Dr. Jonathan Losos - Does Evolution have a destiny? 

another one?! Wow Sam, you're going to catch up to me on volume! :)

The bayesian statistic move was brilliant and he slept on it.

Love the evolution podcasts - you bring interesting guests and good questions and thoughts to the table - thank you!

Damn this is a fascinating conversation, thanks for posting this Sam! I had no idea convergent evolution was so prevalent.

What a delightful and informative conversation. I particularly love when very smart people can communicate in an accessible and engaging way, really made the topic come alive. Kudos, I learned a lot.

I'm going to post this journal entry I wrote, roughly 3 years ago now, Sam, on the rough chance you may want to speak to me about this at some point. I also just had a conversation with Mcmosav on Beauty on Chad's channel- though it was more heart-focused than head-focused. Implications of 'The Evolution of Beauty' by Richard O. Prum I just started reading this book after having heard of it several years ago. But what I also remember hearing years ago when I heard about it was that this book flies in the face of modern evolutionary theory. It specifically attacks and undermines the belief that beauty in nature is nothing more than a display indicator showing the general 'fitness' of the owner/creator of the beauty. This is the mainstream belief in evolutionary theory: that things like the Peacocks tail, being big and beautiful, are simply indicators of other fitness, such as good genes, good diet, ability to find food, etc., and THAT's why female peacocks choose them males with the greatest (most beautiful) displays on their peacock tail. Although I just started listening to the book, I believe what Dr. Prum is asserting is that belief is fundamentally wrong- I.E., there is factor of mate choice, especially female mate choice, that is separate from, and independent of reproductive fitness. I.E., natural selection is a multi-variate phenomena, and not a single-variate phenomena. He goes on to say later that Natural Selection and Sexual Selection are two competing and intertwined forces that both act in determining which individuals reproduce and which do not. He jokes early on in the book, as he was talking through his theories with another evolutionary biologist, when he gets to the natural conclusion, the other biologist bursts out loud, "but that's NIHILISM!" He's basically poking evolutionary biologists in the axioms- the fundamental axioms that all of evolution can simply be explained in the single lens of objective natural selection. Objective is my word, because it is what I feel most clearly delineates what Dr. Prum is saying from the mainstream assertion. Objective means... measurable. I.E., that there are ways of measuring fitness, and thus extrapolating and calculating how evolution would take (and has taken) place. Prum makes the assertion that 'no', that's not a sufficient explanatory principle- but rather it is one of the explanatory principles, the other being subjective mate choice. And this, in his view, is driven by, for lack of a better word, 'beauty'. The reasons it hits evolutionary biologists in the axioms (not just pokes) is because: 1. It makes evolution, to a large extent, unpredictable (he even talks about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in that two things can't be predicted at the same time) - since the subjective experience of a bird cannot be predicted 2. It decreases the separation of us from the animals. This is alarming because I think it also undermines the postmodern view that reality is entirely subjective. It's like, "nope, there is such a thing as objective beauty standards (the objective subjective), and it crosses species." It speaks to some underlying reality that all life forms are beholden to, or at least shaped by, and that brings us to the last point... 3. I think it's also because it seems to smuggle in 'God'. Jesus smuggling, as Sam Harris would put it- but not necessarily Jesus, but at least God. Or at the very least, it smuggles in an inherent OBJECTIVE reality of beauty into the world. A force that cannot be predicted or measured, and yet is still there. A force that doesn't seem to have any practical purpose other than for the APPRECIATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE. I.E., it seems to have no practical purpose other than for that which is CONSCIOUS. This is, single-handedly then, the single most potent piece of evidence that I've seen is that the universe is built for consciousness, or at least with consciousness in mind, not the other way around. Most modern theories of mind believe consciousness came into being specifically as an adaptive mechanism- I.E., natural selection. And certainly, it is the case. But then why would beauty undermine that? That is indeed the question Prum poses. And yet... the mainstream opinion is that he is wrong. That there is just natural selection, and beauty is simply a signal of how fit a member of the species is. But what if he's right? I'm going to extrapolate and speculate considerably here. If he's right, then there are two forces that work in tandem to make natural selection come about. I'll call the first force natural fitness. The second force is something I'll call the spirit of the ideal. Now, although I'm not smuggling in God here, I am smuggling in the Holy Spirit. Because what I have in mind is really a parallel. My conception of the spirit of the ideal is the Holy Spirit manifested itself in each living being. To the extent that we're able to see that spirit of the ideal in another, we're able to see that spirit of God in another (and in living beings as well). But there's both the measure of to what extent that individual truly acts out the spirit of the ideal, AND to what extent each other individual is able to perceive/discern (correctly) that spirit of the ideal. In Christian terms (or even modern fairy tale terms), this would be the difference between lust/infatuation and true love. To the extent that one is able to see the spirit of the ideal in the other, and that is reciprocated, it is, as one could state, true love. The reason that I believe Prum may be onto something in his fundamental argument is that I think he's exactly right when it comes to humans. I think he nails it perfectly. And there is no better example I can think of this than the story of Beauty and the Beast (the 1991 film). Take Gaston. By every measure, Gaston should be the one for Belle. Gaston is most 'fit' human that she knows. And further still, he is at the apex of the male dominance hierarchy. I.E., from a natural fitness standpoint, he's got it all. The contrast in Gaston is the spirit of Gaston vs. The form of Gaston. Just looking at form, he's a perfect 10. But looking at the spirit, he's an abysmal 0. And this is what separates the shallow women in the beginning of the movie, swooning at Gaston, from Belle, who gets it. Belle, who sees the spiritual principle- the spirit of the ideal- in everything and everyone she sees. Her discernment ability- her ability to see this spirit- and then her willingness to act on it no matter what- this IS what makes her the hero of the story. But now is where the speculation starts to get really dangerous. Because, if we have this discernment within humans- the natural fitness of the thing vs. The spirit of the ideal of the thing- is it so far to be a stretch as to be present in other animals? Now, at this point, I bet the evolutionary biologists would make the argument that, "No, Gaston's 'spirit' is also encapsulated in his fitness." And the reason the evolutionary biologists could make this argument is because humans are capable of extrapolating a pattern of behavior through time. I.E., Belle is not only choosing the man as he is NOW, but according to what he will ever be from what she can extrapolate of the man through time. Certainly, there is some of that. But here's the thing: is that conscious? Is it really conscious? Because I don't think so. I think fundamentally, most of it, in terms of sheer feminine attraction of the masculine is unconscious. I think it's true that the spirit of the ideal aligns closely with this sense of being able to extrapolate how a man will do over the course of his life. I think those two things are fairly closely aligned. But where one is conscious (the extrapolation), the other is not. I don't see pair bonding beginning as a conscious exercise. Rather it starts as an unconscious attraction, and only later, and only in small doses at a time do women (and men) explore what that relationship means over the course of their lives. And often, quite frankly, they don't explore it enough! I.E., there unconsciousness pushes them into doing things that are reckless. And you might say, "But Neal! That undermines your whole premise! Because why would the spirit of the ideal lead them astray!" But you see, it's also the 'form' attraction that is unconscious as well. It's both. And to the extent that the female is able to unconsciously discern between them- and then ALSO supplement that with conscious discernment- is the extent to which the female will be successful in choosing the right long-term mate. So now, if that discernment is primarily unconscious, or at least TO START, unconscious... then why is it such a far leap to say that the same mechanism was inherited from animals? That animals possess the same 'spirit' of discernment of the spirit of the ideal? Alright, so now I'm going to take the final (and crazy) leap- crazy idea that popped into my head. Prum is focused on aesthetics. Yes, there is aesthetic beauty, to be sure, but does it have to be ONLY aesthetics? From our perspective of animals, aesthetics is all we can see. All we have is our senses to get a sense of animals. But taking this a step beyond... a step deeper... when it comes to humans, we can appreciate beauty in aesthetics, yes, but we can also appreciate beauty in abstract concepts. This is similar to the divide between 'openness to ideas' and 'openness to aesthetics' psychological factors of the 'O' part of the OCEAN, Big 5 psychological model.

Really enjoyed this interview. Will you be doing a follow-up with your thoughts on any theological implications from your perspective?

53:00 i seem to remember a Star Trek episode of Sauropods who evolved from dinosaurs… can’t recall the episode at this juncture. I believe either Voyager or DS9

21:59 you’ll notice that when most scientists are given an idea/intuition that they’ve never considered before, it falls on deaf ears. It’s only once there’s been a sufficient number of ‘pings’ in a scientists’ mind on a given front will they pursue that avenue. Similar to Edward Bernays observations on what makes advertisements effective.

I am curious what work has been done on the intersection of information theory with evolution and the origin of the universe. Anybody know? I don't know enough about either to speculate but I have often wondered.

Just bobbing back to say that a JBP / Dawkins combo came back to me - the idea that any given evolved organism will be a microcosm of the environment it evolved in. So you can determine from the anatomy of a bird various things about gravity, temperature, atmosphere etc. Does that have any bearing on convergent evolution? JBP says that the microcosm idea means we can say something about humans and the logos, which is all fine and dandy if you like that kind of thing. But I don't know - I just have a niggle that these two ideas are maybe saying the same thing in different ways? Organisms will evolve to converge on any given niche, and also that organisms are microcosms of their environment. I think those ideas support each other, and maybe make something like humans inevitable...? Even inevitable if you just look at the basic laws of the physical universe?

28:00 this is why i’m not overly worried about the Collins’s population decline doomsday scenario

Really great dialogue Sam! The protestant church that transgressed against you should appoint you their pastor because you would be able to explain to their children how God is the Most Patient God and how he works in slow and meticolous ways throughout the history of our Universe which is in accordance with Scripture. Instead they continue teaching their children that they can dictate to God how fast He can work in creation and this leads to many of their children leaving Christianity when they grow up and study the natural sciences. Have you double checked if you can find Sankt Ephraims works in English? Otherwise I stand ready to translate both ”the Hymns of Faith” and the ”Hymns of Paradise” to you.

55:51 on Earth as it is in Heaven?

I need to hear more religious perspectives on evolution. This has been the hardest doctrinal transition I’ve ever had to get over. I went to private Christian schools and homeschooled growing up. Basically all Christian Science text books are anti-evolution.

The Jesus smuggling starts at 34:00 if you were wondering.

Did you hesitate to ask him even bigger questions? Origin of life? Intelligence guided evolution?

Cat make this for real

Seems like theres some Lamarckism going on.

But, but... We know evolution is wrong, 'cause "God." Right?