes at a time with acid rain, not to mention raising the average temperature of the entire earth by burning fossil fuels and increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the environment.

Thus, as a species, we change environments faster than natural selection can adapt the populations. In addition, our technology allows us to kill millions of animals or plants. When Europeans first arrived in North America, flocks of passenger pigeons would darken the sun. Less than 300 years later they were extinct. Tens of millions of buffalo, and hunters nearly drove the species extinct in 20 years. Again, this is unprecedented for any other species.

3. So yes, instead of acting on closely related species, our actions act on millions of species that are not closely related. Only once before has a species had the ability generate a mass extinction.

4. Remember I said there was the Naturalistic Fallacy? That fallacy is: what happens in nature is how humans ought to behave. It extrapolates what happens in nature to human ethics. So yes, humans can and do cause extinction of species not closely related to us. Should we cause such extinctions? That's a separate issue. You are trying to tie the issues together: because we have the ability and are doing it, then it is OK (ethically right) for us to do so. Naturalistic Fallacy.

So, separate from the selfish issues for us to keep biological diversity, there is the ethical issue of whether we should continue to use our technology such that we drive other species to extinction. I say "NO".

Now, science is not a system of ethics. Science can only tell us what is or what the consequences of actions will be. Ethics come from other sources. I draw my ethics here from one of theological messages of Genesis 1: we have dominion over the earth and are acting as binding agents of God. Destroying God's creatures when we don't have to is not a proper way, IMO, to exercise our dominion.

 

[juvenissun]

1. Yes, we evolved.
2. We differ from other species in 2 adaptations:

a. The ability to make tools to make other tools.
b. The ability of complex speech for abstract thought
​

From these 2 adaptations comes our technology. A technology that no other species has or has ever had. That technology can alter environments to an unprecedented degree, extent, and speed in earth history. Many species alter environments, such as beavers when they build a dam and turn a meadow into a pond. However, humans alter environments over a much greater area whenever we put in a new subdivision of houses. And we do thousands of subdivisions. We also alter thousands of lakes at a time with acid rain, not to mention raising the average temperature of the entire earth by burning fossil fuels and increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the environment.

Thus, as a species, we change environments faster than natural selection can adapt the populations. In addition, our technology allows us to kill millions of animals or plants. When Europeans first arrived in North America, flocks of passenger pigeons would darken the sun. Less than 300 years later they were extinct. Tens of millions of buffalo, and hunters nearly drove the species extinct in 20 years. Again, this is unprecedented for any other species.

3. So yes, instead of acting on closely related species, our actions act on millions of species that are not closely related. Only once before has a species had the ability generate a mass extinction.

4. Remember I said there was the Naturalistic Fallacy? That fallacy is: what happens in nature is how humans ought to behave. It extrapolates what happens in nature to human ethics. So yes, humans can and do cause extinction of species not closely related to us. Should we cause such extinctions? That's a separate issue. You are trying to tie the issues together: because we have the ability and are doing it, then it is OK (ethically right) for us to do so. Naturalistic Fallacy.

So, separate from the selfish issues for us to keep biological diversity, there is the ethical issue of whether we should continue to use our technology such that we drive other species to extinction. I say "NO".

Now, science is not a system of ethics. Science can only tell us what is or what the consequences of actions will be. Ethics come from other sources. I draw my ethics here from one of theological messages of Genesis 1: we have dominion over the earth and are acting as binding agents of God. Destroying God's creatures when we don't have to is not a proper way, IMO, to exercise our dominion.

Why should ethics come into the picture? Where is the role of ethics in the process of evolution? Evolution is science. We are evolved, then why shouldn't we do whatever we can do for our benefit, even sometimes some people are overdoing it. Nevertheless, we are the species who can overdo things, that is also an evolved nature, what is wrong of doing it?

Yes, I am a little off to the OP. But that is the point of argument I pick. In particular, when you tried to apply evolution to human.

 

[gluadys]

Why should ethics come into the picture? Where is the role of ethics in the process of evolution? Evolution is science. We are evolved, then why shouldn't we do whatever we can do for our benefit, even sometimes some people are overdoing it. Nevertheless, we are the species who can overdo things, that is also an evolved nature, what is wrong of doing it?

Yes, I am a little off to the OP. But that is the point of argument I pick. In particular, when you tried to apply evolution to human.

Perhaps you don't understand what lucaspa meant by Naturalistic Fallacy.

The argument of the Naturalistic Fallacy is that whatever nature allows is right for humans. Nature, for example, allows a preying mantis to be cannabalistic (the females normally eat the males after mating with them). So, the reasoning goes, it is ok for humans to be cannibals as well. ( I expect you are happy human females don't imitate preying mantis females.)

I hope this example shows why human ethics need not be governed by what nature allows for other species.

You are right in the first place. There is no reason to bring ethics into evolution. Evolution is just a scientific description of our biological origin.

By the same token there is no reason to bring evolution into ethics. There is no reason for human ethics to be based solely on our biological nature present or past. That would be committing ourselves to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Evolution and other fields of science can tell us what is--not what ought to be.

Determining what ought to be is a different matter entirely and a study of evolution won't necessarily be helpful.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps you don't understand what lucaspa meant by Naturalistic Fallacy.

The argument of the Naturalistic Fallacy is that whatever nature allows is right for humans. Nature, for example, allows a preying mantis to be cannabalistic (the females normally eat the males after mating with them). So, the reasoning goes, it is ok for humans to be cannibals as well. ( I expect you are happy human females don't imitate preying mantis females.)

I hope this example shows why human ethics need not be governed by what nature allows for other species.

You are right in the first place. There is no reason to bring ethics into evolution. Evolution is just a scientific description of our biological origin.

By the same token there is no reason to bring evolution into ethics. There is no reason for human ethics to be based solely on our biological nature present or past. That would be committing ourselves to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Evolution and other fields of science can tell us what is--not what ought to be.

Determining what ought to be is a different matter entirely and a study of evolution won't necessarily be helpful.

I see what you said. But it does not answer my question: why should we be blamed for the extinction of other species?

I know we should, but not according to evolution. So if evolution were true, then we should not. Otherwise, we should. You can't get it both way.

 

[gluadys]

I see what you said. But it does not answer my question: why should we be blamed for the extinction of other species?

I know we should, but not according to evolution. So if evolution were true, then we should not. Otherwise, we should. You can't get it both way.

You may have seen what I said, but you haven't understood it.

You are still saying that if evolution were true, it would mean we should not be blamed for the disappearance of species we have driven (and are driving) to extinction. That is still saying that evolution can apportion praise or blame. That is still thinking in terms of the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Evolution cannot apportion praise or blame or say what is right or wrong behaviour. Evolution being true does not tell us it is ok to drive other species to extinction. The fact of evolution does not make the attitudes and actions toward other species which lead to mass extinction any more or less blameworthy than it is on ethical grounds.

Evolution is simply irrelevant as a source for ethical decisions.

Christians need to base their attitudes and actions on God's love for all his creatures. That is what makes extinction through human neglect and carelessness blameworthy. We are, after all, supposed to be caring for this planet and all the animals God placed in our keeping.

Evolution being true doesn't change that.

 

[theFijian]

You may have seen what I said, but you haven't understood it.

You are still saying that if evolution were true, it would mean we should not be blamed for the disappearance of species we have driven (and are driving) to extinction. That is still saying that evolution can apportion praise or blame. That is still thinking in terms of the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Evolution cannot apportion praise or blame or say what is right or wrong behaviour. Evolution being true does not tell us it is ok to drive other species to extinction. The fact of evolution does not make the attitudes and actions toward other species which lead to mass extinction any more or less blameworthy than it is on ethical grounds.

Evolution is simply irrelevant as a source for ethical decisions.

Christians need to base their attitudes and actions on God's love for all his creatures. That is what makes extinction through human neglect and carelessness blameworthy. We are, after all, supposed to be caring for this planet and all the animals God placed in our keeping.

Evolution being true doesn't change that.

QFT

 

[juvenissun]

You may have seen what I said, but you haven't understood it.

You are still saying that if evolution were true, it would mean we should not be blamed for the disappearance of species we have driven (and are driving) to extinction. That is still saying that evolution can apportion praise or blame. That is still thinking in terms of the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Evolution cannot apportion praise or blame or say what is right or wrong behaviour. Evolution being true does not tell us it is ok to drive other species to extinction. The fact of evolution does not make the attitudes and actions toward other species which lead to mass extinction any more or less blameworthy than it is on ethical grounds.

Evolution is simply irrelevant as a source for ethical decisions.

Christians need to base their attitudes and actions on God's love for all his creatures. That is what makes extinction through human neglect and carelessness blameworthy. We are, after all, supposed to be caring for this planet and all the animals God placed in our keeping.

Evolution being true doesn't change that.

I forgot one thing: I was talking to TE people. Only TE could make this odd theology stand.

Evolution plus Ethics. It could never make sense to me.