“Purpose and Desire”: a misguided biology book that got a starred review on Kirkus

On November 7,  I called attention to a new book by biology professor J. Scott Turner, “Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something ‘Alive’ and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It,” and how the book got a starred Kirkus review despite its avowed intent to put teleology (goal-directed evolution) back into biology.  Turner works at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York, so he’s got biology cred. But he also admits he’s a Christian, the book’s production was funded by the Templeton Foundation, the book defends intelligent design pretty strongly at the end, and Purpose and Desire was endorsed on the Amazon page by Discovery Institute IDers Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer.

I questioned the book’s credibility based on these summaries and a bit of other stuff I read, but since Turner beefed about my criticisms, saying I hadn’t read the whole book, and because Kirkus gave it a star, I broke down and read, at great expense to my digestion, the whole damn thing, and finished it last night.

I stand by what I said then: this is a wonky, mushbrained attempt to put the notion of an external “purpose” back into evolution, and I suspect that that purpose comes from religion. Turner’s endorsement by luminaries (rather, “darkinaries”) from the Discovery Institute, its touting by the Discovery Institute as “a riveting instance of intellectual and scientific rediscovery,” its funding by Templeton, and Turner’s avowal of Christianity, makes me think that there’s an agenda behind the arguments. But never mind that, the arguments can be refuted on their own, and I’ll take up just a few of them here.  Also, Kirkus SUCKS, because they couldn’t even get a decent biologist to write the summary. It got a STAR! What a world!

Now Turner is canny: he won’t admit that God is the motive force that imparts a purpose to the organism’s evolution; rather, he says it’s “homeostasis”, which basically comes down to his claim that an organism’s evolution, and that includes microbes and plants, is directed by its striving. Birds, for instance, evolved wings and feathers not because natural selection favored those features, but because protobirds wanted to fly.  Turner defends this viewpoint by citing homeostasis, which is a well-accepted biological concept that organisms have systems to keep their bodies and surroundings constant. They regulate their temperature by behavior or metabolism, they tend to hew to particular environments, mechanisms exist to keep blood pH constant, and so on.

But that kind of homeostasis can be easily understood as a product of natural selection, not as some instantiation of a numinous “striving”. In fact, we can artificially select for organisms to increase or decrease the amount of constancy in various traits, showing that there is selectable genetic variation for homeostasis. There’s no need to evoke some “will” of the organism to explain how it evolves. “Homeostasis” is, I suspect, Turner’s code word for “God.”

A huge section of Turner’s book is devoted to the history of ideas that evolution involved striving, will, and teleology, but it fails to convince anyone but the already-convinced of Turner’s notion that Darwinism is not only flawed, but completely outmoded. Although he mentions the theory of evolution lots of times, what’s missing is any recognition that it was a genuine intellectual advance. Rather, he finds it full of holes, many of them being our current failure to understand how life originated (true, but that doesn’t mean we default to teleology), the fact that neo-Darwinism is based almost entirely on mathematical models rather than data (he’s dead wrong here), the fact that evolutionists are simply close-minded and won’t even consider teleology (not true; if there were evidence for it, the finder would become famous), and so on. These are simply gussied-up creationist arguments, worded so as to avoid sounding creationist. No wonder Templeton gave the guy dosh!

Now you might be asking yourself, “How can a plant or a bacterium have any striving since they’re not conscious?” Turner gets around that with a word salad like this (p. 221):

“The extended organism, defined as it is as a focus of homeostasis, is actually a cognitive organism, cognitive in the same sense that the coalition of sulfur-breathing bacteria and spirochetes from the previous chapter constituted a cognitive entity. Homeostasis involves coupling information about the state of the environment on one side of an adaptive boundary to the matter and energy flows across the adaptive boundary. Now the notion of what individuality is becomes clearer: the individual is a cognitive being that has a sense of itself as something distinct from the environment.”

Well, you can define “cognition” that way, just as I can define my aunt to be my uncle, but it doesn’t add any teleology, self-awareness or striving to evolution.

In fact, from the outset Turner seemingly doesn’t understand evolution by natural selection, and uses the argument below to say that whole idea is simply a tautology (that’s another creationist tactic). From page 8:

“In reality, our conception of adaptation rests on a very shaky foundation.  To illustrate, consider how a recent (and admirable) textbook of evolution put it: ‘Adaptations are the product of natural selection, while adaptation is the response to natural selection.’ This demonstrates, in one short and elegantly crafted sentence, The Problem: our current conception of this core evolutionary idea is essentially meaningless. What is adaptation? The product of natural selection! What is natural selection? The outcome of adaptation!

This type of reasoning is formally known as a tautology. . .”

Turner makes this argument over and over again, but it’s flat wrong. This is an updated version of the creationist argument that evolution is tautology because it posits “survival of the fittest,” but then judges the fittest to be those who survive. And that truly is a tautology, but that’s not how evolutionists ply their trade. Our working theory is that adaptations evolve because their constituent genes improve survival and reproduction. And that idea is not tautological, but can be tested.

If we think, for example, that mimicry evolved because mimetic individuals avoid detection by a predator, or warning coloration evolved because it scares off predators, we can (and have) tested these ideas. If evolution were simply a tautology in the way Turner posits, there wouldn’t be experimental evolutionary biology. Think, for instance, of how recent experimental work militated against the hypothesis that zebras evolved stripes because it helps camouflage them or confuse predators, and in favor of the view that stripes deter biting flies. That’s how one scenario was refuted and the other supported. You couldn’t do that if adaptation were simply a tautology.

Further, there is a nonadaptationist theory of evolution: the neutral theory. This theory is testable, has been confirmed for some bits of DNA, and posits that those bits evolve nonadaptively, by random genetic drift. That predicts that nonfunctional genes (pseudogenes) would evolve rapidly, with changes in the once-coding sections, and that’s been confirmed. The fact that Turner flaunts the “tautology” argument over and over again mystifies me. It’s not any kind of flaw in modern evolutionary theory, but he acts as if it is.

I won’t go on; the book is full of mistakes and misunderstandings of modern evolutionary biology (he says, for example, that “the gene is an agent of stasis, not of change, and this means the gene cannot be an agent of Darwinian evolution”, which is arrant nonsense). I’ll just give you his version of how flight evolved in birds. First Turner points out problems with existing scenarios for flight (I think these problems are grossly exaggerated for scenarios like “top down” flight in which feathers originally evolved for thermoregulation and then were coopted for gliding), and then offers his own “solution” on pp. 288-289, which pains me to type out. The emphasis is mine:

“And so we are left again tied in knots, necessitated by the need of modern evolutionism to exclude the one thing that could cut through it all: the ‘cauliflower’ type of agency—that form of agency driven by intentionality, striving, purpose, and desire. Could it be that birds fly, not because they were beneficiaries of lucky exaptations that enabled them to fly, but rather because, in a deep sense, the ancestors of birds wanted to fly? They wanted to glide from tree to tree, or chase after a tasty lunch, or launch themselves up trees to avoid being lunch themselves. And those wants have dragged the genes into the future in their tumultuous intentional wake. And this makes evolution at root a phenomenon of cognition, of intentionality, of purpose, of desire—of homeostasis.”

Yes, and bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotics because they wanted, in a “deep sense”, not to be killed by drugs. Gag me with a spoon.

I’m sorry, but Turner has written a dreadful book, and Kirkus misjudged its quality entirely. He will defend it, of course, by criticizing this review on his website, but he’ll only meet with the ultimate signs of failure: his book has (and will be) accepted by creationists and ID advocates, while being roundly rejected by evolutionists. Of course, we’ll do that, he’ll say, because we’re sworn to dismiss any evidence of teleology. And so Turner will age, raging against the dying of his thesis without admitting—or even perhaps recognizing—that his book is simply deeply and cleverly disguised creationism. It’s a sophisticated exercise in wish thinking and confirmation bias.

Is it a surprise that this book was published by HarperOne, the religion and “spirituality” arm of Harper Collins publishing?

 

53 Comments

  1. Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Betteridge’s “Law of Headlines” says that: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no”.”

    The same applies to rhetoric such as: “Could it be that birds fly, not because they were beneficiaries of lucky exaptations that enabled them to fly, but rather because, in a deep sense, the ancestors of birds wanted to fly?”.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      So, should I be blaming my ancestors for not wanting to fly (or whatever other ability) enough? Or, maybe I should just blame them (not me) for being a clumsy klutz.

      Maybe I should hold a conference with my resident co-persons (viruses and bacteria, etc.)to find out if they chose to be where they are, doing whatever they’re doing, that we all depend on for life.

      • Taz
        Posted December 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

        On the other hand, I want to fly, so I guess my descendants will be birds (or helicoptors).

    • BJ
      Posted December 4, 2017 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      “Coming up next: Can bees think? A new study indicates that no, they cannot.” – Tom Tucker

    • Leigh Jackson
      Posted December 6, 2017 at 5:55 am | Permalink

      Plaudits to Betteridge once again for allowing a pertinent point to be made succinctly.

      Turner lacks the qualification to be accused of suffering from Orac’s “Nobel Disease”.

      Lack of this fig-leaf gives pontificating stupidly outside one’s own field a bad name.

  2. Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the review. I book to avoid.

    One comment; “Is it a surprise that this book was published by HarperOne, the religion and “spirituality” arm of Harper Collins publishing?”

    There could be a bit of surprise when one realizes that even the publishers knew this wasn’t a legitimate book on science.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      “A” book to avoid. sheeesh.

  3. jaxkayaker
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Besides the fact that survival of the fittest isn’t a tautology, and the additional fact that there is more to evolution than selection, as you point out, Jerry, there is also the fact that tautologies are true. They are useful in semantics.

    It sounds as if Turner is either an incompetent biologist or a liar. His Lamarckian teleology is without evidence. Homeostasis is a result, not a cause.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      Besides the fact that survival of the fittest isn’t a tautology, …

      Yes it is! The only way of defining biological “fitness” is in terms of surviving and leaving genes in the next generation.

      • jaxkayaker
        Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

        So, not “survival”, but reproduction. And fitness is measured as relative reproduction among genotypes. The “fittest” are those individuals with genotypes which have the highest average reproductive output. However, it’s not only the most fit which survive and reproduce, generally speaking.

        Individuals who survive but don’t reproduce have zero personal fitness, even if they’re really good at surviving.

      • µ
        Posted December 4, 2017 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        Not quite true. You can define fitness also by criteria independent of reproduction and/or survival, specifically when defining fitness by means of those features that contribute to survival and/or reproduction. This is an important point, actually, and the key to debunking the tautology argument.

        I found it easiest to explain this point to my undergrads by by asking them to think about athletic ability in humans. We can look at the physical features of someone and predict beforehand, without ever having seen someone perform in a competition, that someone is an above-average marathon runner (lean body, long legs, etc), whereas someone else with a different body type is a good weight lifter or sumo-wrestler. We don’t need to see these different body-types perform in a competition to make these predictions. We can make these predictions because we have a sufficient understanding of the features that contribute to performance/fitness of a marathon runner or a sumo-wrestler.

        Likewise, if we have a firm understanding of the features that contribute to survival and reproduction of an organism in its natural environment, then fitness can be predicted for that organism, without ever having seen this organism survive or reproduce. That is, fitness can in principle be predicted a priori when having a sufficient understanding of an organism.

        The problem for biologists is that we often don’t have a firm understanding of the features that contribute to survival and reproduction, particularly for outlandish organisms that live in outlandish habitats doing outlandish things. In these cases, biologists then try to measure survival & reproduction to understand the features that may contribute to survival & reproduction, in order to improve the ability to predict fitness for some other such population.

        • jaxkayaker
          Posted December 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

          It’s true that that is the argument that Gould used to rebut the accusation of tautology, but the fact remains that when we attempt to quantify fitness, we do so by relative reproductive output. In the situation you describe, instead of comparing relative reproductive output among genotypes, we’d be comparing among phenotypes.

          I like your analogy with different types of athletes’ bodies being most “fit” with the sport being the “environmental context”.

  4. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Ironically, this has overtones of Schopenhauer’s “The World as Will and Idea”, a book which is actually overtly atheistic while simultaneously positing “will” and “striving” as a fundamental constituent of existence.

    (It’s also the source of the quote “Man can do what he wills, but cannot will what he wills” a sort of early free-will/determinism compatibilism.)

    • Posted December 5, 2017 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      He learned well from the Buddhists – they too are often atheistic subjective idealists.

  5. Ken Pidcock
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    …the fact that neo-Darwinism is based almost entirely on mathematical models rather than data (he’s dead wrong here

    And the Discovery Institute endorses that criticism?

    • Leigh Jackson
      Posted December 6, 2017 at 6:23 am | Permalink

      Dempski ought to be blushing. I doubt it though.

  6. Derek Freyberg
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Turner:
    “In reality, our conception of adaptation rests on a very shaky foundation. To illustrate, consider how a recent (and admirable) textbook of evolution put it: ‘Adaptations are the product of natural selection, while adaptation is the response to natural selection.’ This demonstrates, in one short and elegantly crafted sentence, The Problem: our current conception of this core evolutionary idea is essentially meaningless. What is adaptation? The product of natural selection! What is natural selection? The outcome of adaptation!
    This type of reasoning is formally known as a tautology. . .”
    (my italics)

    No, Professor Turner, this type of reasoning is not formally known as a tautology, it is known as misquotation. The original distinguishes between adaptations (the changes in the organisms) and adaptation (the process of change) – you have ignored it.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted December 4, 2017 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Adaptations are the product of natural selection, while adaptation is the response to natural selection

      What text book is he quoting please?

  7. BobTerrace
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Are you sure Turner isn’t just a comedian? Some of his stuff there is rip-roaring hilariously funny.

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      I think the funny part is PCC reviewing the thing.

  8. Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Why did the ancestors of most mammals not want to fly? Wouldn’t they also have wanted to glide from tree to tree in search of a tasty lunch or to avoid being lunch? Did only the ancestors of bats have the desire to fly? And I guess the ancestors of ostriches lost their desire.

    Talk about tautologies. Flying animals want to fly and non-flying animals don’t. No more to be said.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      I think Turner has crafted his claim carefully enough to superficially appear to be consistent with behavioral evolution: its certainly true that proto-birds did their best to put what flying ability they had to good use. This in turn drove the evolution of better fliers.

      • Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        What do you mean by “did their best”? I doubt that the proto-birds did their best to use their feathers to glide or fly any more than they did their best to use their feathers to keep warm.

        • Posted December 4, 2017 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

          Maybe that’s a bad example. A better example would be some population of a species with relatively sophisticated and flexible behavior that ‘chooses’ (for lack of a better word) a new food source. Evolution would favor adaptations that help in acquiring that new food source. Perhaps the Panda’s Thumb is an example of this?
          Anyway, what I’m suggesting is Turner could spin this into something that would sound supportive of this thesis.

          • Posted December 4, 2017 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

            The Panda’s thumbs is an example of an exaptation (the radial sesamoid bone in an ancestor was modified). I think your idea about a change in food resource might be an example of phenotypic plasticity -we saw an example here on WEIT recently with the snails.

    • eric
      Posted December 4, 2017 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

      It gets worse; many adaptive strategies involve a whole host of changes that his teleology would need to explain. Flying squirrels evidently wanted to fly and be smaller than regular squirrels and have bigger eyes and be nocturnal.

      The teleological explanation also sounds ridiculous when you consider some of the clearly inferior adaptations some animals have made due with due to evolution’s limits. Thus, his teleology would have us believe dolphins and whales wanted to have blowholes and breathe air rather than being able to breathe water? That some spider mothers want to be eaten by their offspring? That bats didn’t want feathers?

      As you say, the teleological claim seems to be the biggest tautology of all.

  9. Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    “Turner makes this argument over and over again, but it’s flat wrong.”

    I have seen this in every example of religious apology or similar books: Keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. What’s up with that? Seems to work for right-wing politics as well: Just keep telling the same lies over and over it becomes your own “truth” (alternative facts).

    I suppose if you have no experience sorting things logically, this type of tactic sort of works.

  10. busterggi
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    So basically someone has written a biological version of The Secret?

    • Posted December 5, 2017 at 11:23 am | Permalink

      Which, as JonLynnHarvey reminds us, is just age-old subjective idealism.

  11. W.Benson
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Turner’s views are similar to those of Edward D. Cope’s towards the end of the 18th century and I wonder if Turner cites him. Neo-Lamarckist Cope tried to explain mimicry without invoking natural selection and proposed the following nonsense:
    “[I]n the Vertebrates generally, the mimetic resemblances [such as mimicry of coral snakes] are found in species of the same region, where only an intelligent or emotional agency be illustrated [to produce mimetic similarity]. If among animals as low as butterflies the influence of intelligence be denied, that of admiration for the beauty, or fear of the armature, of the predominant species imitated, would appear to be sufficient to account for the result. Admiration and fear are possessed by animals of very low organization, and, with the instincts of hunger and reproduction, constitute to most intense metaphysical conditions of which they are capable.”
    Thus protective mimicry in butterflies and other insects comes about through admiration of the beauty of the colorful aposematic model. Cope was a famous and successful American paleontologist and fossil hunter. The ref. is Edward D. Cope 1887. The Origin of the Fittest, vol. 1, p. 213.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the desire-to-fly stuff certainly sounds Lamarckian. Lamarck argued that by endeavoring to fly the organism caused an increase in structures that enabled that.

      We can forgive Lamarck for imagining that there is such a mechanism, but less easily forgive a modern writer who thinks the same. If there were some molecular machinery to do that, its discovery and explanation would be Nobel-Prize caliber work. And one would become quite famous for pointing out where it was in the cell, even if one did not get around to the evolutionary implications.

  12. Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Two birds with one stone: the Kirkus review and this particular book. Now I know that both are worthless.

  13. John Taylor
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Does the author explain how the desires and strivings lead to changes in DNA?

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Yes; I’m scientifically illiterate (despite lots of reading!), so I struggle with the details of these things. But any changes must be communicated to the next generation, presumably through DNA, so how does the code you are born with get changed? Does Turner address this?

      Also, what about all the changes that occur that no species *could* know about, even if we are to grant cognition to simpler organisms? How does a proto-zebra know it should strain for stripes? Did it strain for stripes for camouflage or to stop flies landing on it? What if the ‘cognition’ is wrong about the usefulness of a trait? Or is he suggesting some all-knowing pan-cognition? That sounds familiar. If not, and some purposes and desires deliver features that prevent individuals propagating, doesn’t it then revert to survival of the fittest again?

  14. Posted December 4, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    I could see how ‘desires’ and ‘wanting’ could lead to evolutionary change in morphology. To use the example that the author uses, if the ancestors of birds wanted to glide from tree to tree (a possible early stage in powered flight), then there would be selection for those who did not break their necks when they carried out their impulses. I just don’t think that this model is very useful, nor particularly likely above other models for the evolution of flight.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

      And certainly not for the evolution of bacteria. That idea is cray.

    • Posted December 4, 2017 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      Human “desires” and “wants” grow, change,
      fall to the wayside over a lifetime. I find it impossible to believe in such consistency of “desires” and “wants” causing flight”.

      If “desires” and “wants” could cause the development of flight ability, why did some birds not further improve their flight abilities when other predator birds could out-fly them? And, development of flight has been left behind by some birds, no longer useful, a waste of energy.

      Unless I didn’t read carefully enough, Turner
      doesn’t deal with genetic inheritances that are “bad”, such as my ancestors gifting me and me gifting my children and grandchildren with tendencies to having depression, migraines and allergies including asthma. Yes, I know that some “bad” attributes can eventually be viewed as “good” in another context. Not these.

      But, I having once lived in a home with half-tiles for a roof over the porch that was annually inhabited by birds, have watched numerous baby birds not adept enough at flight who fell to their deaths on the porch.
      Oh, the funerals we held! Darwin award.

      • busterggi
        Posted December 4, 2017 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        I see you are unfamiliar with the Red Rocket-Tailed Swallow or the Jet-Blue Jay. Of course the best adaption of all is held by the Interdimensional Bigfoot which may or may not be a bird, we have to catch one first.

        • Posted December 7, 2017 at 2:10 am | Permalink

          I’m ashamed to admit that my familiarity with the birds you allude to is nonexistent. However, my limited knowledge has allowed me to enjoy Woodpeckers (don’t they get headaches?), Hummingbirds (don’t their fast, little wings get tired?), Wild Canaries (thanks to them for helping to denude my pasture of thistles), etc. Wish we could communicate so I could find out why they do what they do.

  15. Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Heck,

    Happy National Kitten Day Jerry.

  16. Christopher
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Kudos for having the intestinal fortitude to manage reading the entire book, I had trouble stomaching those few paragraphs you quoted here! I just don’t have the guts to wade through that much crap!

  17. Posted December 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I spent 5 minutes looking for an explanation of the stars next to some reviews on the Kirkus site and failed to find any. Based on your explanation of what the book is about, the review seems fair. I wouldn’t expect any kind of serious criticism on a website like this. Their business model undoubtedly depends on not alienating anyone. Of course, such a policy is good reason to avoid it.

  18. Liz
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Is the word “orgasm” in the index?

  19. Jake Sevins
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    I’m writing a book about how rocks roll down a hillside because of their inherent desire to join their friends at the bottom. Should sell well in the South.

  20. Wunold
    Posted December 4, 2017 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    So, cavefish didn’t want their eyes anymore or lost interest in them?

    • Wunold
      Posted December 5, 2017 at 12:04 am | Permalink

      And what beef had our ancestors with their ability to synthesize vitamin C?

  21. Pierluigi Ballabeni
    Posted December 5, 2017 at 3:09 am | Permalink

    Given what is known about evolution I wonder whether people, and especially biologists, who write such books really believe what they write.

  22. AC Harper
    Posted December 5, 2017 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    I’m glad that Jerry has read the book so I shall not strive to.

    Wikipedia has an interesting article on ‘Conatus’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus which discusses the change in meaning of the word over time. It would seem that J Scott Tyrner is running a few centuries late.

  23. sensorrhea
    Posted December 5, 2017 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    I call these kinds of people “weak teleologists.”

  24. qp83
    Posted December 5, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    So why do we grow old and die so soon? Humanity’s greatest desire, shown from basically every religion, is immortality. So why hasn’t evolution given us longer life spans?

  25. Posted December 5, 2017 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Could it be that organism die, not because they were subject to exaptations that cause them to die, but rather because, in a deep sense, the ancestors of organisms wanted to die? Could it be, that the lactose intolerant, in a deep sense, cannot stomach milk? 🤔

  26. Posted December 5, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    “darkinaries” – I love it! Perfect for those who are trying to reverse the Enlightenment.

  27. Posted December 6, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.


%d bloggers like this: