The Amish - A Special Case in Evolutionary Studies
At first glance, nothing would appear to be more different than the Amish on the one side and scientific evolutionary studies on the other. After all, the Amish are a Christian group which branched from the Mennonite Anabaptist movement in Europe during the 16th century and whose members do not seek "worldly wisdom" as e.g. higher education. But on the other hand, the Amish are actually living the very riddle of evolutionary religious studies: They are accepting numerous religious commandments and costly requirements and they had to face discrimination and prosecution throughout Europe - and they nevertheless managed to expand demographically and culturally, passing on their genes and religious-cultural traditions with extreme success. While "modern" and secular Germans and Swiss are dwindling due to the lack of children, the Old Order Amish from the same stock are thriving. How do they do that?
Of course, there are lots of information about the Amish available, the Young Center for Pietist and Anabaptist Studies at Elizabethtown College being a source of strong research and well-written books. There are even informative clips to be found on YouTube:
In 1900, the Old Order Amish numbered about 5.000 adult members, forming a fringe minority frequently accused to be "dumb Germans". But while the US fertility declined to about two children per woman in the USA, the Amish retained their large families and increased their retention rates with the establishment of their own school system. As a result, although reluctant in accepting converts, the Old Order Amish began to grow exponentially, doubling every 15 to 20 years.
In fact, the high fertility rates of the Amish cannot be explained without their religious traditions - proving the evolutionary potential of religiosity. And please note that we know about a lot of other high-fertile religious communities as e.g. the Hutterites, the Mormons, the Haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) etc. - but of not a single secular group that was able to have enough children to retain its numbers! Long fascinated by the combination of statistical data and ethnological observation, I recently published another paper on the subject (free download per click):
Regardless if you are religious or not: From a purely scientific perspective, the Amish are a compelling case study in understanding human evolution - past and present...
* Another blogpost about the Amish on the German Scilog "Natur des Glaubens"
Printview
The way they achieve such high endogenous population growth is to combine modern advances in basic medicine - so child mortality is low - with high births per female.
In other words, this strategem is successful in the current fitness landscape, but not the situation that occurred in our evolutionary past. Which, of course, is why they are a modern phenomenon.
Also worth noting that they way they achieve such high births per women is to have a highly closed, patriarchal society in which the function of women is essentially to act as child rearing machines.
As you note in your paper, they have limited access to outsiders and few opportunities to leave (and, as with other cults, leaving has drastic implications).
It would be interesting to know how many children young Amish women actually want to have - or would choose to have if they were not closed off from the outside world.
It seems to me that the Amish could optimise growth rate by accepting as many new converts as possible. Yet, as you point out, they are extremely reluctant to do so. From my own work (genetics), I also happen to know that their strong isolation results in the appearance of congenital disease due to inbreeding. This presents a heavy burden on the community as a whole.
Do you think that this behaviour serves some adaptive purpose too, or are there behavioural aspects that have escaped natural selection?
Thanks for your sound questions!
You asked: From my own work (genetics), I also happen to know that their strong isolation results in the appearance of congenital disease due to inbreeding. This presents a heavy burden on the community as a whole.
Do you think that this behaviour serves some adaptive purpose too, or are there behavioural aspects that have escaped natural selection?
No, I don't think that's adaptive per se. I think that their reluctance to accept converts helps them to retain their cultural identity (no need for reaching out, compromising, watching the influx of new ideas etc.), but may result in genetical problems concerning the intergenerational effects of inbreeding.
Interestingly enough, another "endogenous growth sect" (Kaufmann), the Jewish Orthodox tradition, integrated genetic counselling into their lore and practice, cp.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
As described in my paper, we may expect cultural variety among religious traditions in dealing with all kinds of problems. In this process, successful solutions tend to gain momemtum by demography and as benchmarks to be copied, thus linking cultural and biological evolution.
Thanks for your comment! And, yes, I think you just got parts of the very picture right:
In other words, this strategem is successful in the current fitness landscape, but not the situation that occurred in our evolutionary past. Which, of course, is why they are a modern phenomenon.
Yes, that's it! That's what religions do and why e.g. fundamentalist movements are most ofen found in times of rapid changes and crises and more often among the suburban people than in the rural villages etc. In changing environments, religious processes may be far more important to allow for cultural adaptation than in stable surroundings. And at the moment, they are thriving, while we "modern" Germans are dwindling...
Also worth noting that they way they achieve such high births per women is to have a highly closed, patriarchal society in which the function of women is essentially to act as child rearing machines. As you note in your paper, they have limited access to outsiders and few opportunities to leave (and, as with other cults, leaving has drastic implications). It would be interesting to know how many children young Amish women actually want to have - or would choose to have if they were not closed off from the outside world.
Yes, but the data doesn't support assumptions about patriarchal males suppressing poor, subservient females. As I noted in the paper, too, most defections are done by young males, while Amish women are forming the backbones of the social structure, including the teaching posts in the Amish school system.
You might remember the emergence of the early Christian movement, which relied heavily on female support - securing social and familial ties in the process. Back then and today, Atheism remains dominated by educated and quite often childless males.
.. as busual. E.g.:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...10/021001035715.htm
The Amish populations are also prone to various other genetic defects at significantly above-average rates.
I find it completely unsurprising that a strict adherence to religious mores and exercizing of social pressure that frowns upon childlessness and proscribes contraceptives fosters high birth rates.
The alleged advantage of regiosity just isn't there, if one bothers to look at all the data and draw conclusions on the evidence, as a scientist would, rather than just pick out what fits one's own belief system, as religious persons tend to do.
Michael, the reason men are able to leave but women cannot is that women have little social freedom compared with men. It's exactly the pattern you would expect in a patriarchal society.
Plus, the point I was making about the fitness landscape is that in the past, the key factor in determining fertility was not how many children were born but how many survived. A movement that is fixated on fertility would not have survived (indeed, isolationist cults like the Amish were rapidly extinguished).
It's only in today's environment, in which these cults can live in a protected, sheltered environment (stable democracy like the USA, in which they are protected from hostile outsiders), with very low infant mortality, that they have an evolutionary advantage.
You wrote: The alleged advantage of regiosity just isn't there, if one bothers to look at all the data and draw conclusions on the evidence, as a scientist would, rather than just pick out what fits one's own belief system, as religious persons tend to do.
It's sad that non-religious persons tend to do the very same thing. I get used to those that claim to be scientific just so long as it fits their worldview. One has to have very strong prejudices to deny tons of data and obvious case studies as the Amish, the Hutterites, the Mormons, the orthodox Jews etc.
It's okay that you don't like religious people, Michael. But, please, stop denying the obvious. And before you give your judgements, you might even want to ponder a second about the simple fact, that neither the Amish nor the orthodox Jews but "modern" Germans started two World Wars and brought genocides upon other peoples. Maybe the world is not as black and white as some people think it is...
Dear Tom,
you wrote: Michael, the reason men are able to leave but women cannot is that women have little social freedom compared with men. It's exactly the pattern you would expect in a patriarchal society.
But if this patriarchal society would offer undue incentives to men, why would they leave?
And it's not just about women "not leaving" - in global trends, they are showing higher levels of religiosity and are actually joining stricter religious communities. You saw the data from the Swiss census: Instead of choosing non-denominationalism or liberal communities, especially young women joined "patriarchal" communities as Yehova's Witnesses or the Pentecostals:
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/...9.pdf
I know that it is hard to digest for many of us male scientists, but women might be able to adaptive choices and behaviors as are men.
Plus, the point I was making about the fitness landscape is that in the past, the key factor in determining fertility was not how many children were born but how many survived. A movement that is fixated on fertility would not have survived (indeed, isolationist cults like the Amish were rapidly extinguished).
Yes, exactly. Therefore, successful religious communities as e.g. early Christians built charities, social networks, hospitals, schools etc. Religion is about binding cultural adaptation to changing environments such as climate, economics etc.
It's only in today's environment, in which these cults can live in a protected, sheltered environment (stable democracy like the USA, in which they are protected from hostile outsiders), with very low infant mortality, that they have an evolutionary advantage.
Yeah, and jungle tribes are evolving their own religios systems while the 18th century USA saw the flourishing of Methodists etc. As long as there are human beings, there will be new religious movements struggling to adapt to their environments. The only thing that has never changed in all the times and places we know of: Never have non-religious people been able to built demographically successful, intergenerational traditions. You or Michael could falsify that by naming just a single example, be it from a jungle or urban region.
Dr. Blume, I have to ask you to please stop passing personal judgments. Whether I "like" or "don't like" religious people is completely beside the point. I merely gave a reply to your mantra.
"One has to have very strong prejudices to deny tons of data and obvious case studies as the Amish, the Hutterites, the Mormons, the orthodox Jews etc."
Once again, a personal statement. Should a scientist react like that when someone offers factual counter-evidence? Perhaps we aren't discussing science here ... I guess we are discussing religion after all. Then this miffed reaction makes perfect sense. But such a discussion need not be led under the guise of scientific discourse.
Tons of data for what? That closed communities which can exert strong social pressure and exercise religious mores may have high birth rates? Who would deny that? It's pretty obvious. Not a very dramatic and unsual finding, but certainly none that anyone would try to deny. Certainly not me.
"But, please, stop denying the obvious."
It's obvious that a community that is backward, because it bound by stringent religious conventions would produce a lot of offspring. But it's equally obvious that a community that for the same reason is subject to statistically significant genetic disorders cannot lay claim to having an evolutionary advantage. At best, it proves no such thing. At worst, it constitutes proof that religiousness provides a revolutionary disadvantage.
"And before you give your judgements, you might even want to ponder a second about the simple fact, that neither the Amish nor the orthodox Jews but "modern" Germans started two World Wars and brought genocides upon other peoples."
A scientist argues to the point. Conversely, a believer takes any refutal of his beliefs personally and will reply with a personal attack that is completely beside the point.
Your reply is of the latter kind. This is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand. What's your point?
You wrote: The alleged advantage of regiosity just isn't there, if one bothers to look at all the data and draw conclusions on the evidence, as a scientist would.
As you have done repeatedly in this blog, you were the one accusing a colleague in his own field of religious studies of ignoring data and of not being a true scientist ("as a scientist would") - and when I respond, you are claiming that it's "not about science, but about religion"...
The Amish are a case study - among many others. If you would have bothered to read the linked paper, you would have seen e.g. data from the Australian census. Above, I cited another one with data from the Swiss census. And you might find dozens of other studies from dozens of scholars from different fields here:
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/....html
I wouldn't dare to accuse an astronomer of neglecting data in his own field and of being not a scientist just because I don't like his results. On the contrary, I just linked another good article of yours this Sunday, recommending it to my readers:
http://www.chronologs.de/...die-anbetung-der-sonne
You don't have to like religious people, Amish, Jews or whatever. But I would wish you could muster the same minimal respect to fellow scientists that you would expect for yourself. There are enough religious fundamentalists out there denying any scientific findings and hypotheses not fitting their worldview and attacking those working with it. And it's a sad experience that some seculars are doing the very same thing.
This statement of yours is not in reference to anything I said:
"You don't have to like religious people, Amish, Jews or whatever."
It's not about "liking" religious people in general or any religious group in particular. Where did I make reference to particular preferences of mine? I didn't.
So I don't see your point ... and again, I ask you to please refrain from passing personal judgments.
My comment was entirely in reply to your article and the reply you gave to my first comment. Unfortunately, in neither of your comments did you return to the point.
Likewise, your remarks on astronomers are beside the point. Indeed you should challenge any statement made by an astronomer if you think you have reason toi do so. You'll find that wither he will concede you are correct, or he will point out the evidence that corroborates his theory and refutes yours.
What an astronomer should not do is to get annoyed and resort to personal remarks or tell you that you have no business to doubt his opinion. If an astronomer, or indeed any scientist (including myself) does that, you would have every reason to assume that there is something wrong with this reasoning or his data.
The point in the given case is that it is unsurprising that closed groups with restrictive morals, strong social control and strict adherence to religious codes that forbid contraception and postulate prolificness actually have higher birth rates than the average in developed societies.
That's not only not suprising, it would be surprising if it were not so.
But that's not the point. The point is that the very religiosity that dictates the social conditions under which the Amish live has other effects as well.
Prolificness, granted. But note that I never disputed that in the first place. The other aspect is that the fact that their religion fosters secluded, closed communities leads to a significant incidence of genetic defects. I'm not making that up. I provided one link, there are many others.
Surely you agree that prolificness is not the only measure for evolutionary success?
Things aren't just black or white, you know. There is a variety of data that needs to be regarded. And sometimes things don't turn out the way one wants (or ardently believes) them to turn out. Science just doesn't work that way. cf. "Diax' Rake".
This is the third time I have argued very much to the point of the matter. Up to now, you have chosen to reply by dragging in entirely irrelevant matters, such as religious fundamentalism or the holocaust. Need I really explain to you why these are irrelevant to the issue?
Please understand that scientists are also judged by the way they argue their case. The hallmark of scientific discourse is that the debate focuses on data and evidence in support of a theory. Religious debate is different, I grant that. But I assumed that in the "scilogs" we were engaged in scientific debate. Was I mistaken?
Thanks for starting a real debate, after all. This is a fruitful level and I will gladly respond to your inquiries. But as you returned to a personal level in the last sentences of your comment, I will respond accordingly, too.
The point in the given case is that it is unsurprising that closed groups with restrictive morals, strong social control and strict adherence to religious codes that forbid contraception and postulate prolificness actually have higher birth rates than the average in developed societies.
For one: Neither the Amish nor the Orthodox Jews do forbid contraceptions, as I noted in the paper linked above - that you obviously didn't even read.
And secondly: Yes, the riddle is that "closed groups with restrictive morals, strong social control and strict adherence" as e.g. the socialist kibbutzim in Israel didn't flourish, but failed economically and demographically. The only wing of the kibbutz-movement to prosper has been the religious one. If social organization would be "the only thing", we would expect thriving secular communities, too. But we didn't find any. You should concede that such facts should interest anyone interested in evolution and sciences.
That's not only not suprising, it would be surprising if it were not so.
Thanks for accepting the obvious. And if you are daring another look, you'll notice that not only endogenous growth sects are showing higher fertility than their secular neighbours, but other religious communities on a smaller sacle, too - e.g. Swiss mainstream Protestant denominations or Australian Lutherans especially of higher education. Therefore, the Amish are a case study on a progressive scale of interesting cases of religion(s) endorsing family life.
But that's not the point. The point is that the very religiosity that dictates the social conditions under which the Amish live has other effects as well.
Yes, of course! For example, they are struggling to find land for their farms as a consequence of their exponential proliferation. Or they are facing genetical problems as a consequence of inbreeding. Or they are having less problems with alcohol or crime (although it is happening among Amish, too, of course) than the average American...
Prolificness, granted. But note that I never disputed that in the first place. The other aspect is that the fact that their religion fosters secluded, closed communities leads to a significant incidence of genetic defects. I'm not making that up. I provided one link, there are many others.
Yes, of course. The highly fertile Orthodox Jews faced the same problem and integrated genetic counselling into their traditions, as I linked above in answering @Corneel. Every culture has to adapt to changing conditions, e.g. contemporary Germany to an aging and dwindling population.
Surely you agree that prolificness is not the only measure for evolutionary success?
Of course! Charles Darwin assumed that the adaptive value of religiosity lay in the strengthening of communities. David Wilson wrote about the formation of cultural groups adapting to changing environments. Other colleagues are pointing out motivational or health benefits. After my doctorate thesis about religion & brain sciences, I focussed on religions and demography as a contribution to the overall picture. But we are dozens of colleagues from dozens of scientific perspectives working on different aspects of the subject:
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/...ctory/scholars/
And let me add that fertility is not the only factor in evolution, but a very decisive one. For mammalians (including Homo sapiens) there is yet no other way of passing on our genes (and, partially, our cultural traditions, too).
Things aren't just black or white, you know. There is a variety of data that needs to be regarded. And sometimes things don't turn out the way one wants (or ardently believes) them to turn out. Science just doesn't work that way. cf. "Diax' Rake".
Do you really think I don't know that? Well, I wrote two well-reviewed books about evolutionary studies on religion (with religion & demography being just one chapter among many) and a range of articles on the subject, spoke on various interdisciplinary conferences and worked with numerous colleagues from diverse disciplines. Among other things, I have been repeatedly invited by the Biology department at Tübingen University to speak about my field of research (with the next lecture due in June). Maybe you assume to be a better expert in every field of science, but I can assure you that I didn't get my Dr. and awards as mere gifts from non-literates. ;-)
Please understand that scientists are also judged by the way they argue their case. The hallmark of scientific discourse is that the debate focuses on data and evidence in support of a theory.
Yes. And if someone is accusing a fellow scientist repeatedly on a personal level as you did, he should at least have read the works and data he judges... You obviously didn't. And I don't feature this blog for therapeutical discussions, but for scientific debate.
Religious debate is different, I grant that. But I assumed that in the "scilogs" we were engaged in scientific debate. Was I mistaken?
No, but you obviously assumed that anyone exploring adaptive aspects of religiosity must be a theologian or missionary. And you obviously don't have much expertise in my field, the scientific study of religion (which is different from theology, you know). You probably didn't know that Charles Darwin (ironically a true theologian) was the first to assume the biological evolution of religiosity and the cultural evolution of religion. You didn't read the papers you judged and you didn't take notice of the books and works of numerous colleagues working in this very field (and not even of the one you pointed fingers at). Maybe you could ponder the distinct possibility that fellow scientists and award-winning sciloggers might be nearly as smart and scientific as you are. :-)
Michael, some women are attracted to patriarchal cults. However, most women are not (try asking some :).
Given the choice, women in general prefer to have control over their lives (just like men), and to have the opportunity for independent careers, social status etc.
The problem with patriarchal cults is that the women who are raised in them do not get that choice - not in any practical sense.
By the way, the switch-out rate for people who convert to these cult-like religions is extremely high. That's a topic for my next blog post!
Dear Dr. Blume,
I am very much in favor of a calm, to-the-point debate and I am glad that you do too. I also invite you to challenge any of the sometimes admittedly far fetched theories I put forward in my blog; you will find that I will answer to the point.
In all modesty, I do think that I made points related to your blog article (i.e., on-topic points), but you chose to ignore them in two of your replies, before finally taking them into account in your third.
I suggest that we should then refrain from forays into patently un-related issues, such as speculation about my dislikes or my mental state, who started World War 2 and so forth.
Can we agree on that and be friends again?
"For one: Neither the Amish nor the Orthodox Jews do forbid contraceptions, as I noted in the paper linked above - that you obviously didn't even read."
Correct, I reply to your blog post, I am not reviewing your papers. The claim on the use of contraceptives is suprising.
Are you implying that young Amish women have as easy access to birth control as secular women and that intense social pressure from within the group would not be brought to bear if they decided to refuse to bear fruit and multiply, for whatever reason? At first sight, appears implausible and inconsistent with common experience with fundamentalist Christian communities.
"And secondly: Yes, the riddle is that "closed groups with restrictive morals, strong social control and strict adherence" as e.g. the socialist kibbutzim in Israel didn't flourish, but failed economically and demographically."
I don't follow you here. If they fail economically, then to me it appears inevitable that they will fail demographically, i.e., the kibbutzniks will leave in droves, as after all, everyone, kibbutznik or not, has to make a living somehow. (As an aside, concerning why they failed economically, the Israeli author and humorist Ephraim Kishon stated something along the lines of 'The products from that Kibbutz differ from products made elsewhere in only two ways: 1.) They cost more and 2.) they are of lower quality')
But we're not discussing Kibbutzim here, but Amish, and we did agree not to digress ....
"You should concede that such facts should interest anyone interested in evolution and sciences."
But I do. And I do think that the fact that the very conditions that this particular group imposes on its members for religious reasons burgens the groups with a significantly increased incidence of congenital disease argues in disfavour of an evolutionary advantage of religiosity.
"Do you really think I don't know that? "
Do you really think I don't know who started WW2?
And yes, I do know the difference between theology and teh study of religion. But we've been through that before.
I am planning a lecture in June in Berlin specifically about the topic of the role of women in the evolution of religiosity and religions. And as soon as I translated some of the data into English papers, I will bring it to this blog.
Until then, you may take another look at the distribution of women in religious communities in Switzerland (p. 124):
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/...9.pdf
As you can see, women are dominating (and joining!) "patriarchal" communities as Yehova's witnesses or the Pentecoastals. And although almost all of Swiss women would have the chance to abandon the Catholic Church (banning women from priesthood) and to join the Mainline Protestants (including female pastors and bishops), there's not a big shift to be observed. And they stay in the religious realm far more often than men, which are dominating the Non-affiliated.
This US-related study here found women more ready to join religious communities, too: "Women who were religiously unaffiliated at age 16 are 29 percent more likely to adopt a religion than men from the same (secular) background." (p. 10)
http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/WP2008_04.pdf
I know that since Darwin, human women are perceived by many male evolutionists as if they were not able to do their own choices. But I think they are able to do exactly that the same way as men, with their own preferences. I plan to return to this topic on my blog repeatedly.
You wrote: I also invite you to challenge any of the sometimes admittedly far fetched theories I put forward in my blog; you will find that I will answer to the point.
Let me assure you: Before I would criticize your scientific work, I would read it... Maybe you could do that, too?
In all modesty, I do think that I made points related to your blog article (i.e., on-topic points), but you chose to ignore them in two of your replies, before finally taking them into account in your third.
Well, I actually thought that you would be really interested - and would thus have read the linked paper answering your questions. I am struggling to understand that you say you are interested in my studies about the Amish, but are at the same time not interested in reading the featured work (but criticizing it)...
Can we agree on that and be friends again?
I would love to! :-)
Correct, I reply to your blog post, I am not reviewing your papers.
Which doesn't strike me as a very convincing way of scientific query and debate... Do you really expect me to answer the same questions I worked on in the linked paper, easy and free to download?
The claim on the use of contraceptives is suprising.
Are you implying that young Amish women have as easy access to birth control as secular women and that intense social pressure from within the group would not be brought to bear if they decided to refuse to bear fruit and multiply, for whatever reason?
No, I didn't imply anything. I just pointed out that your prejudice about Amish forbidding contraceptives was wrong. And wondered about you discussing a study you didn't bother to read...
At first sight, appears implausible and inconsistent with common experience with fundamentalist Christian communities.
What "common experience with fundamentalist Christian communities" do you have? With which communities?
I don't follow you here. If they fail economically, then to me it appears inevitable that they will fail demographically, i.e., the kibbutzniks will leave in droves, as after all, everyone, kibbutznik or not, has to make a living somehow. (As an aside, concerning why they failed economically, the Israeli author and humorist Ephraim Kishon stated something along the lines of 'The products from that Kibbutz differ from products made elsewhere in only two ways: 1.) They cost more and 2.) they are of lower quality')
I don't know if you are really interested in the field of evolutionary studies on religion. But if you were, you could read the study of Sosis et al. who conducted comparative, empirical experiments among secular and religious kibbutzim in Israel.
http://www.anth.uconn.edu/...sosisandrufflerea.pdf
Let me again remind you that we are talking about serious science here, not about "common experiences with rumours".
And I do think that the fact that the very conditions that this particular group imposes on its members for religious reasons burgens the groups with a significantly increased incidence of congenital disease argues in disfavour of an evolutionary advantage of religiosity.
Even if half of the Amish children would be mortally affected by genetic diseases (which is, of course, a gross overstatement), they would still have about the double numbers of healthy children than the average "modern" German.
And yes, I do know the difference between theology and teh study of religion. But we've been through that before.
Which strengthened my assumption that your attacks were driven by negative emotions rather than by real scientific interest (which would include reading the real works and papers).
"Before I would criticize your scientific work, I would read it..."
I can't answer this without digressing, so I'll keep it short.
My approach to scientific blogging is different. I think that a blog article should be self contained - at least to the point where the topic at hand is sufficiently well covered to support the point I am making. I think that what applies to a conference paper also should apply, by and large, to a good blog article. So you would - and others
have - commented on the contentsof my blog posts and I have replied without taking recourse to papers.
"Which strengthened my assumption that your attacks were driven by negative emotions rather than by real scientific interest"
If this is your impression, it is erroneous.
But please bear with me while I point out something else. You stated falsely, and multiply, even after I had claimed that I had written no such thing, that I " .... do not like religious people, Amish, Jews ...." (I quoted verbatim from your comments here).
As an aside, surely you are aware that when a German is being told " ... you don't like .. Jews", this is akin to a blazing insult? I am certain that it was not intended as such, but ... let's just imagine the boot were on the other foot, if I had brought forward such a statement against you, with no justification whatsoever?
Would you agree that when seeing this happen, one could be led to believe that either you did not read my comment carefully before replying to it, or, alternatively, your reply to my comment was driven by emotion rather than a spirit of scientific discourse?
We don't have to go on discussing this here. But I do think it would help if you tried to picture yourself in my place and critically re-evaluate the comments put forward by yourself. Whether you choose to do so is entirely up to you, of course. I don't want to appear over-bearing.
Thanks for your clarification!
Yes, I think we are having a different perspective on scientific blogging. I am seldom interested in furnishing texts just to enjoy some attention (and if I do that, e.g. just posting a rhyme or video clip for the enjoyment or information of readers, I am emphasizing this at the start of the respective post). But the focus of my blog is about presenting and discussing relevant studies, datas and hypotheses from the wide field of evolutionary religious studies. As this field is extremely wide and interdisciplinary, the exchange via Web 2.0 became a major and serious working tool (with networks, open and closed forums as the ERS etc). But however hard we discuss these topics, we read the respective texts of others.
Therefore, you are right that I thought you read the paper presented in this post. Therein, the Amish were discussed as a case study, with the (orthodox) Jews presented as another. In the blogpost, I wrote: "And please note that we know about a lot of other high-fertile religious communities as e.g. the Hutterites, the Mormons, the Haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) etc." And I re-emphasized this point in the answer to @Corneel, as some orthodox Jewish traditions are addressing the problems of genetical disorders in entirely new ways. And I therefore assumed that your jumping on the argument of genetical disorders and critique of those "religious persons" included them too, especially as you called for the inclusion of "all the data"... The Amish are a case study, orthodox Jews another, Hutterites and Mormons and many more to follow.
And, please, don't tell me that you dislike the Amish for their religious high-fertility-lifestyles, but not orthodox Jews, because you are a German not daring to. That would be silly and non-rational. I just urged you to ponder the things our "modern" ancestors did during the last century, before passing your judgement about religious minorities in general. Both of us would disagree with much of Amish worldviews: But they faced persecution for not joining armies and wars, never participated in slavery or genocide etc. They were nevertheless singled out as "dumb Germans" during WW1 and WW2. I don't see a point in singling them out for ridicule.
And if you really overlooked orthodox Jews when discussing and criticizing religious demography (for whatever reason - and with "all data" in mind? ;-) ), you might be interested e.g. in this NY-Times-piece as a kind of individual case study:
http://www.nytimes.com/...nyregion/21yitta.html?hp
Best wishes!
"And, please, don't tell me that you dislike the Amish for their religious high-fertility-lifestyles,"
You really don't appear to read what I am writing at all.
Again: I never stated any "like" or "dislike" or any such personal judgment of the Amish or their lifestyle, nor did I pass any such reference concernig other religious groups. Would you please cite even one instance where I stated such a like or dislike?
If you can't (and to spare you the time, I can assure you you won't find any such utterance of mine), then please refrain from mis-quoting me.
Thank you.
Thanks for your question. Unfortunately, I don't even have to go back to older posts and comments of yours to remind you of those judgingly anti-religious remarks.
E.g., you wrote in your very first comment on this post: The alleged advantage of regiosity just isn't there, if one bothers to look at all the data and draw conclusions on the evidence, as a scientist would, rather than just pick out what fits one's own belief system, as religious persons tend to do.
You are clearly confronting positive images of "a scientist" and negative ones of "religious persons" here, as if one couldn't be both.
And ironically, you later had to admit that you didn't even read most of the data (including the linked paper and case studies) yourself before making your "scientific" judgements about evolutionary hypotheses and a whole field of scientific study... You did exactly what you accused "religions persons" of doing! ;-)
You later proceeded to describe the Amish as "backward". And you emphasized: A scientist argues to the point. Conversely, a believer takes any refutal of his beliefs personally
I don't know if you truly believe that your comments (and your ignorance of the respective data and studies before "refuting" them, accompanied by negative depictions of "religious persons" and "believers" per se) did constitute a non-passionate way of true scientific discourse. To me, it seemed to be nothing of that kind: You tried to ridicule religious peoples, a whole field of scientific study and a colleague. And you lost. As I am having very high esteem for your intelligence and skills, recommending and linking your posts repeatedly, I would be very glad if you could muster about the same respect for me, my colleagues and our scientific works in order to allow for real discourse in the future.
Best wishes!
"if one bothers to look at all the data and draw conclusions on the evidence, as a scientist would, rather than just pick out what fits one's own belief system, as religious persons tend to do."
I don't see anything incorrect with this statement, and I don't see why you take exception to it.
Your paper, by the way, confirms my statement that in Amish communities social pressure influenced by religious mores is exerted to ensure high birth rates (page 166, paragraph 2).
You do state that "Not even Old Order Amish forbade the use of Contraceptives" (page 166, paragraph 3), without offering proof or corroborating evidence. This statement of yours does not appear to be consistent with other sources.
http://www.gameo.org/...pedia/contents/B541ME.html
http://www.gameo.org/...edia/contents/A4574ME.html
I'm sorry, what was your point again? You seem to be insisting that I made untrue statements about the Amish community.
You see, contrary to your allegation, I do refer to literature. In fact, if you return to my first comment from May 3, you will find that that already contained a reference literature.
Although your paper expounds the perceived positive aspects of the Amish religiosity at length, you do not even mention the high incidence of genetic disorders. Surely a balanced representation should take both into account, the good and the bad?
I don't see that I "lost", as you claim, assuming that "losing" or "winning" are relevant terms in the context of scientific debate.
It is also not true that I "ridicule a whole field of scientific study" (referring to the science of religion). What makes you think I did so?
Look, Dr. Blume, it is clear that you have some problem with me, but please refrain from making incorrect claims about what I allegedly wrote or implied This is not the first time I have asked you to do so; I am afraid I really must insist.
No, I never had any problem with you, never attacked your works or reputation, but commented favourably upon your work when I visited your blog and linked post of yours to my readers. It was sad to experience repeatedly your trials to ridicule my and our works - without even having read them.
I am glad that you did it now, thank you for that one.
As for the use of contraceptives among the Amish and other Anabaptist groups, the source is cited in the paper: "On the backroad to heaven" by Kraybill and Bowman (leading experts in the field):
http://www.amazon.de/...s-Anabaptist/dp/0801870895
Best wishes!
Dr. Blume, I want to thank you for your informative presentations on science of religion. In my country, freedom of religion, freedom of science and expression have been severely restricted for many years, and we didn't have any chance to learn about groups as the German-American Amish, Jews or other believing peoples and their histories. We didn't have a chance to freely discuss biology, physics or other sciences either. Everyone who dared to venture from the official ideology was attacked on a personal level as being retarted, evil or American. So, please keep up your good and informative work.
Thank you for your encouraging comment, Dr. Pjotr! It's always good to read from you and those experiences you reflected upon. I was shocked to read that in 2008, Josef Stalin ranked third among Russians electing their national heros:
http://www.youtube.com/...bkSNYAQ&feature=fvsr
To me, this is a reminder that every worldview should be ready to ponder about its history and limitations.
Dr. Blume, thank you for citing the source on the use of contraception among Old Order Amish. As you yourself suggested it, you will have no objection to my referring to it.
By the way, I again kindly ask you to refrain from making untrue statements about myself. I make no reference whatsoever to anyone else involved in teh science of religion, nor do I "ridicule" these others, as you imply.
Back to Kraybill and Bowman's "On the Backroad to Heaven". You cite this book (which, just for the record, I find to be informative, comprehensive, balanced and impartial) as a source for the claim you make in your paper: "Not even Old Order Amish forbade the use of contraceptives". You do go on to qualify this statement, admitting that "voluntary cildlessness would be seen as a violation of the Ordnung", so it would in general not be accepted.
On contraception Kraybill and Bowman state (page 133): "Although no official statements prohobit artificial birth control, the Amish discourage such tampering with divinely ordained means of reproduction".
Whether this is officially stated or written down anywhere is not relevant, as Kraybill and Bowman note, concerning the "Ordnung" (page 106): "[...] The Ordnung embodies the behavioral expectations that shape Amish life. Typically unwritten, it regulates the religious and social life of Amish communities [...]". Prohibitions don't have to be written down in order to be effective. Especially in small, closed communities. I am sure we can agree on that simple fact of life.
Of course, Kraybill and Bowman are not the only sources on this specific topic. I earlier cited the "Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online". Do you consider this a citable source?
The GAMEO states, quite clearly and straightforwardly:
http://www.gameo.org/...edia/contents/A4574ME.html
"According to sociologist Julia Erickson and her colleagues, the Amish are among the fastest-growing populations in the world. They prohibit the use of contraception and have low infant mortality rates. The average Amish woman can expect to have at least seven live births."
We don't have to start mincing words or discuss semantics, but the fact is that Amish communities do effectively forbid contraception, as I claimed here:
http://www.scilogs.eu/...udies/page/1#comment-1048
"[...] The point in the given case is that it is unsurprising that closed groups with restrictive morals, strong social control and strict adherence to religious codes that forbid contraception and postulate prolificness actually have higher birth rates than the average in developed societies. [...]"
To which you replied:
"[...] the Amish [...] do [not] forbid contraceptions, as I noted in the paper linked above - that you obviously didn't even read."
And you also replied:
"[...] I just pointed out that your prejudice about Amish forbidding contraceptives was wrong. [...]
In actual, the Old Order Amish do prohibit contraception, so my statement that they do was correct and your claims to the contrary were not.
Now please don't start out on a new round of unfounded allegations and ad hominem attacks. We're discussing on a scientific basis here, point versus counter-point.
I am not passing any personal judgment at all, neither now nor before, on the Amish way of life. In fact, I don't have strong opinions about them, either way. If I were to vilify them, this would tend to weaken my case. Likewise, it would weaken my case if I were to praise their way of life.
All I am saying is what I have said before.
I do not find it surprising that closed, mainly agrarian, religious communiies that strongly subscribe to the biblical tenet to be fruitful and multiply, that prohibit contraception and that can apply sufficient social pressure to make sure that this and other prohibitions are observed, experience high birth rates.
I further do not find it surprising that because these groups can additionally enjoy many benefits of modern health care - combined with a generally healthier lifestyle than many modern seculars - mortality in these groups is low and therefore the high birth rate translates into a rapid population growth within these communities.
I do not find it surprising that the communities suffer a low rate of outflux and therefore, their population growth translates into a significant sustained community growth. Again according to Kraybill and Bowman (e.g., pp. 106, 113) and numerous other sources which I can cite if required, Amish are opposed to grade school attendance. However, in the US society not even having attended, let alone graduated from high school, not to mention college, strongly disadvantages a person on the job market and in otyer areas of society and therefore, realistically, poses a strong impediment agains integrating into the non-Amish world. These hardships may be overcome, certainly, but nevertheless I do contend that this single issue constitutes a very effective incentive not to leave an Amish community.
I believe that this sums up the salient points. I see nothing mysterious, but a societal set-up within the Amish communities that ensure high population growth and limited numbers of members voluntarily leaving. I see no reason why such mechanisms should not work effectively in other religious communities of similar set-up.
It is a great pleasure to see you delving into the real stuff, after all! Maybe we could agree to have discussions on this level (of mutual respect and real inclusion of data and studies) in the future?
* Offering my hand for a friendly shake * :-)
To your inquiry:
Yes, you found one of the citations! And the case study of the Hutterites (and their specific "debate" on contraception) could be of further interest for your considerations!
As I wrote in the paper, religious traditions may influence fertility levels on the individual, social and institutional level. Thus, some religious communities are attaining far higher birth rates than secular ones. In fact, we still found NO secular community which attained birth rates above replacement level for just two or three generations - which is of importance from the perspective of evolutionary studies. And yes, the Amish are a case study, Orthodox Jews, Hutterites or Australian Lutherans (etc.) are others. The comparative (and non-mystifying) observation and description of diverse groups and traditions is our very scientific task!
Thus, I am glad that you finally got the scientific picture! And I am looking forward to your next scilog-post in order to learn something about your fascinating field, astronomy!
Yours, Michael
‘...voluntary childnessness would constitute a violation of the ‘Ordnung‘....‘
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/...y.pdf (p. 166, 3.1)
‘The Amish blueprint for expected behavior, called the Ordnung, regulates private, public, and ceremonial life‘....The order is not written down.‘
http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/...mishfaq.htm#ord
Obviously, the high birth rates observed in Amish communities can be explained by the psychological pressure exerted by older members on the younger ones, especially women, who are not allowed to stay childless.
From there (and some other reasons...) it is doubtful that this ‘Brave old Amish-World‘ in which thoughts, feelings and behaviour are controlled via an obscure ‘Ordnung‘ can be regarded as an ideal playground for case studies on population growth and evolution.
It may be a surprise, but I wouldn't disagree. I don't think that the Amish are kind of ideal people, which should be emulated by everyone.
But in evolutionary studies, success is not the same as "goodness" or truth. We are exploring the strategies of all kinds of living things, regardless of our assessment of their "value". The Old Order Amish, orthodox Jews etc. do not have to constitute ideal people, but they are managing to organize the fertility potential of religious beliefs and behaviors throughout subsequent generations. For this reason, they are of interest to the scientific study of religion and to contemporary (e.g. European) debates concerning demography.
Dr. Blume,
as a start: I didn't talk about 'ideal' or 'not ideal' communities, but mentioned that 'it is doubtful that this ‘Brave old Amish-World‘ in which thoughts, feelings and behaviour are controlled via an obscure ‘Ordnung‘ can be regarded as an ideal playground for case studies on population growth and evolution.'
We are talking about science. When trying to detect possible 'religious factors' that might boost fertility rates one should look for other fertility enhancing factors too.
Looking at the Amish 'Ordnung' we see a high potential of psychological manipulation and pressure, which explains and relativizes the high fertility rates. I wouldn't call cultural violence that leads to high fertility rates a 'religious potential'.
As long as you talk about mice, you're right when you state:
'But in evolutionary studies, success is not the same as "goodness" or truth. We are exploring the strategies of all kinds of living things, regardless of our assessment of their "value".'
But - Amish are men, not mice.
It would be a bad sign if scientists would interprete human population growth generated by suppressing the individuality of community members as an 'evolutionary success' and the cultural violence implied and ritualized in the Amish 'Ordnung' as an acceptable strategy, because the next step would be to legitimate fascism.
In my opinion these Amish children, women and men are victims of an extreme ideology - nothing one should romanticize.
Gunnar Glitscher said:
It would be a bad sign if scientists would interprete human population growth generated by suppressing the individuality of community members as an 'evolutionary success' and the cultural violence implied and ritualized in the Amish 'Ordnung' as an acceptable strategy, because the next step would be to legitimate fascism.
If these strategies have a heritable component, and correlate with reproductive success, it would be anything but scientific to conclude this will not lead to evolutionary success, because such strategies are expected to spread though the human population.
The flaw in your argument is that this would somehow legitimate this as ethical human behaviour. It does not, and Michael was trying to convey exactly this point in his previous comment. You are absolutely right that cultural violence or suppresion of individuality should not be romanticized, but I don't think Michael is guilty of that when he acknowledges that certain behaviours, ethical or not, can be advantageous in a biological sense.
I know that one should be cautious with extrapolating biological concepts to humans, especially when one talks about religion, because people have a hard time remaining objective in these matters. This is clearly demonstrated by the flame war earlier in this thread. However, whether you like it or not, biologically speaking what is true for mice is true for men.
If these strategies have a heritable component
As far as I could see even in the cited literature, the indisputed population growth seems to be to be entirely explainable by high birth rates achieved via social pressure and restriction of the use of artificial contraception (Is this not the single most effective contributor to declining birth rates in developed societies?) and active measures taken to render members of the community unfit for life outside of the community, limiting their willingness or ability to leave.
(And yes, other sources the Old Order Amish do appear to forbid artificial contraception, contrary to an unequivocal statements made by the author of the blog article, unless several other sources are incorrect. Unfortunately, there has been no comment on this after I cited relevant literature.)
That this works, in a fashion, is indisputed. The question is how to view this and what follows from it.
and correlate with reproductive success, it would be anything but scientific to conclude this will not lead to evolutionary success, because such strategies are expected to spread though the human population.
But doesn't the question arise how "evolutionary success" among humans is defined? Can we reduce this term to the single criterion of numbers of individuals occupying well-defined societal niches (in this case, mostly closed, rural communities)?
Let's say we do accept, for the moment, that the same criteria apply for humans as for rodents in terms of judging their evolutionary success. That wasn't my hypothesis, but let's assume it applies.
Then, shouldn't the fact that a certain group (or in the case of animals, species) is, through those very conditions that account for its numbers, effectively restricted to a clearly delimited area and cannot thrive outside of it, raise doubts concerning the evolutionary success of this group's strategy?
Regarding your first point, I can be brief: I fully agree with you. This is the one point that Michael (Blume) still has to convince me of. For religiosity to spread by means of natural selection, it has to be consistently and genetically associated with increased reproductive success. I am sceptical, as you are, that this is the case.
Regarding your second point, the definition is very clear. If the human population has become more religious, on average, because people genetically inclined to be religious tended to have more children, than it is an evolutionary succesful strategy.
I agree with you that there may be limitations, and I am not sure that "religiosity" is still spreading, but as long as evolutionary processes ensure the propagation of the underlying genetic factors (alleles), it is a succesful evolutionary strategy. Evolution is mainly a game of survival.
I am sure Michael will tell us soon (no pressure) ;-)
Thank you very much for the sound contributions - and especially you, @Corneel, for helping to hold the discussion on the factual level the topic is deserving.
As to the question of genetical heritability, I would like to emphasize four points:
1. My initial starting point in the scientific study of religiosity has been the interdisciplinary dialogue with the brain sciences (that was the topic of my doctorate thesis). And I don't know of a single neurologist doubting that religiosity is taking place in the brain as other biocultural traits, e.g. musicality or intelligence. AND we are having an evolutionary history, with (proto-)religious behaviors emerging very lately (in evolutionary terms).
2. Religiosity (observable as religious behavior) is a human universal as are musicality and intelligence - showing wide variations among phenotypes, but to be observed in all known populations. How could this be explained if there would be no genetic heritabilty at all?
3. Of course, many questions remain to be addressed - regarding the heritability of musicality, intelligence and religiosity alike. But nobody would doubt the partial genetic foundations of the first two traits, while some are getting furious concerning the third. Why? Those Twin-studies conducted found a partial heritability of religious behaviors - which doesn't surprise me:
http://www.scilogs.eu/...partly-inherited-by-genes
4. Numerous studies of my colleagues from the psychological disciplines showed experimentally that human beings are born with a variance of animistic tendencies, which can be observed in children and adults. For example, you can find studies and links here on "Biology of Religion" by Jesse Bering and Ara Norenzayan - and more will follow.
Finally, I would like to point out that Charles Darwin himself assumed religion to be a normal and successfull (biocultural) trait in human evolution, as soundly formulated in his "Descent of Man" (1871).
Thus, I would concede that there is much to be explored - as with any other evolutionary trait! But I don't see a convincing line of arguments in assuming that religiosity should be from another plane of existence, instead of being partially heritable as any other comparable trait (musicality, intelligence etc.)...
But maybe one of you could name just a single complex and universal behavioral trait among our species Homo sapiens, which evolved for tens of thousands of years and which is assumed by evolutionary scientists to be absolutely non-hereditary the genetic way?
Concerning the importance of intergenerational reproduction for genetic evolution, @Corneel gave a sound explanation.
The biologists at Tübingen university did a wonderful clip especially about this topic, rightfully celebrating Charles Darwin for his insight. Please enjoy!
Evolutionary Theory & Reproductive Advantage
'However, whether you like it or not, biologically speaking what is true for mice is true for men.'
Yes, and therefore biological mechanisms are at work to avoid inbreeding in mice.
The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice
But the man-made Amish 'Ordnung' causing inbreeding isn't fixed in the Amish's genome and here we come to the point of human identity (which is not so much a matter of the number of legs but of human personality).
If we neglect 'who we are' and orientate our self-concept towards mice we'll loose our identity. Because we are no mice we can (and have to) judge our attitude towards reproductive strategies with ethics in mind or we'll undermine our human substance and hence we'll not be on the winner side of evolution.
If the sheer number of humans in a population would be the key to evolutionary success, the development of efficient techniques of human cloning should be a major goal of genetic sciences... ;-)
Looking at the negative effects of inbreeding it appears unlikely that the Amish way of life will lead them to the 'Golden Ages' when they finally will save the less fertile 'secular world'.
'Right now, the best prevention for many of these mutations is to prevent intermarriage, which is hard to do. Marrying outside the faith could create a healthier gene pool, but it would also ultimately destroy the very essence of what it means to be Amish.'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/60II/main700519_page2.shtmlWhat will be the 'very essence of what it means to be Amish' in future? Sitting in a wheel-chair?
In the long view some help from outside will not be sufficient to avoid the consequences of disregarding nature.
'Now, when she needs to go to the doctor, she wheels the girls into her van. She’s left buggy rides, and the whole Amish lifestyle, behind. But the price was being shunned forever by the community, as well as her ex-husband and her two healthy adult children.'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/08/60II/main700519_page2.shtml
If the Amish refuse to use their intellect to change traditions and don't speed up social evolution they will not for much longer participate in the biological evolution of humans.
'The Amish make up only about 10 percent of the population in Geagua County in Ohio, but they’re half of the special needs cases.'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1421049/posts
Unfortunately the audio-visual material presented in the blog entry matches exactly the stereotypes suggesting an 'idillic Amish world'.
If the human population has become more religious, on average, because people genetically inclined to be religious tended to have more children, than it is an evolutionary succesful strategy.
I don't understand. Even when regarding animals, shouldn't evolutionary success of a species be measured in terms of how well that species is fairing, not how successful the regnum in general is? Mammoths and sabre tooth tigers became extinct, even though mammals in general are doing fine.
Likewise, the evolutionary success of a specific religious group should be measured against the yardstick of how well they are doing, not how society at large is developing.
Concerning the Amish, so far, the figures appear to look good. But on the other hand, 200,000 or so in a nation of 300 million is still a tiny minority.
We will have to wait and see whether their atrategy really leads to long term success or whether this is a strategy that only works when the overall numbers remain small, and comes apart at the seams when the communities become too large for the strict control that is the key to the growth (as described earlier) can no longer be maintained.
If this a strategy that works well only with small numbers, then rather than being an overall successful strategy, it would rather be one that led into an evolutionary cul-de-sac.
In another comment, you state:
[...] one should be cautious with extrapolating biological concepts to humans, especially when one talks about religion, because people have a hard time remaining objective in these matters.
I agree that one should be very careful when extrapolating biological concepts to human societies, in particular developed human societies, but not for necessarily for the reason you state.
In developed human societies there are other factors such as a general agreement to exercise tolerance and to protect minorities, even those that are to a lesser or larger extent opposed to the precepts of modern societies.
This constitutes a new factor, one that doesn't exist at all with animals. It is also a fairly recent phenomenon, even among the most developed human societies.
Still, I think this has to be taken into account, and this, more than anything else, means that indeed one has to be very cautious when extrapolating from observations that apply to animals.
Gunnar Glitscher said:
If we neglect 'who we are' and orientate our self-concept towards mice we'll loose our identity. Because we are no mice we can (and have to) judge our attitude towards reproductive strategies with ethics in mind or we'll undermine our human substance and hence we'll not be on the winner side of evolution.
I agree with this statement, but acknowledging that certain unethical behaviour can be evolutionary succesful does not undermine our human substance, as long as we recognise that such behaviour is undesirable.
For example: Evolutionary biology tells me that if I want to be evolutionary succesful, I will need to father as many children as possible. As a scientist, I must acknowledge that fact.
But I don't WANT to be evolutionary succesful. I just want to live a happy and peaceful life. That is a decision I make as a human being, and that is what sets us apart. You won't find many mice contemplating such matters ;-)
Michael Khan said:
... the evolutionary success of a specific religious group should be measured against the yardstick of how well they are doing, not how society at large is developing.
A religious group is not an evolutionary unit. Modern evolutionary theory defines evolution as a shift in the genetic composition of a population, so the units we are interested in are alleles (the variants of individual genes). The Amish are not the only religious group in the world, but a manifestation of a widespread religious tendency. Wherever a religious community is being fruitful, they will increase the relative proportion of "religiosity" alleles (if such exist) in the human population at large.
» For example: Evolutionary biology tells me that if I want to be evolutionary succesful, I will need to father as many children as possible. «
That's nonsense. Evolutionary biology doesn't tell such things... ;-)
Evolutionary biology says that your ancestors were evolutionary "successful", i.e, they have survived and reproduced. And that you must have some children if your genes are to remain in the evolutionary game, that's all.
But these genes could also be an evolutionary disaster for the human race, i.e., the evolution of mankind may benefit from the elimination of your genes. We can't know...
Good point, but I beg to differ :-)
You said:
But these genes could also be an evolutionary disaster for the human race, i.e., the evolution of mankind may benefit from the elimination of your genes. We can't know...
You know, I really care for the human race, because I am such a nice guy ;-)
But evolutionary speaking, every other human is a competitor, and all I should care about is the transmission of MY genes. That truly means that, if I wish to be evolutionary succesful, I am to have as many children as possible, even if this is to the detriment of others. This is the concept of "selfish genes", and is a direct inference from population genetic theory.
So you see, it is a good thing I don't care about being evolutionary succesful ;-)
Surely, you're a nice guy, but nevertheless, evolutionary "success" (if this term makes any sense at all) can only be attributed to the unit of evolution, and this unit of evolution are not YOU (sorry!) but your genes, i.e. the genetic information. You yourself are just the target of the process of natural selection, like all other individuals. And all individuals have a limited shelf life (as opposed to the genetic information). We ourselves are not made for evolutionary "success". I know, it's hard to accept... ;-)
... there are no things such as "egoistic genes" in the real life. And hence, all conclusions grounded on this faulty picture are also (more or less) faulty.
Thank you for your interests :-)
I think we are close to agreement.
You said:
evolutionary "success" (if this term makes any sense at all) can only be attributed to the unit of evolution, and this unit of evolution are not YOU (sorry!) but your genes
The term "evolutionary success" can be applied to organisms, and is operationally defined as those individuals that succesfully propagate their genetic material into the next generation (it is equivalent to Darwin's "fitness").
So how am I to propagate these genes without having children? That's quite hard (and only occurs in special cases, e.g. kin selection). So for the purpose of this discussion, my evolutionary success coincides with that of my genes, and is proportional to the number of children I have.
See? :-)
I am sorry. I saw your last comment only after submitting my own.
Yes, the concept of "selfish genes" is only a metaphor, to aid understanding of the process of natural selection. Don't put too much weight on it, if it doesn't work for you.
» So for the purpose of this discussion, my evolutionary success coincides with that of my genes, and is proportional to the number of children I have.
See? :-)«
Okay, I see, you identify yourself with your genes... why not? ;-)
In fact, I agree with all what you said about the evolutionary mechanisms.
But perhaps we should differentiate between reproductive success and evolutionary success. These terms should not be confused (as a scientist you know that scientific terms should always be used properly and appropriately ;-).
Reproductive success relates to the successful reproduction of an individual over one generation, evolutionary success, however, relates to the successful propagation of alleles over many generations.
In other words, reproductive fitness (or success) can be calculated from the number of offspring, evolutionary success relates to evolutionary change and is thus related to specific alleles (as you already stated above, evolution may be defined as the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time).
If all the offspring are infertile, for example, than reproductive success is not followed by evolutionary success.
Thus, individual reproductive success is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the evolutionary success of alleles.
In addition, we have to consider that all living organisms contribute to evolutionary change in some way, irrespective if fertile or not. Organisms which do not propagate their genes into the next generation will also affect the allele frequency of the gene pool and will thus also contribute to the evolutionary success of some alleles in the population.
In conclusion, I really think that evolutionary biology doesn't tell us what we should do to be evolutionary successful. This privilege has the bible ;-)
You offered the following definitions:
Reproductive success relates to the successful reproduction of an individual over one generation, evolutionary success, however, relates to the successful propagation of alleles over many generations.
Adopting those definitions, I agree with your analysis. Note however, that your definitions are arbitrary. In his blogpost, Michael used "high fertility" to describe the demographic increase of a group of individuals over many generations. Thus, this is also an evolutionary success. Vice versa, I see no impediment to have an evolutionary success across a single generation.
Your last comment confuses me:
In conclusion, I really think that evolutionary biology doesn't tell us what we should do to be evolutionary successful. This privilege has the bible
My impression is that the bible aspires to be a guide to moral and human values. It is not a biological textbook. As such, it shouldn't try to tell us what we need to do to be evolutionary successful. Unless you were making the point that religious groups are really fertile :-)
» In his blogpost, Michael used "high fertility" to describe the demographic increase of a group of individuals over many generations. Thus, this is also an evolutionary success. «
You may find many groups which are evolutionarily successful. In fact, we all are the result of evolutionarily successful ancestors.
Today there are more scientists than 300 years ago. According to Michael's logic, scientists were evolutionarily successful. Okay, you can say that, but what's the cognitive value of such an assertion?
» My impression is that the bible aspires to be a guide to moral and human values. It is not a biological textbook. As such, it shouldn't try to tell us what we need to do to be evolutionary successful. «
My last comment refers to your sentence: "Evolutionary biology tells me [sic!] that if I want to be evolutionary successful, I will need to father as many children as possible", and to the bible phrase: "Be fruitful and multiply". But that's not important... :-)
I would like to add that I am using the term of evolutionary success based on intergenerational reproduction levels. The Old Order Amish are an interesting case study for the overall mechanism as they are not seeking converts, but are retaining higher birth rates throughout the generations, thereby showing the reproductive potential of religiosity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success
Culture And Intelligence, Terms And Concepts
BioCulture,(Swarm)Culture And Intelligence
A. "Rooting for swarm intelligence in plants"
Researchers argue for a type of vegetative group decision making usually associated with humans and social animals, and go out on a limb by also proposing that information may be transmitted electrically.
http://www.sciencenews.org/...telligence_in_plants
B. BioCulture,(Swarm)Culture And Intelligence
http://pulse.yahoo.com/...DYEU/blog/articles/53061
The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for different cultures, for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own specific "intelligence".
All biological entities are intelligent. It takes intelligence to survive, i.e. to temporarily constrain more energy in order to postpone the self-constitutional energy fueling the cosmic expansion.
C. Multicellular organisms, including WE,
- derive from communities of cooperative monocellular organisms, that
- derive from cooperative associations of DNA (or RNA) genes, genomes, which are also organisms,
that
- were evolved, are produced and employed by RNA genes, which are Earth's primary base organisms.
- All Earth's organisms are evolved RNAs.
D. Shock yourself:
- Imagine plants upside down. Their root system are their head/brain complex.
- Other, non-self-replicating mass formats, f.e. black holes, are "intelligent", too. Even if they do not have "comprehension" and/or "understanding" mechanisms, they do, too, "profit from experience" and try gobbling mass or energy to prolong their temporary survival, to postpone sharing the fate of all spin-array mass-formats as fuel for expanding the cosmos, for reconverting the mass resolved at the big-bang back into energy.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/.../list/54.page#5065
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/.../240/122.page#4427
Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos
http://www.the-scientist.com/.../260/122.page#4887
Evolution, Natural Selection, Derive From Cosmic Expansion
http://darwiniana.com/...stion-reductionists-fear/
Sorry, I cannot see any direct relation from your post to the Amish. Please refer to the topics of the posts in order to avoid me deleting your comments.
Pardon the pun...
What's amazing about the Amish is their culture. I don't mean to bash it but I always find it weird yet awesome about how they live in the past in modern times...
Great post sir. Thanks for sharing this. You always know how to keep your reader's attention and the fact that you clearly do thorough research on your articles is a good indicator that you only want to provide the best information for your readers. Keep up the good work sir!
Their culture is something to be fascinated and envied upon. Can you imagine a technology-free life while still being able to enjoy life's greatest pleasures?
My grandmother told me tales of her Amish friends back in the day. They really don't have a desire to let technology in to their lives and it's a lifestyle that must be admired and studied at the same time....
At first glance, nothing seems to be different than the other side of the Amish and other scientific evolution. Ultimately, the Amish are a Christian group, which branched from the Mennonite Anabaptist movement in Europe during the 16 th century and whose members do not seek to "worldly wisdom", such as higher education. But on the other hand, the Amish are truly living in a mystery of evolution, comparative religion: they accept a number of religious orders and costly requirements, and that they were discriminated against and prosecute all over Europe - and are still able to expand demographically and culturally, passing on their genes and their religious and cultural traditions of a great success