Biology, evolution and cross-pollination
by bipodFrom: The Boston Globe
If anything, Kirschner and Gerhart hope their book will have an impact at least as substantial on their colleagues in biology. For too long, they say, researchers in its different domains-from evolutionists in the field to cell biologists in the lab-have remained isolated. "I wouldn't call it an antagonism as much as one not knowing anything about the other," Gerhart offers.
Kirschner likes to invoke the much-quoted declaration of famed 20th-century biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (the title of a 1973 essay). "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has
proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself," Kirschner declares. "Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
I wonder what Michael Ruse would have to say to these guys. Questioning the historical playing-out of Dobzhansky's principle?
October 24th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Hi Bipod,
"I wonder what Michael Ruse would have to say to these guys."
Probably the same as he said in his eulogy on Ernst Mayr:
Comment by Krauze — October 24, 2005 @ 9:25 am
October 24th, 2005 at 9:26 am
BTW, thanks for mentioning Kirschner's and Gerhart's book. It's already on my wish list.
Comment by Krauze — October 24, 2005 @ 9:26 am
October 24th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Another interesting quote from the article:
This shows that evolution is constrained by what came before, illustrating how a designer might have front-loaded the process.
Comment by Krauze — October 24, 2005 @ 10:29 am
October 24th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Interesting:
"Significantly, Kirschner and Gerhart write, while random genetic mutations in our DNA code cause variations, these mutations do not create random effects (a traditional working assumption of many evolutionists)."
Perhaps they do (create random effects). But those that do get culled quickly, even pre-birth. What about the fruit flies with legs in the wrong place?
"Instead, all organisms have maintained an essentially intact set of vital mechanisms "“ metabolism, reproduction of DNA, growth mechanisms, and more "“ for at least 2 billion years."
Otherwise known as Natural Selection. Keep what works. Improvements are welcome.
"These elements, along with a long-conserved body plan common to many animals, serve as the platform for subsequent, often more visible variations."
Otherwise known as descent with modifcation. (improvements are welcome)
Krauze:
This shows that evolution is constrained by what came before, illustrating how a designer might have front-loaded the process.
Well it doesn't follow. Because evolutionists will argue DNA came before and all that has to be done is to modify the DNA. And blindwatchmaker-type processes can do that. Give them a little bit of DNA and it's off to the races.
However I would say that it is true that the premise that all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry via some blindwatchmaker process to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to imperfectly reproduce, is useless to science and scientists.
Comment by Joe G — October 24, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
October 24th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
Joe G:
Is this really you?
Other than your last paragraph, I could have written your post. I can't even say I particularly disagree with your last paragraph. After all, the premise that all four forces (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravitational) were once unified at or about the Planck energy doesn't seem to be all that useful either. But most particle physicists seem to believe it's true.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 24, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
October 24th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Thank you bipod for that find!
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 24, 2005 @ 3:44 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
If nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution then we might as well admit that nothing in biology makes sense! LOL
I do know this, some of the things Gerhart & Kirschner are quoted as saying don't make much sense! (And I read their previous book, which overall was quite "sensible." I had some problems with it–but they seemed to approach the subject "sensibly.")
Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all?!
Uhhh, no, actually they have. Part of molecualr biology is molecular genetics, and even though molecular genetics may not be comfortably shoehorned into the vaunted "Modern Synthesis," it certainly does take evolution into account. Likewise, if biochemistry has anything to do with biosynthesis, and biosynthesis has anything to do with evolution (Which it does, obviously.) then biochemistry also takes evolution into account. Likewise, physiology played a crucial role in one of the great controversies amongst the Neo-Darwinists.
Sooo, that statement just doesn't make sense.
Then consider this, "But, the authors write, the Modern Synthesis was 'silent' about the way organisms generated variation."
Huh?! The "'Modern Synthesis' was "˜silent'" about the origin of variation?
The authors of the "Modern Synthesis" stated several related and quite specific, but generally applicable, theoretical propositions about the origin and nature of biological variation. These are repeated, almost word for word, in virtually every (If not every!) popgen paper I've ever read.
How could any biologist not know that? It's such a patently ridiculous statement that I must be missing something? (Maybe they were misquoted?)
It is interesting, but probably not commonly known, that the Neo-Darwinists' original arguments or propositions about the origin and nature of variation is another example of how evolutionary biologists make design inferences/arguments and apply them quite productively. (LOL Maybe Gerhart & Kirschner would have preferred that the Neo-Darwinists remain silent rather than make such arguments.)
But I believe that in this case the design argument fails and has proven to be misleading. Life forms do adapt in ways that are distinctly "technological." But they also adapt in ways that technology does not.
If the IDers weren't so often reflexivley critical of evolutionary thought they might productively redress the matter. Dr. Dembski is certainly well-suited to understand the mathematical intricacies. (I know I'm not.)
But why give "aid and comfort" to the enemy?
(On the other hand, the most famous "design theorist" in history did say, If your enemy is cold and hungry, shelter and feed him and thereby heap burning coals upon his head. LOL)
Comment by Rock — October 25, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Heh Rock
I know the Apostle Paul was great but surely J.C was the most famous design theorist of all! (Rom 13:20).
Comment by willo — October 25, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
oops 12:20.
Comment by willo — October 25, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
October 26th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Rock's post illustrates an issue with using the word evolution. A word that has several meanings.
When I read their statement:
"˜'Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
I would at first fully agree with Rock's assesment. But then I would give the authors the benefit of the doubt and re-evaluate using meaning #6 below:
The meanings of [I]evolution[/I], from [I]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/I]:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
And with that their statement makes sense (at least to me).
The same would go for variation and novelty (as well as beneficial and macro-evolution). Unless these words are specifically defined their meanings can be so broad as to render them useless and perhaps even confusing.
Comment by Joe G — October 26, 2005 @ 9:15 am
October 26th, 2005 at 11:44 am
No, I think that what the authors meant is more like this, taken from the link Salvador provided in the Baggage thread (Testimony of DiSilvestro):
So I think there is this whole underpinning understanding in the culture that Darwinian evolution is how we all got here, but when it comes to actual science, it is irrelevant, except in evolutionary biology itself of course.
For my own case, I can say that I went to a streamlined nursing program, a 2-year program in which the niceties of a liberal education were removed and just what we needed to function was included. We did take courses in biology, microbioloby, anatomy and physiology and learned about various disease processes. Yet I can't remember evolution ever being mentioned.
Comment by onething — October 26, 2005 @ 11:44 am