Is There Teleology in Biology? A discussion between Jon Perry and Perry Marshall

Is there teleology or purpose in biology? People have been arguing about this question since the time of Darwin. Here, I talk with Perry Marshall about the topic. While we both have opposing views on word choice, it turns out that we often agree once getting past semantics. Here we discuss Perry Marshall's definition of teleology and how his definition is different from definitions sometimes used by other people. We talk about the complexity of biology, how some of that complexity is commonly skipped over by teachers of evolution (including me), and Perry points out some problems he sees with current ideas in the study of the origin of life.

We talk about 4 papers, all of which you can read for free using the links below:

Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system

RNA world evolution experiments

Denis Noble's paper discussing his issues with the "random mutation" idea in biology

The genome strikes back!

[mizuka]

This discussion was one of my favorites. I am a PhD student in developmental and molecular biology so I was quite familiar with essentially all of these topics

[hymnsake]

What a rich conversation, extremely edifying and educational! This is the epitome of disagreeing without being disagreeable. As a fan of Evolutionary Biology I hope you both have more conversations.

[CrashingThunder]

How does one distinguish teleological purpose from subjective interpretation? If one thinks about it hard enough, they can come up with dozens of "purposes" for a certain thing or phenomenon. So the question of whether or not biology is teleological is pointless, because the assignment of purpose is entirely subjective.

[Frostyflytrap]

In computer science, there are such things as machine learning and neural networks which are simulations that excellently demonstrate evolution and neurology. Albeit it's still not as complex as their actual counterparts due to hardware limitations, it is still able to come up with some pretty decent algorithms without directly teaching it what to do. It's one of the main reasons why many people argue and complain that big companies shouldn't use automated filters since they're structured in a way that human programmers can't even interpret its mechanisms.

[samuelgrainger]

Code may rarely get better when you break it but our DNA was not constructed in the same way nor do we typically run the same software in many instances and pick the best ones to install into the next computers. We do sometimes allow computer code to mutate and that's one type of machine learning which does mutate to get better.

[samuelgrainger]

We ultimately can't prove anything true or false. That doesn't mean it's worth our time to investigate every possibility if actually its unlikely that there's anything to find there.

[samuelgrainger]

7:51 he switched between the definition on screen and the need for active "wanting" searching. That's eh, the opposite of giving a stated def.

[rumraket]

"Code that is subjected to random copying errors just doesn't get better, it just doesn't happen" - Perry Marshall says, immediately following direct evidence of that having happened. What can you do when you're having a discussion with someone who simply asserts what is contrary to evidence right before him? What argument or evidence could even convince Perry Marshall that a random copying error resulted in improvement, if he's simply going to insist that position only reflects our ignorance, and that if only we looked even harder and deeper we would find it? Presumably Perry Marshall would never stop looking because he just can't accept, or fathom, how it could be. Most of us simply accept the evidence and move on, instead of engaging in endless denial.

[samuelgrainger]

"I don't have any proof or anything to really hint that there's something interesting here but it would be interesting if there was" that's one way to use time, money and breath wisely; wishful thinking.

[rumraket]

A thermostat is pure laws of physics. So is the genetic code and the translation system. When aminoactyl tRNA charges cognate amino acids to tRNA, that is a chemical reaction with a basis in the laws of physics. When tRNA in turn structurally and electromagnetically attracts to the ribosome and Watson-Crick basepairs with mRNA, that is a chemical reaction governed by the laws of physics again. It is no different than drops of water falling down due to the gravitational pull of the planet. Done, case closed. He has undermined his own argument right out the gate. I am mystified and astonished it isn't immediately obvious to him.

[ACallToReason]

Why didn't you call him out on his appeal to "junk DNA" as once being thought of as useless? That literally never happened.

[sirmeowthelibrarycat]

😖 Jon, how did you manage to waste one hour of your time over a pseudo issue? Of course their is no ‘purpose’ in biology at all. It is merely a descriptor of a specific area of scientific research. All that living forms need to do is reproduce, which could be taken as ‘purposive’ without any initial director (or supernatural agent) being involved. Here we see an attempt to introduce a version of ‘intelligent design’ in disguise. How many times have you heard mention of ‘complexity’ or ‘flagellum’ in support of ‘ID’? What I find to be most frustrating is the number of apparently well educated people who then deviate from reality when evolution is mentioned. This is why Richard Dawkins and others have no time for such blatant cognitive dissonance. Here, at least, you have had an opportunity to meet one such person, but was it necessary? As always, Jon, kind regards from your European correspondent in 🇬🇧