In this series:
Me: "Do you think the advancement of knowledge in genetics and molecular biology over the past thirty years has strengthened the case for naturalistic evolution, or weakened it?"
Steve's response:
"Well, it certainly has become way more complicated, even in the last ten years. What we used to think of as junk: repetitive DNA, micro-RNAs, methylation and acetylation of chromatin and more… are becoming much more important to what makes up the character of a cell than ever thought possible. It seems that the human genome contains fewer genes than we thought, but there are blindingly complicated layers of cellular regulatory pathways.
ID'ers would understandably claim that this strengthens their case, because it increases a necessary timeline and offspring number that are already stretched pretty thin in a gradualistic Evolutionary scheme.
Evolutionists would answer the ID argument with an assertion that there was plenty of time- especially given certain known and unknown disequilibrium mechanisms. Also, what has become more complicated and elegant are the adaptive mechanisms that exist in cells. One thing I have learned in cancer biology is that there are many hidden tools that the cancer cells use to adapt quickly to a very hostile environment.
These points would argue for either ID or naturalism, because it is both more complicated and more able to adapt than we knew. The fact that we know a lot less than we thought does not add much to this debate, does it?
Regarding genomics or genetic homologies, they are what they are. [my note: Homologous means having the same morphology and linear sequence of gene loci as another chromosome. Morphology is the branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of organisms without consideration of function. In other words, Steve is talking about genetic sequence similarities between species] It is useful in science to know that they are there, and useful to discover mutational mechanisms. We are getting really good at looking at what is there and how it works. That is what I think is important in science- studying the mechanisms, looking at what we have in front of us. If we cannot observe something or devise a testable theory on some mechanism, it is of no value for the time being."
Me: "Kansas has recently changed its science standards. They now allow public school teachers, at their own discretion, to talk about criticisms to Darwinian macro-evolution. The standards do not, btw, advocate teaching intelligent design as has been widely mis-reported in the MSM. In your opinion, is discussing criticisms to Darwin's theory a set back for science in Kansas?"
Steve: "Of course not. This is, on its face, a very measured and reasonable approach. The scientific community should welcome critical scientific and logical examination. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is part of the problem, not the solution."
Me: "In your opinion, will a student coming from a Kansas public school be behind students coming from other parts of the country in terms of studying biology at a college level?"
Steve: "That remains to be seen from an outcome point of view, but this resolution will not contribute to any decline. Everybody has to pass the same standardized tests."
Me: "In your opinion, will a student coming from a Kansas public school who is interested in pursuing a degree in biology suffer in any way?"
Steve: "While this is possible, I doubt it. Surely, admissions officers will look at each candidate individually. However, there will probably be a bias against anyone who expresses any skepticism of Darwinism. I have heard some accounts in the past of medical schools using pro-choice as an undocumented means test for admission in personal interviews. [my note: I know of one case where this happened]"
Future questions: Does evolutionary theory play a serious role in cancer research? Is evolutionary theory falsifiable?
Interesting stuff. The one thing that strikes me is this:The scientific community should welcome critical scientific and logical examination. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is part of the problem, not the solution.I certainly agree with this, but question whether or not the public school classroom is the appropriate forum for such debates, in particular when they single out one specific subfield of science. I'm all in favor of emphasizing the fact that in science we should assume as little as possible and verify as much as possible, and teach that there is no theory that is without some flaws, in a general sense. But when we single out a particular discipline and artificially inflate the standing of the doubts concerning that particular aspect, we go too far for any introductory science course.
Posted by: tgirsch | November 14, 2005 at 17:38
You make a reasonable point. I just think that the nature and history of this topic is one of controversy and science teachers should feel free to engage the class in a discussion of a controversial topic. Everyone knows this is controversial, why not embrace it? My high school teacher did so, even though he was an agnostic Evolutionist- and it was very helpful to me.
Posted by: Steve | November 16, 2005 at 21:14
Steve said,
Regarding genomics or genetic homologies, they are what they are. It is useful in science to know that they are there, and useful to discover mutational mechanisms. We are getting really good at looking at what is there and how it works. That is what I think is important in science- studying the mechanisms, looking at what we have in front of us. If we cannot observe something or devise a testable theory on some mechanism, it is of no value for the time being.
This is unclear. What does he think sequence homologs are? The reason they are useful is precisely because a) we can calculate very accurately the likelihood that two sequences are homologs (i.e. have an excessive amount of similarity), and b) homologs tend to have similar functions. That is the whole point of finding homologs for most scientists - to see if one can find a protein which has more information about its function known. Then one can transfer that knowledge in greater or lesser detail, depending upon how similar the sequences are, to the sequence of interest. This has been done countless times over the last 30 years, and is one of the reasons practicing scientists are convinced evolution is correct.
Steve goes off on a tangent when he starts talking about mechanisms. In fact it is the mechanisms that we are most in the dark about - we can see the patterns of sequences in extant organisms, but we don't have good mechanistic descriptions of how most mutations occur. Certainly we don't have very good models for it at this point.
In fact molecular biology has dramatically strengthened the case for neo-Darwinian evolution over the last 30 years. The point that cells are more complicated than we thought is basically a red herring - how would one measure the complexity of a cell, and at what point on such a scale would one be able to say definitively that the cell could not have evolved via naturalistic means? To ask the question is to answer it...
Posted by: Mike S. | December 30, 2005 at 21:04