Breaking news! The ruling is in. Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dover school board policy. No promotion of biological design in public school science classrooms.
A better approach, in my opinion, is to allow biological design to flourish as a metascience as Dr. Robin Collins suggests here. As a metascience, biological design will receive the time and support it needs to mature and flourish.
Scientists make wonderful pragmatists and lousy philosophers. Philosophical arguments about science will not convince them to switch away from their current research paradigms. In order to gain traction and acceptance, design based research programs need to produce more discoveries, more break throughs and more cures. Research grants will follow, and so will more scientists. One interesting area to keep a close eye on is the oxymoronic research area known as directed evolution. It may prove to be an interesting testing ground of paradigms (design -vs- chance). I hope to post more on this interesting subject as I learn more about it. A second area where I think design based programs may yield superior results is in forensic biology. Just a hunch.
Once biological design gains traction in the scientific community, and I have every reason to expect it will, then you will see a more interesting trial than the one we witnessed in Dover.
Update: Some legal and philosophical analysis of the case from an expert over at Through A Glass Darkly.
Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dover school board policy.That strikes me as a bit spin-heavy. Judge Jones only "sided with" the Discovery Institute in the narrow sense that both the Discovery Institute and Judge Jones believe that ID shouldn't be put in the classroom in the way the Dover school board tried to do it, but that's as far as it goes.
Judge Jones was pretty harsh in talking about the reasons ID didn't belong, however, and I suspect the DI would disagree with most of them. So the DI got the result they claimed to want (although I'm a bit skeptical), but not for the reasons they wanted.
I'm mulling a blog post about this, and when I'm in a better mood, I'll write it. Basically, this ruling is important for Constitutional reasons, but it's important is easy to exaggerate. The court of public opinion is where the real battle is being fought, and both sides leave a lot to be desired there.In order to gain traction and acceptance, design based research programs need to produce more discoveries, more break throughs and more cures. Research grants will follow, and so will more scientists.This is exactly correct. The advancement of ID must come on the heels of tangible results delivered by ID research, and not before. I remain skeptical as ever that such results will ever come, but that's absolutely a prerequisite to grants, funding, and widespread teaching of the theory.
And look at the bright side: if ID researchers do start producing tangible, legitmate results, I'll have to eat crow. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 20, 2005 at 23:26
You make an interesting point, T, about the court of public opinion.
I think the Dover trial *could* turn out to be the Scopes trial in reverse.
At Scopes, the creationists won in court -- and lost in the court of public opinion.
Dover could prove a victory for Evolutionists in court, but a devastating loss in the court of public opinion.
Judge Jones went way over the top in his ruling. His words were laced with sarcasm and spite. That will not play well with the public, who is largely sympathetic toward underdogs and more open to ID than the scientists.
Judge Jones' snarkiness will play directly into the hands of the ID activists ... in a huge, huge way. The IDists will be able to leverage that meanness and sarcasm for all its worth.
This will prove to be a rallying cry which will attract more people than ever toward the side of ID.
Good observation.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 21, 2005 at 07:02
Judge Jones' snarkiness will play directly into the hands of the ID activists ... in a huge, huge way.
Depends. Most people aren't going to actually read the court transcripts which go a long way to showing the reasons for Judge Jones' snarkiness, so in that sense you may be right. At best, the most people will hear snippets of the decision. So, the public response may depend on how much the media plays up the sections of the decision where the Judge accuses various members of the school board of outright lying to him under oath. People like underdogs, but they don't like liars.
I've also seen some rumblings among the ID activists that this is the decision of an "activist" judge. This is likely to backfire, since the judge is a conservative Bush appointee, and prior to the decision, at least one ID activist crowed that the judge would surely rule in favor of ID, because of his political leanings.
But, if this does turn out to be a rallying cry for ID activists, so much the worse for ID. As you correctly point out, ID can only legitimately succeed by showing results in a reseach program. If the ID activists continue to focus on politics and rallying the faithful, they will sacrifice long term gain for short term popularity. Take Behe, for instance. The man is one of the few stars in the firmament of ID science, but instead of doing research, he's testifying in doomed court cases. According to Medline, he has published a single research paper since 2000 (Protein Science , 2004, 13:2651-64). His other publications are commentaries, reviews, or letters to the editor. Prior to that, his last research paper was in 1998. That's not exactly an active research program.
And finally, the Dover voters' response to this controversy doesn't bode well for IDers if they are simply seeking political advantage.
Posted by: Nick | December 21, 2005 at 09:40
One more quickie
In order to gain traction and acceptance, design based research programs need to more discoveries, more break throughs and more cures.
Your use of "more" implies that design based research programs have already produces "some" breakthroughs, discoveries, and cures. Is this a correct reading? If so, I'd be curious to know what those breakthroughs were, and where the ID research programs are located.
Posted by: Nick | December 21, 2005 at 09:44
"So, the public response may depend on how much the media plays up the sections of the decision where the Judge accuses various members of the school board of outright lying to him under oath."
Interesting point. Since the advent of blogs, the media has become more open source. The judge seemed to put so much personal feeling into his decision, and provided so many sound bites, that his snarkiness and meanness is very easy to replay ... again and again.
Picture that vision of Howard Dean yelling and ranting .... over and over and over and over ....
Judge Jones gave the ID activists way too much material to work with, don't you think?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 21, 2005 at 09:49
"People like underdogs, but they don't like liars."
Good point. The liar meme is not gaining traction ... at least not yet. I'll have to go back and re-read all of the press coverage I read to see if there is anything about lying. What came through loud and clear in all of the press coverage was this Judge's attitude. He didn't just rule against the school board, he scolded them in a condescending tone.
That is what many people will "thin slice" out of this story.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 21, 2005 at 09:53
"If the ID activists continue to focus on politics and rallying the faithful, they will sacrifice long term gain for short term popularity."
Except for Scopes seemed to prove the opposite.
Wait for the movie to come out about the Dover trial ... and wait for it to depict mean old Judge Jones in the same disparaging way that it depicted those mean, nasty, narrow minded, bigoted creationists in Inherit The Wind ... a revisionist propaganda piece disguised as a film, if there ever was one.
The court of public opinion should not be ignored. Assuming the role of a bigoted, disparaging, condenscending meanie is a poor strategy to win the hearts of the people.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 21, 2005 at 09:59
"That's not exactly an active research program."
I agree with your assessment. It needs to be more active. This court case may actually help that, in a backward kind of way.
"Your use of "more" implies that design based research programs have already produces "some" breakthroughs, discoveries, and cures. Is this a correct reading?"
No. More means "compared to" in this context. I am not referring to existing research programs. ID methodology is actually practiced in some disciplines, like forensics and cryptography, it just isn't called ID. One area that I mentioned in my post that could prove an interesting test bed for a comparison of approaches, is the directed evolution programs. I will need to do some further research and dedicate an entire post to this interesting topic.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 21, 2005 at 10:06
I'll have to go back and re-read all of the press coverage I read to see if there is anything about lying.
NY Times:
"Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives..."
and
"The judge's ruling said that two of the most outspoken proponents of intelligent design on the Dover school board, William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, lied in their depositions about how they raised money in a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook...
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
I saw the same thing on one of the TV newscasts last nigh (NBC, I think) with the defendants lawyer saying that Jones was a meanie to call the defendants liars.
Except for Scopes seemed to prove the opposite.
Did Scopes and "Inherit the Wind" really make that much difference? Evolutionary biology as clearly failed in the "court of public opinion" but that didn't prevent it going from success to success in the field of scientific research. ID's focus on the court of public opinion is a distraction that can only harm it. The longer it continues to play this game, the more it will appear that ID has no real scientific underpinnings.
Posted by: Nick | December 21, 2005 at 10:16
Re: the liar meme and how it might affect public opinion. It seems that blogs are starting to pick up on this angle, too, so it's probably too early to tell whether this will be a legal disaster and public relations coup for ID, or a legal disaster and a public relations disaster.
Here's the popular science fiction author Neil Gaiman:
"The 'why this is not an activist decision by an activist judge' bit on page 137 is terrific, although you're best off getting there the hard way, starting at page 1, including slogging through the appalling behaviour of the people on the School Board who started it, who, despite feeling it was important to expell Darwin (and Darwin's finches) and get the Old Testament God back in the classroom, had somehow managed to fail to realise that any of that stuff in the Bible about bearing false witness applied to them."
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2005/12/id.asp
Posted by: Nick | December 21, 2005 at 11:11
Jeff -- I have to agree with Tom about this spin factor -- in no way can this decision be viewed as "siding with" the Discovery Institute. Let's be honest -- this Judge did everything in his power, indeed arguably went beyond his role in deciding individual "cases and controversies," and smacked down the Discovery Institute and every other ID proponent big time. I think the judge's treatment of whether ID is "science" went far beyond what was needed to decide the case, and was almost laughable in its failure to address the thought of any prominent philosopher of science. I plan to blog this soon. But I hope the ID and Christian communities response is honest -- we got clobbered! -- and results in some introspection -- "strategies" like the one employed in Dover always backfire!
More on my thoughts, some of which are otherwise similar to Jeff's, here.
Posted by: David | December 21, 2005 at 12:18
Jeff:That will not play well with the public, who is largely sympathetic toward underdogs and more open to ID than the scientists.I prefer "...more open to ID than the people who have actually studied it." *grin*Judge Jones' snarkiness will play directly into the hands of the ID activists ... in a huge, huge way. The IDists will be able to leverage that meanness and sarcasm for all its worth.Yep, that was Jones' mistake. He allows opponents of his ruling to avoid the actual question at hand, appealing to the emotion instead of to the intellect. Very little attention will be given to whether or not there's actually anything to ID, and lots and lots of attention will be given to how those mean, elitist egghead scientists in their ivory towers are "unfairly prejudiced" against ID.
In other words, truth (and the quest for it) will take a back seat, and emotionally-charged rhetoric will (as always) leap to the foreground. It becomes a popularity contest rather than an honest search for the truth.
Nick:If the ID activists continue to focus on politics and rallying the faithful, they will sacrifice long term gain for short term popularity.Well put.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 21, 2005 at 17:00
Jeff: Inherit The Wind ... a revisionist propaganda piece disguised as a film, if there ever was one.Actually, it was originally disguised as a play. :)Assuming the role of a bigoted, disparaging, condenscending meanie is a poor strategy to win the hearts of the people.Then how do you explain Ted Stevens? Or Dick Cheney? Or Tom DeLay? ;)
David:
Glad to be back to mostly agreeing again. Although I do think the Judge was in a lose-lose position in terms of his "ID is not science" coverage. Had he done less, he would have been accused of glossing over the subject and not giving it enough detailed treatment. Instead he went the other way, and gets accused of dwelling on it and expounding too much. Maybe a better balance could have been reached, and maybe not, but I hardly think he went well outside the scope of what was at issue.
And I agree that these strategies always backfire.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 21, 2005 at 17:06
" "strategies" like the one employed in Dover always backfire!"
Since the strategy consisted largely of the school board lying about their motives and their actions, yeah, that usually backfires :)
And the Judge wasn't snarky -- he was angry. Judges tend to get angry when people repeatably lie to them in court.
Posted by: kevin | December 21, 2005 at 17:17
Kevin,
Judges tend to get angry when people repeatably lie to them in court.
This is so, so true. I was in a case once where we got contempt sanctions against the other side for misrepresenting facts to the court. It was painful to watch even from the other side of the counsel table. brrrr....
BTW -- in addition to the brilliant legal analysis on my site that Jeff references in his post addendum above (patting self on back), there's some really good stuff about the case on the University of Chicago Law Faculty Blog. Even some elite law professors at super-elite law schools think this judge let his anger get too much of him.
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 22, 2005 at 09:16
"Evolutionary biology as clearly failed in the "court of public opinion" but that didn't prevent it going from success to success in the field of scientific research."
Actually, that is quite in dispute. Allow me to quote my friend, who is in molecular research,
"Though the publishers serve the mainline scientist market, they featured a provocative editorial by a grand old master chemist, Phillip S. Skell (www.the-scientist.com/2005/08/29/10/1) which asserts that Darwin’s theory is not useful for day-to-day research design and progress."
..snip..
"Evolution is a paradigm- a framework upon which one can hang observations in a way that makes sense- it is not a testable theory. We use homology to design experiments, but Evolution is an explanation for those homologies. It is not something that we can refer to when designing experiments."
..snip..
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 09:32
"Even some elite law professors at super-elite law schools think this judge let his anger get too much of him."
Xactly. Jones threw the other side a juicy bone. The condescension and attitude is the take away.
A legal question for all you law experts ... don't we have laws against lying in depositions? Why aren't the former board members being charged with perjury? Or is the Judge merely speculating that the former board members lied?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 09:35
Jeff -- I have to agree with Tom about this spin factor -- in no way can this decision be viewed as "siding with" the Discovery Institute.
Ya think? :-) Actually, few realized that Discovery Institute opposed the board's action to promote ID in the classroom. Did you know that?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 10:20
"Then how do you explain Ted Stevens? Or Dick Cheney? Or Tom DeLay? ;)"
Funny how Democrats never make it onto your meanie lists. :-) I thot you were center-left ;-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 10:22
"Evolution is a paradigm- a framework upon which one can hang observations in a way that makes sense- it is not a testable theory. We use homology to design experiments, but Evolution is an explanation for those homologies. It is not something that we can refer to when designing experiments."
I would dispute that generalization. Certainly, there are experiments that can be performed in biology without reference to evolution, so in that narrow sense the statement is correct. But, it ignores the large proportion of biological research that constists of investigations into the history and mechanisms of evolution. In that research, evolution informs experimental design and the hypotheses tested.
I'd even dispute the specific example given above. Yes, in genetics we do use homology in experimental design. We often use homology specifically because of the predictions that evolutionary theory makes regarding homology: that sequence which is conserved among distantly related organisms is likely to be functional and, more often than not, will retain similar function in both organisms.
ID might or might not make similar predictions. Homology might represent shared function, but it might also be non-functional sequence included in different organisms by the designer. Who is to know? In much the same way, the shared hood ornaments of all Mercedes do not imply some critical automotive function.
So, the mere fact of homology isn't terribly useful in experimental design. We use homology in experimental design specifically because we can refer to evolutionary explanations for that homology.
I also think that Skell's claim cuts both ways if it is correct. If most biological research operates independent of the dominant theory of biological change, then it is unlikely that ID will have much more effect Claims that ID will revolutionize biology are likely to be correct only if Skell is wrong.
Posted by: Nick | December 22, 2005 at 10:41
test
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 11:06
test
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 22, 2005 at 11:08
test
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 22, 2005 at 11:11
I have nothing useful to say just now; this is just a test of the emergency commenting system. If this had been a real post, you would have known how to fisk it. This is only a test. (If you are baffled, I'm having problems getting comments through Typepad and tweaking some settings....)
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 22, 2005 at 11:24
Re: perjury and lying at depositions: yes, lying at a depo is perjury. However, prosecutions are very, very rare, partly because there would be so many of them. In thirteen years as a litigator, I participated in hundreds of depositions. The one constant is that witnesses lie. Also, the process is artificial -- witnesses are prepped carefully about what to say, and questions are asked not as an objective effort to seek the truth, but as part of an effort to shape the advocate's case. Litigation is like a coregraphed dance more than a real search for truth, which makes it a bad forum for hashing out big philosophical questions.
Posted by: dopderbeck | December 22, 2005 at 12:54
Nick,
BTW, welcome to the Dawn Treader. Nice to have you commenting here. You make insightful and polite comments.
Are you a scientist? A grad student? Other? What is your interest / background in science?
Jeff
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 22, 2005 at 14:01
I would like to respond to Nick regarding his disputation of clips from my comments; but first let's deal with Jeff's suggestion that Evolution has not gone from "...success to success in the field of scientific research." As you know, it has completely taken over in the court of "scientific opinion." In fact it has so completely engulfed the community that most scientists cannot or just do not separate their thinking from it.- like a fish thinking of water. Hence, you hear the dogma that Evolution informs most of biological research, when clearly- if you look at what is actually done experimentally- the data is always back-fitted to the theory whether it fits their prediction or not. I will give you a small example in experimental biology:
For years, biology prof’s claimed that mitochondria were obviously bacteria that invaded eukaryotes and became symbiotic- thus supporting Evolution. Then after bacterial and mitochondrial genomes were able to be compared, there were no homologies. Did anyone say "chalk one up against evolution"? No, of course not. The response was something to the effect, "... guess Evolution did not do it that way." Any theory that stands up no matter what the data shows is not a theory- it is a paradigm. And that is just what Evolution does every time.
So, to Nick-
I can't tell if you have read Dr. Skell’s entire article, but I understand that most of my colleagues disagree with him (and me!). I would just contend they do so for the reason mentioned above.
But, it ignores the large proportion of biological research that constists of investigations into the history and mechanisms of evolution. In that research, evolution informs experimental design and the hypotheses tested.
Hmmm, this sounds to me like an observationalist or theorist talking, not an experimentalist. We can agree to disagree on this, but "large proportion?" Not in my experience and reading... but I would say something similar. A huge proportion of biological research was performed by scientists who held/hold Evolution as axiomatic. Observational and theoretical biology dealing with Evolutionary theory is always circular- there is no way around it. It is perfectly fine for thought within a paradigm to be circular in logic- but not for a truly scientific theory like Relativity. I am a firm believer in evolutionary mechanisms- I would just like see a little clarity of logic, that’s all.
So, the mere fact of homology isn't terribly useful in experimental design.
Huh? Homology (of form and function) IS terribly useful in experimental design. The use of yeast, C.elegans, and drosophila knockouts are huge examples. Sometimes the homology to a human protein does not translate to a similar function, but when it does one can ask more intelligent questions about a protein's possible role in the less-accessible mammalian cell biology. How the homology or function (evolutionarily) got there is just plain irrelevant- what is does now is all that matters. Homology is one of the biggest tools being used by those trying to characterize the news genes that have been revealed by the genome project.
By the way, Dr. Skell is not a proponent of ID as far as I can tell, and I would also be very skeptical that ID will have any impact upon research at all. However, I would be interested in MrDawntreader's ideas on forensics, since I worked in that field in a previous life...
Posted by: Steve | December 22, 2005 at 15:50
Jeff:Funny how Democrats never make it onto your meanie lists.Well, the topic at hand was strategies for winning, and Democrats haven't won anything in quite some time. Not since the 2000 presidential election, as a matter of fact. :)
So it's not that there aren't any Democratic meanies (there are plenty), it's just that those meanies aren't winning. :)
Steve:
At the risk of getting off into an evolution debate, I want to address this:For years, biology prof’s claimed that mitochondria were obviously bacteria that invaded eukaryotes and became symbiotic- thus supporting Evolution. Then after bacterial and mitochondrial genomes were able to be compared, there were no homologies. Did anyone say "chalk one up against evolution"? No, of course not. The response was something to the effect, "... guess Evolution did not do it that way."I'm not a biologist, and I don't play one on TV, but this sounds a lot like spin to my untrained eye. I'm highly skeptical that it happened anything like this. What this telling hinges on is the proposition that mitochondria-as-symbiotic-bacteria was at one time presented as evidence "for" evolution, and that what followed from this claim is that if mitochondria turned out not to be symbiotic bacteria, this would constitute evidence against evolution. I'm somewhat skeptical of the former, and highly skeptical of the latter.
By way of contrast: If the tomb of Christ turns out to be in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and not the Garden Tomb after all, is this evidence against Christ's resurrection, or is it just a detail that was gotten wrong? That's what we seem to be talking about with the mitochondrial example.
Mind you, this objection is not one I googled up on talk.origins or anything like that. It's what occurred to me just from reading your example.
If we really want to get at the truth of the evolution-as-circular-argument or evolution-as-moving-target allegations, we have to look at examples that scientists actually claimed (and generally agreed) would be evidence against evolution. Darwin gave several such examples in Origin of Species. I often use pre-cambrian man as another such example. Multi-cellular creatures showing up before single-celled creatures. That sort of thing. Anything wildly inconsistent with a progressive timeline would sink evolution pretty quickly.
But a detail about one facet of a cell's function? I just don't buy it.
In a more general case, it wouldn't hurt to ask biologists -- and it's a fair question -- what would falsify evolution. If they can't come up with discrete examples, then you've got them on the "evolution-is-not-falsifiable" claim. (Notice how flat ID proponents fall when trying to meet this requirement -- their "falsifiability test" are almost always highly speculative, defined in inspecific terms, and generally require someone to witness and/or replicate a process that's purported to take generations.)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 22, 2005 at 16:52
To clarify on my prior objection, it's rooted in a tendency I see among evolution doubters: any time biologists are proven wrong about virtually anything, this is given as evidence that they could be wrong about evolution. And their refusal to tie that wrongness to doubt about evolution somehow "proves" that they're guilty of groupthink and not honestly assessing evolution.
Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of groupthink in science (and not just biology), but the way you defeat groupthink is by proving it wrong, not by complaining about it.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 22, 2005 at 16:55
Good post, Tom. You brought out some of my lack of clarity. What you say regarding the mitochondria example is exactly correct. The reason I brought it up was personal experience only. This was touted by my professors and the community as "evidence". I agree with you that it is just data and can be incorporated into any circular open-ended paradigm. My point was that almost everything is evidence for Evolution... until it isn't.
By the way, higher life forms have been found in strata below lower. But it is usually chalked up to stata-inversion or some similar thing. So, I'm not sure that "anomalies" would be accepted. Only persistant, non-ignorable, overwhelming discoveries would do... or the arrival of aliens which own up to the whole ID thing.
Posted by: Steve | December 22, 2005 at 22:31
Oh, about group-think and community biases... I live with it. I can complain about it if I want to. :D
Posted by: Steve | December 22, 2005 at 22:33
Steve:
Well-put response. A few notes, however:
Good post, Tom.Holy crap! That never happens in thes debates! :)By the way, higher life forms have been found in strata below lower.Well, true, which is why I said "wildly" inconsistent. If a step or two seems to have been missed or out of order, that's not a big problem, for the same reason that it's not a problem that we still have single-celled organisms today (coupled with the imperfection of the fossil record). Hell, even counting higher life forms, alligators are damn near jurassic, and they're still around.
So the anomolies would admittedly have to be major. But I think pre-cambrian man would absolutely fit that bill.Oh, about group-think and community biases... I live with it. I can complain about it if I want to.True, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was merely pointing out that you can't rightly expect such complaints to be productive until such time as you can prove the groupthink wrong. But I'm a huge fan of unproductive complaining. ;)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 23, 2005 at 01:58
I should also point out that this is evidence that far too often, professors are far less-well-informed than they probably ought to be (with apologies to David).
Posted by: tgirsch | December 23, 2005 at 01:59
Hmmm, this sounds to me like an observationalist or theorist talking, not an experimentalist.
Shouldn't we be all three?
We can agree to disagree on this
Yes, we probably won't reach a resolution in the comments of someone else's blog.
Huh? Homology (of form and function) IS terribly useful in experimental design. The use of yeast, C.elegans, and drosophila knockouts are huge examples.
I fully agree that a posteriori, we know that experimental design using homology has been immensely important and thus can predict that it will continue to be. What I was trying, unsuccessfully, to argue is that, a priori, homology alone is not informative about shared function. The a priori prediction that inter-species homology would represent shared function was based on evolutionary biology, and I suggested that ID would not necessarily lead to a similar prediction.
That we can now blithely design experiments based on homology without worrying about why homology implies similar function does not mean that evolutionary theory was unimportant in the process. Evolutionary theory is the logic behind early "zoo blots" which leads to small scale comparative sequencing which leads to comparative genomics.
For years, biology prof’s claimed that mitochondria were obviously bacteria that invaded eukaryotes and became symbiotic- thus supporting Evolution. Then after bacterial and mitochondrial genomes were able to be compared, there were no homologies.
Can you expand on this? My impression was that genomic comparisons confimed the similarity between mitochondria and alpha-proteobacteria. For instance this review:
Gray et al. (2001)The origin and early evolution of mitochondria. Genome Biology 2: 1018.1-1018.5
According to Gray et al, "Complete sequences of numerous mitochondrial, many prokaryotic, and several nuclear genomes are now available. These data confirm that the mitochondrial genome originated from a eubacterial (specifically α-proteobacterial) ancestor..."
Posted by: Nick | December 23, 2005 at 11:31
Ouch, it hurts to get your butt kicked. My memory of this predates the explosion of data on eubacteria and archeobacteria. I should have checked before spouting off. Well done.
Posted by: Steve | December 23, 2005 at 11:47
Nick:
It is always nicer to debate among friends. I was trying to get to know you a little better since you kind of came out of no where ... but I think you missed my comment.
Are you a scientist? A grad student? Other? What is your interest / background in science?
And by the way, Merry Christmas :-)
Jeff
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 23, 2005 at 11:51
Jeff,
Sorry, I did miss your query. I'm a lab scientist -- my focus is on mammalian genetics, mostly analysis of mouse mutants. Finished my postdoc about two years ago and now I'm gainfully employed.
I was raised in Baptist churches but now tend towards an anabaptist/Mennonite viewpoint. IIRC, I originally found your blog through Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost, and the name attracted me, because I was a huge Narnia fan as a kid. No, I haven't seen the movie yet. I read your blog regularly, but I only feel impelled to comment on the science ones.
Merry Christmas to you Too.
Posted by: Nick | December 23, 2005 at 12:13
"but I only feel impelled to comment on the science ones.
Consider yourself invited to jump in on more discussions than just science. The rest of us act as if we are experts on everything :-)
Thrilled to have you commenting, and I mean that seriously.
My sister and brother-in-law worship in an Anabaptist / Mennonite church ... my brother-in-law is the pastor, actually. Wonderful people. I am reformed / covenantal in my theology, so we agree to disagree about some theological issues, but agree on all of the theological majors, obviously ... we have a terrific relationship and have great talks about important issues of the day.
Hats off to you on kicking Steve's butt. Certainly not an easy thing to do :-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 23, 2005 at 14:32
dopderbeck here -- for some reason Typepad isn't letting me in under usual screen name.
I should also point out that this is evidence that far too often, professors are far less-well-informed than they probably ought to be (with apologies to David).
Ouch! Well, I certainly can't compete with Steve and Nick! At least no one here has yet called me dopderdoink or dpoopderbeck, like in some other blogs I've visited recently.
BTW, working with "mouse mutants" sounds really cool. My seven year old son would be fascinated by that. He wants to be a scientist when he grows up, and I only hope he's better at math than me, or he'll get stuck in law school like his dad.
Posted by: dave o. | December 27, 2005 at 13:01
David:Ouch! Well, I certainly can't compete with Steve and Nick!Just for clarity, the "with apologies to David" was simply acknowledging that you are a professor, and was not intended to actually include you in the "not well informed" group I had just described. ;)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 27, 2005 at 15:45
He wants to be a scientist when he grows up, and I only hope he's better at math than me, or he'll get stuck in law school like his dad.
Never fear. Math was always my weakest subject. Despite the push towards fairly complex statistical analysis in biology, there is still room for those of us who are only semi-literate in mathematics. I don't think I've ever used anything more complicated than algebra in my own research.
Posted by: Nick | December 27, 2005 at 20:39