Pages

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Dumb luck

I'll respond to Jayman's comments on my post:


I don't think "luck" and "chance" are substances; they aren't things that exist in their own right. We label outcomes we can't fully explain as the result of "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind these are not true causes. They are admissions of ignorance.

Take the proverbial coin toss. The coin did not land heads-up because a substance known as "luck" or "chance" caused it to land heads-up. It landed heads-up up because of a variety of factors (launch angle, spin rate, gravity) that are too complex for us to identify precisely each time a coin is tossed in the air.

Evolution did not progress because "luck" or "chance" intervened. It progressed because of specific selection pressures, specific mutations, specific acts of procreation, etc. Because we are not in the position to know all of these causes throughout history we may chalk it up to "luck" or "chance" but we have to keep in mind that we say this because we are ignorant of the precise causes, not because "luck" and "chance" are true causes.

All of this is to say that "luck" and "chance" should not be on the table as real causes for anything. The main question, I believe, is whether the causes we see operating point to a first cause or not.

i) There's some equivocation going on. I wonder if Thomist metaphysics is hovering bat-like in the background. But that's not my own metaphysical paradigm. So this may simply mean that Jayman's concept of chance/luck is inconsistent with mine. But that doesn't refute my own position since it doesn't directly engage my position. Rather, it judges my position by appeal to a different paradigm, which I reject.

ii) I agree with him that as I use the terms, chance and luck aren't substances or things that exist in their own right. Rather they represent the absence of certain conditions. 

iii) Whether they qualify as "true causes" depends on your concept of causality. David Lewis defines a cause as something that makes a difference to the outcome. On that definition, the lack of something is causal when it affects the outcome. In that sense, there's such a thing as negative causation. 

iv) "Chance" and "luck" have varied connotations. You could define them in epistemological terms, as Jayman does, where they're synonyms with admissions of ignorance. That, however, is by no means the only legitimate definition, so it can't be imposed on me to the exclusion of other definitions.

v) Some people use chance/luck and randomness as synonyms for indeterminacy. An indeterminate outcome. But that's not how I'm using the terms. In my usage, chance/luck and randomness are consistent with physical determinism. 

vi) They're often employed as synonyms for an unplanned outcome. To use Jayman's example, if the coin is fair, then whether it lands lands heads-up or tails-up is unplanned. Indeed, the outcome could not be planned since the coin-flipper lacks control over the outcome. That's a standard definition, and it's not equivalent to admissions of ignorance. True, we don't foreknow the result. If planning ensures the result, then that's incompatible with ignorance of the result. But an unplanned event is a distinct concept. 

For instance, suppose you have a gambler who's skilled at cheating. There's no direct evidence that he cheated. But there's indirect evidence because he consistently beats the odds. 

vii) A more technical definition is lack of correlation. If the coin is fair, then each toss is causally independent of the preceding and succeeding toss. So the coin-tosses aren't correlated with each other. Thus, you can't predict the outcome of the next coin toss from the previous coin toss. 

viii) An implication of (vi-vii) is that a random or chance outcome doesn't aim for a particular outcome. Suppose I win a prize if the coin lands heads-up five times in a row. If the coin is fair, that's naturally possible but statistically improbable. If it lands five times in a row, I got lucky because the process wasn't oriented for my convenience. The fact that the outcome was beneficial to me is sheer coincidence. 

If the coin consistently lands heads-up, then it's weighted in that direction. In that case, the outcome isn't random or coincidental. In that case, it wasn't coincidental that I'm the beneficiary of the process. 

Or, to revert to one of my own examples, if I don't know the combination, I could twirl the dial thousands of times without hitting on the right combination. If, however, I hit on the right combination after a few tries, that was dumb luck.

Likewise, it's statistically inevitable that randomly shuffled decks will on rare occasion yield a royal flush. If the deck is fair, and I get a royal flush, that's dumb luck. That's coincidence. If I went to the casino an hour sooner or an hour later, I wouldn't be dealt a royal flush. That's because, if the decks are randomly shuffled, then there's no correlation between the sequence in one deck and the sequence in another. If, however, the deck is stacked, then the outcome was discriminate rather than indiscriminate. 

These are essential distinctions. Meaningful distinctions. It's not a superstitious appeal to luck. It doesn't reify chance. 

This is easier said than done. The argument from evil is used as an argument against theism in general. A response to the argument from evil is likely to protect cults and false religions that are theistic.

That's a reply to a truncated version of what I said. I also said that we should avoid a principle so broad that it defends truth by immunizing error from rational scrutiny and refutation. 

It seems we are stuck making arguments from analogy in trying to answer what species feel pain. The closer a species is to us the more likely we are to think it feels pain like we do. But we can never get inside the mind of another creature so we don't really know.

True. In fact, even if we could get inside the mind (if it has a mind) of an animal, we might still be in the dark. Suppose I temporarily become a mouse, then revert to human. Do I remember what it's like to be a mouse? Maybe not. Maybe the psychology of a mouse is so alien to human psychology that I can't translate my experience as a mouse back into human impressions or concepts. 

YECs and OECs still face the problem of organisms that are disabled or deformed. I don't see how adding or removing macro-evolution from the picture strengthens or weakens the argument from evil.

i) To begin with, I wasn't responding to the problem of evil in that regard. I didn't say theistic evolution falls prey to the argument from evil. Rather, it casts doubt on the wisdom or competence of God to use such a blundering process if the creation of man is a primary goal. 

ii) With respect to genetic defects, it may well be the case that in a complex process with multiple variables, multiple points at which it could break down, many environmental factors that might interfere, occasional copy errors are inevitable. Even apart from the Fall, that will naturally happen in a physical process where there are so many opportunities for something to go awry.

In the case of humans, it requires special providence to forestall deformities and disabilities. In the case of animals, God might allow that even apart from the Fall. In an unfallen world, there's no expectation that animals enjoy the same providential protection as humans. 

YECs and OECs are also stuck with the seemingly clumsy, blundering methods of reproduction used by earth's lifeforms. If evolution is true then these same methods of reproduction are used but they just result in new species/kinds coming into existence over the ages.

i) That comparison subverts basic standards of rationality. The male and female reproductive systems are marvels of engineering prowess, and they're so successful that they lead to overpopulation absent disease and predation. The fact that sexual reproduction is successful so often is the result of design, not dumb luck. Indeed, sexual reproduction is so effective that it's led to the development of sophisticated chemical contraceptives to depress or suppress the success rate.  

That's hardly analogous to evolution, where the occasional hits are the result of relentless mindless repetition. Where the misses far outnumber the hits. 

Are we in a position to answer that question? Perhaps a very broad answer is all we're in the position to offer.

i) If you're not in a position to answer that question, then you're not justified in saying evolution is a goal-oriented process. At the very least you ought to withhold judgment.

ii) Moreover, if there's no evidence that evolution is a goal-oriented process, then there's a presumption against believing it to be so. Rather than suspending judgment, you should conclude that it is what it appears to be. If it doesn't seem to be a goal-oriented process, the simplest explanation is because it's not. Put another way, if it was a goal-oriented process, we'd expect to find some evidence to that effect.  

Whenever an atheist claims that evolution is directionless, purposeless, etc. he is no longer making a scientific claim, he is making a philosophical/atheological claim. The theistic evolutionist will also have to make philosophical/theological claims and arguments for his position. My position is that our ability to do science (of any kind, not just evolutionary science) is best accounted for if God exists.

i) It's true that dysteleology requires a norm, an ideal standard of comparison. How does naturalism derive and justify that? 

ii) But it doesn't follow that interpreting a process to be directionless is a philosophical claim rather than a scientific claim. To use Jayman's own example, is it unscientific to say coin-tossing is directionless? 

Surely it's important that science have the ability to differentiate aimless outcomes from goal-oriented outcomes. Take the difference between murder, suicide, and accidental death. We'd be in quite a pickle if forensic science could never rule out death by accidental causes.   

14 comments:

  1. I agree that luck-as-an-unplanned-outcome is something that exists at the human level. I agree that the results of a (fair) coin flip are unplanned in the sense that the coin flipper does not plan the outcome. But this tells us nothing about whether God plans the coin to land one way or the other. Nor does it rule out physical forces causing the coin to land one one way rather than the other.

    Likewise, luck-as-lack-of-correlation may exist between two events; the outcome of one coin toss is not correlated with the outcome of the previous coin toss. But this does not tell us if each outcome is correlated with the will of God or various physical conditions I mentioned in my comment.

    I'm saying all this to make it clear that when skeptics appeal to things like luck or chance that does not allow them to avoid dealing with cosmological arguments that appeal to causality in one form or another. I'm also saying it to warn theists in general and Christians in particular not to reify luck/chance (also don't reify the laws of nature). I note you, personally, are not reifying luck/chance but it is something that happens regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Moving on to evolution, you say it "casts doubt on the wisdom or competence of God to use such a blundering process if the creation of man is a primary goal." How are you using the term "blunder"? If you are using the term to refer to a mistake then God does not appear to have made a mistake since humans have, in fact, been created. If you are using the term to refer to "moving in an awkward way" (as your use of the term "clumsy" implies) then the charge loses its punch. If God had multiple goals for evolutionary history, only one of which was the creation of humanity, and the other goals are hidden from us, then it is unsurprising that the process may look awkward when judged in light of only one goal.

    It's my understanding that most mainstream scientists do not make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. For as long as life has existed genes have been passed down from parent to offspring during reproduction. The same mechanisms (e.g., natural selection, mutation) that existed in the past still exist today. YECs and OECs agree on these matters. The only apparent difference is that YECs and (some?) OECs don't believe evolution can result in new species/kinds coming into existence.

    You're response to this is to say that the male and female reproductive systems are evidence of design. I'm not arguing against that. I'm noting that YECs and OECs still accept all the ingredients of the "clumsy, blundering methods of reproduction" accepted by TEs.

    You say that if evolution is true the "misses far outnumber the hits." I'm not sure how "hits" and "misses" are to be counted. If "misses" refer to organisms that fail to reproduce then there are plenty of "misses" today that YECs and OECs also have to address. If "misses" refer to species that are extinct then those same species (e.g., dinosaurs) are extinct even if YEC or OEC is true and TE is false.

    Regarding evolution as a goal-oriented process, even the atheist must accept that its goal is the survival of the fittest. I mean goal in the sense of a direction the process is headed in. I believe every "law of nature" exists only because substances have certain final causes and not others. This results in the regularity we observe in nature and is what makes science possible. This directedness at least raises the question of whether there is a director of it all.

    You ask, "is it unscientific to say coin-tossing is directionless?" I think it depends on the perspective from which we are asking the question. From the perspective of the coin tosser, it is a directionless action in the sense noted above. From the perspective of physics, it is a directed process in the sense that launch angle, spin rate, gravity, etc. all direct the coin to land one way and not the other. From God's perspective it is no longer a scientific question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's my understanding that most mainstream scientists do not make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. For as long as life has existed genes have been passed down from parent to offspring during reproduction. The same mechanisms (e.g., natural selection, mutation) that existed in the past still exist today. YECs and OECs agree on these matters. The only apparent difference is that YECs and (some?) OECs don't believe evolution can result in new species/kinds coming into existence."

      1. Granted, I haven't read everything in these latest two posts on evolution. I'll try to do that a bit later when I have more time, then respond if I think I have anything useful to say. That said, the above paragraph caught my eye on a quick perusal.

      2. On the contrary, secular scientists including secular biological evolutionists do use the terms or concepts macroevolution and/or microevolution. That's easy enough to search in the scientific literature. For example, look at PubMed which is the world's largest database or repository for published scientific papers in the biological and medical sciences. Run a simple search like a "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

      3. Moreover, secular scientists use the terms in contrast with one another. For example, UC Berkeley is about as secular as it gets, but look at what they say on their Understanding Evolution website which is targeted at the public or laypersons: "Evolution at different scales: micro to macro".

      4. Likewise you could search academic scientific journals on your own. Take Nature. Nature is a world renowned science journal. One of the best. One of the most scholarly. To publish in Nature is a huge feather in one's cap as a scientist. For example, take a look at this Nature review article: "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution".

      Delete
    2. 5. Besides it was an evolutionist (macroevolutionist) who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution nearly 100 years ago, i.e., Yuri Filipchenko, though Filipchenko had his own views on evolution which differed from the mainstream evolutionists of his day.

      6. Anyway there are many examples showing biological evolutionists who subscribe to macroevolution using terms or concepts like macroevolution and micrevolution in the published scientific literature. It's not a false dichotomy erected by critics of neo-Darwinism if that's what's being implied.

      7. Of course, different secular evolutionists have different ways to reconcile microevolution and macroevolution. Scientists like Dawkins and Coyne represent the mainstream view regarding how to reconcile the two. However there are several different ways to do so. Indeed, it's a central part of the internecine debate among secular biological evolutionists in how to reconcile microevolution and macroevolution, even though they may all or most all subscribe to universal common descent. And there's an unwritten rule among secular biological evolutionists not to present anything but a united and homogeneous front regarding neo-Darwinism (including macroevolution vs. microevolution), though it's not always "obeyed". However if you study the scientific literature, attend the scientific conferences, and so on, then the cracks become quite apparent. I'm speaking about secular scientists, not ID theorists or religiously motivated critics of evolution or suchlike.

      Delete
    3. 8. As for YEC and OEC, there are some OECs who "believe evolution can result in new species/kinds coming into existence", though that turns on how one defines species/kinds, which is itself hotly contested among scientists of different stripes, religious and irreligious.

      Delete
    4. "If God had multiple goals for evolutionary history, only one of which was the creation of humanity, and the other goals are hidden from us, then it is unsurprising that the process may look awkward when judged in light of only one goal."

      i) If theistic evolution is a given, you might be justified in appealing to God's hidden goals, but that takes theistic evolution for granted, which is the very issue in dispute. Gould famously claims that if the tape of natural history is rewound, the result would be different each time the exercise is repeated.

      ii) To take a comparison, consider a bus route. It picks up and drops off passengers at different stops. You might say it has multiple goals in that regard. That's less efficient that driving a car, where I go directly to my destination. In that sense, mass transportation is inefficient without being blundering.

      But what if some buses drive on roads that have no bus stops? What if some buses drive to a corn field, then the driver abandons the bus? What if some buses drive north when they ought to drive south. They are moving away from the destination.

      The question is which scenario evolution more closely resembles.

      "It's my understanding that most mainstream scientists do not make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution."

      i) Hawk already documented the pedigree of the distinction.

      ii) If a scientist subscribes to full-blown evolution, then by definition he doesn't think there are any impermeable boundaries. It's all a continuum. But that takes evolution for granted.

      iii) It's not an ad hoc distinction. Consider selective breeding. Domestic dogs have lupine ancestors. Selective breeding produces a remarkable variety of dogs. But selective breeding doesn't derive turtles from wolves.

      Delete
    5. "I'm noting that YECs and OECs still accept all the ingredients of the 'clumsy, blundering methods of reproduction' accepted by TEs."

      But as I already explained, procreation is not a clumsy blundering method of reproduction. And as you very well know, sexual reproduction is not the only factor in evolution.

      "You say that if evolution is true the 'misses far outnumber the hits.' I'm not sure how 'hits' and 'misses' are to be counted. If "misses" refer to organisms that fail to reproduce then there are plenty of 'misses' today that YECs and OECs also have to address. If 'misses' refer to species that are extinct then those same species (e.g., dinosaurs) are extinct even if YEC or OEC is true and TE is false."

      i) To begin with, this isn't my personal interpretation of evolution. Rather, this is how evolution is expounded when I read textbooks and high-level popularizations by evolutionary biologists and paleontologists. They are the ones who use metaphors like "evolutionary dead-ends" or David Raup's "field of bullets".

      ii) To take another example, consider the difference between males and females who reach sexual maturity but die before producing offspring and males and females who die after producing offspring. In the first case, their "extinction" leads nowhere. In the second case, although that generation dies out, it's a bridge to the next generation. Once again, the problem isn't mass extinction but a process that's supposedly goal-oriented, but in most cases, prior conditions never form a bride to the next step on the journey.

      "Regarding evolution as a goal-oriented process, even the atheist must accept that its goal is the survival of the fittest. I mean goal in the sense of a direction the process is headed in. I believe every 'law of nature' exists only because substances have certain final causes and not others. This results in the regularity we observe in nature and is what makes science possible. This directedness at least raises the question of whether there is a director of it all. You ask, 'is it unscientific to say coin-tossing is directionless?' I think it depends on the perspective from which we are asking the question. From the perspective of the coin tosser, it is a directionless action in the sense noted above. From the perspective of physics, it is a directed process in the sense that launch angle, spin rate, gravity, etc. all direct the coin to land one way and not the other. From God's perspective it is no longer a scientific question."

      I don't object to natural teleology, but to say the coin is goal-oriented is the kind of slippery, deceptive personification that turns antonyms into synonyms. Physical causes, processes, &c. are unintelligent. They have no intentions. Now, a mindless machine can be designed by an intelligent agent to produce goal-oriented results. In that case it's the engineer who supplies the goals. He programs that outcome into the machine. The machine is only goal-oriented in an indirect, derivative sense. And that's a conceptual difference between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution (at least guided/directed evolution).

      However, a young-earth/old-earth creationist can appeal to the same distinction. In addition, the question is whether the evolutionary narrative even appears to be goal-oriented (in that sense). Is there any evidence that evolution is goal-oriented? An end-result is not the same thing as a goal. If a batter strikes out, that's the end-result of his actions, but it's hardly his goal (although it's the goal of the pitcher!). So we can't infer goals from results.

      Delete
    6. I admit I am not reading scientific journals on evolution nor do I have easy access to them.

      UC Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" site says "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection."

      It appears the micro/macro distinction is made with respect to scale, not with respect to mechanisms. If the mechanisms are "clumsy" and "blundering" at the macro scale are they not "clumsy" and "blundering" at the micro scale as well?

      Delete
    7. Our great ignorance of God's mind guarantees he has goals we don't know about. There is no need to take TE for granted to make this statement. We can always ask in relation to nearly any event, why did God do things this way instead of that way? If we have reasons to believe God exists and we have reasons to believe evolution occurred then TE is a rational position to hold. We may still ask why God used evolution instead of some other means but I don't think we're in a position to provide an answer.

      The main point I'm trying to make about macro/micro evolution is that the same mechanisms drive evolutionary change at the micro level and the macro level. What is it that makes evolution blundering? Is it mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection? If so, don't YECs and OECs accept that mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection occur? If so, doesn't that mean YECs, OECs, and TEs are in the same boat in this respect?

      Delete
    8. "I admit I am not reading scientific journals on evolution nor do I have easy access to them."

      1. Fair enough. That said, if you're interested, there are a lot of scientific papers which are publicly available to read for free. Also, many if not most scientists would support free access to scientific journals; indeed there's a burgeoning movement in academic science about this very thing.

      2. And even for papers which aren't currently publicly accessible, many scientists are more than happy to email their papers to you if you contact them. At least a pre-publication version, which is often similar enough to the published version. For example:

      http://twitter.com/hwitteman/status/1015049411276300289

      http://holly.witteman.ca/index.php/2017/12/11/getting-access-to-paywalled-papers

      "It appears the micro/macro distinction is made with respect to scale, not with respect to mechanisms. If the mechanisms are "clumsy" and "blundering" at the macro scale are they not "clumsy" and "blundering" at the micro scale as well?"

      1. Sure, we can get into the debate over macroevolution vs. microevolution, but my only point above was to respond to your claim that "most mainstream scientists do not make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution". I think I've shown secular scientists do make distinctions between the two.

      2. At best, you might say it's a distinction without much of a difference, a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind, but again that'd get us into a debate over the nature and scope of macroevolution as well as microevolution. That would go to the heart of the issues.

      3. I still haven't had the time to read Steve's posts as well as all the other comments (including your comments) so I'd better hold off from say anything until I get caught up.

      Delete
    9. "Our great ignorance of God's mind guarantees he has goals we don't know about."

      No doubt, yet you use that to save guided evolution from appearances to the contrary. But at best, that's only warranted if the facticity of theistic evolution has already been established.

      "What is it that makes evolution blundering? Is it mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection?"

      You keep holding a ruler I don't use, then challenge me to explain how it's blundering when measured against that ruler. But that's not my metric. I didn't say the mechanisms make it blundering. I've detailed why I think it's blundering.

      Delete
    10. Just a few notes about places like UC Berkeley:

      1. Of course, like all of us, UC Berkeley comes with its own presuppositions about "evolution". For one thing, Berkeley assumes a gradualist theory of evolutionary theory. That's highly debatable.

      2. Likewise there's heated debate even among secular scientists who are neo-Darwinists over what "boundaries" constitute a "single species", but Berkeley simply assumes one particular definition for "species", even though Berkeley scientists themselves debate definitions in-house.

      3. At any rate, there are serious academic debates over many of the terms or concepts mentioned on Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website including mutation and natural selection. However you won't often hear that from evolutionists when they're addressing the public. When addressing the public, neo-Darwinism is typically presented as "established science", like the law of gravity. Or at least the intramural debates are downplayed.

      4. Take one of the "mechanisms" mentioned on Berkeley's Understanding Evolution. Let's take mutation. One can say the "mechanism" (if that's what it is or how best to characterize it) of mutation selection as seen in microevolution will result in macroevolutionary changes. In this sense, microevolution is a series of accumulated genetic changes across millions of years that will eventually result in the development of a new species. There are several problems with this idea of mutation. Just to list a few:

      a. For starters, the genetic composition and variation in a given population quite often has the tendency to equilibrate. Genetic homeostasis. As such a population's genetic variability in its gene pool may become exhausted. This implies a limitation to the capacities of the mutation selection process.

      b. Also, the requisite genetic complexity to develop a relatively simple organ or body part appears to be beyond the capacity of the mutation selection process (coupled with natural selection). Otherwise, if true, the assumption would be one should expect increasing complexity over time. However, why should one make that assumption? And even if one could somehow make that assumption, why does it necessarily apply universally? Indeed, mainstream evolutionists typically even argue that evolution is directionless and doesn't necessarily preference increasing (or decreasing) genetic complexity. Evolution is "blind" in that respect.

      c. This argument is an argument from molecular and cell biology. That's well and good when we can observe the evidence in front of us (e.g. bacterial antibiotic resistance). However, most molecular and cell biologists aren't likewise paleontologists. As such, many are in essence extrapolating from what's observed in present organisms to past organisms. However, some paleontologists have argued this picture is at odds with the fossil record, for the fossil record doesn't appear reflect this kind of genetic evolution (e.g. Niles Eldredge, Stephen Jay Gould). Indeed, Gould and Eldredge famously came up with their theory about punctuated equilibrium, where there's genetic stasis for long eons of time, followed by sudden appearances in "fully formed" organisms. They believed this more accurately reflected the fossil record, in contrast to what molecular and cell biologists argue.

      5. Ultimately biologists are attempting to observe "life" in order to discern patterns and hopefully scientific laws, but the problem with life is that life, unlike inert objects and forces (e.g. gravitation), can have a mind of its own. That makes it trickier to pin down what exactly is happening with living organisms and systems. That makes it trickier to develop fundamental biological laws like physicists can develop physical laws. Of course, if you ask someone like Dawkins or Coyne, "evolution" is basicallly a fundamental law of biology.

      Delete
    11. "The main point I'm trying to make about macro/micro evolution is that the same mechanisms drive evolutionary change at the micro level and the macro level. What is it that makes evolution blundering? Is it mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection? If so, don't YECs and OECs accept that mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection occur? If so, doesn't that mean YECs, OECs, and TEs are in the same boat in this respect?"

      1. Much of what I said above applies to your questions here.

      2. The fundamental issue isn't whether or not these "occur", but their nature and scope. Especially natural selection and mutation. Gene flow (migration) and genetic drift aren't quite as controversial.

      Delete
    12. Macroevolution refers (most of the time, in practice) to evolutionary patterns and processes above the species level. It is usually contrasted with microevolution, or evolutionary change within populations. This customary way of drawing the macro/micro distinction is not perfect, however, because species sometimes consist of multiple populations. Some evolutionary processes, such as the spread of a trait from one population to another, might count as within-species processes but not within-population processes. Population genetics (see entry), which emerged during the modern synthesis of the early- to mid-twentieth century, explains within-population microevolutionary change in terms of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and migration.

      One question that looms over philosophical work on macroevolutionary theory is how macroevolution and microevolution are related. One view, which is closely associated with the modern synthesis, is that macroevolutionary patterns are fully explicable in terms of microevolutionary processes. On this view, macroevolution is “nothing but” successive rounds of microevolution (a formulation due to Grantham 2007). Stephen Jay Gould pejoratively referred to this kind of view as “extrapolationism” (Gould 2002). This issue links up with more general philosophical questions about the potential reduction of higher-level biological phenomena to lower levels (Oppenheimer & Putnam 1958; Fodor 1974; Kitcher 1984; Sarkar 1992, Rosenberg 1997).

      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

      Delete