Hacker News Reader

Comment by emilong | Hacker News Reader

It's always interesting to me when evolution is framed in terms of "why" something happened rather than "this mutation was more suited to the environment at the time." In this case, sounds like shells were good for digging, now are good for protection. I suppose such headlines are well-suited to our current popular understanding of evolution. (Also... I like turtles.)

View on HN

>framed in terms of "why" something happened rather than "this mutation was more suited to the environment at the time."

I simply read "why did turtles evolve shells" as a short form for "why did shells provide a reproductive advantage to some organisms possessing this random mutation".

It's possible that some readers of the article will interpret the phrase that way. For people with a less nuanced understanding of natural selection it suggests that evolution is a directed effort towards certain ends, as though turtles had a say in how their species evolved. Alternatively, that there is some other agency that is deliberately influencing the evolution of species.

Personally I feel like the idea of evolution as a directed effort is a common misunderstanding of natural selection, and I wonder if better science reporting could start to mend those kinds of misconceptions.

Yes, technical people often use shorthand terms that ascribe agency to random or inanimate processes, and I think laypeople take that agency literally more often than we realize.

I had a Swiss professor on my committee who would halt any discussion of evolutionary process if someone hinted at 'purpose' or 'intention'. He would pop up and shout in a thick Swiss accent "noO!dis iz da fallacy uv teleology!"[1] He would never be assuaged with attempts to point out that such references are merely short-hands for longer, more precise, statements. But he consistently held the best post-presentation parties.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

I understand the insistence. Here in the US, people think "It's just a theory" is a legitimate refutation of evolution.

Shorthand terms can shape the debate in wasteful ways. By always ensuring you use the correct terms and thinking with evolution it helps shape the debate in more useful ways.

Macroscopic models are crucial. Imagine trying to understand water flow in terms of brownian motion or turbulence, instead of "downhill". Similar for heat flow.

We'll need such models to understand neural activity.

That's not to say that lower-level models are unimportant... or that we have the correct macroscopic model.

re title: click-bait titles are why tl;dr's should be encouraged. It would be interesting to have frontpage-like voting on better titles for each story.

Q: Why shells?

A: More turtles.

Because they wouldn't be turtles if they hadn't evolved shells. Teleology in a (nut) shell...

It's turtles all the way down!

I don't see it as anything different than answering the question "Why did you take your sister to the hospital" with an answer other than "Because she needed medical care"

How would you reword the headline?

Excellent question! I'm not sure I could do much better, tbh. Maybe something like, "New theory suggests turtles shells used for digging before protection." Not nearly as succinct, to be sure, but less click-baited. The current title certainly got me to click through...

My original comment really was one of curiosity and theophrastus's link to Teleology above hit on exactly the thought process that I was wondering about.

"Why shells evolved in turtles"

How Turtle Shells May Have Evolved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com