Peer Review
by BradfordThe Peer Review Prison, by Suzan Mazur, contains some strongly worded remarks. One side effect of ClimateGate is a refocus on the matter of peer review. From the article:
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini report colleagues attempted to silence them from publishing in their new book that Darwin's claim was wrong about natural selection. Some of these dark forces afflicting Fodor were brought to light in a chapter in my own book The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry.
If the reference to Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini sounds familiar to Telic Thoughts readers it is likely due to this. More:
Why not just thrash these ideas out in the open as in other professional fields and properly pay scientists to write reviews instead of sending the journal money off to Wiley? Maybe then science referees (reviewers) would take time from their academic responsibilities to actually read papers submitted – particularly those from the unaffiliated.
Good question.
The article concludes with a bang.
Constructal Theorist Adrian Bejan of Duke University says essentially what the individual investigator is up against is the "academic mafia" and notes the following in International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics: "Loaded with bias is the review process reserved for the big projects. The review is run by the "leaders," the persons who head (or have headed) the big projects. They are the influential, the ones who are consulted during the review process and even before a new research initiative is selected for funding by the government. They are many, not one. They constitute a social stratum known colloquially as academic mafias and dark networks (in social dynamics, these terms mean "networks of persons exerting hidden influence"). Favored are the applicants who work for the mafia."
Isn’t it time to stop kissing the ring?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:09 am
O no, not Suzan Mazur again. As her wild-eyed expose of the Altenberg 16 showed, she just can't shoot straight.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 10:09 am
February 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Tell you what, guys. Why don't you stop bitching about peer review, bypass it altogether and publish ID research in your own non-peer-reviewed journals? Like, for instance, Progress in Complexity and Design or The Journal of Evolutionary Informatics?
I think I know the answer but I'm interested in hearing your own opinions.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 10:19 am
February 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am
As is typical of her, Mazur bravely enters an area she knows nothing about and makes some startling discoveries:
Wow.
Bradford, why, o why do you keep dredging all kinds of crank authors as if there are no better sources? How about searching the web for starters? Maybe there already is an ongoing debate with the participation of actual scientists and publishers, as opposed to conspiracy theorists?
Let me point everyone to one such place, which contains tons of articles and online discussions. Peer Review Debate at Nature.com.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 10:47 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Olegt:
Whew. For a minute I thought your point might be that there is nothing to discusss other than putting Mazur in the crosshairs. Do you think Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are cranks too or are you still dredging up dirt on them? They don't exactly fit the wild eyed crazy stereotype do they?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 11:17 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Do you have substantiation for this claim? Or did they just have trouble finding a publisher? How did colleagues attempt to silence them?
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2010 @ 11:18 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:24 am
I'll send an email and see if I get a response.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 11:24 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
That sounds reasonable.
However, I suspect PCID has mostly died. I can't speak for the Journal of Evolutionary Informatics.
Bypassing the journals and going for popular publications seems to have been a more fruitful avenue ID proponents. I know personally of one researcher (John Sanford) that got acquinted and eventually persuaded by ID through a popular publication (Darwin's Black Box).
My understanding is that many of the ID proponents who had come from the Darwininist position were mostly captured through the popular press. For example, OOL researcher Dean Kenyon was converted by the popular book by Oxford PhD AE Wilder Smith: Cybernetic Evolution. Michale Behe and Phil Johnson were converted by Denton's book: Evolution a Theory in Crisis. Bill Dembski was influenced by Thaxton, Bradley and Olson's book: Mystery of Life's Origin.
A few important peer-reviewed books were: The Cosmological Anthropic Principle by Barrow and Tipler, Design Inference by Dembski, and Molecular Biology and Information THeory by Yockey.
What counts in the end is the correctness of ideas put forward.
Personally, you strike me as an honorable researcher and educator. So my comments are not directed at you.
The larger concern is not fundamentally peer-review but whether certain individuals and institutions would use their power and position to hinder or ruin the careers of people they disagree with in an unethical manner.
I like the science, engineering, medical, and finance industries, but there is a mix of honorable and dishonorable behavior in all of them. I don't view the processes involved in these industries (such as publication and peer review, contracting, etc.) as fundamentally wrong, but tarnished by the behavior of certain malefactors.
In the engineering field, Feynman uncovered some issues that weren't necessarily nefarious or unethical at their root, but compromised the interpretation and awarenes of empirical facts (or lack thereof): RP Feynman on Challenger Space Shuttle. These problems resulted in tragic death.
In the pharmaceutical field, some institutions or individuals have resorted to questionable practices, but not all. Big pharmaceutical firms have created life saving drugs, so I don't view all of the industry as corrupt.
An example of bad: Pfizer pleads guilty. I know some second hand stories of other scary incidents.
As far as ID, the concern for me is not so much peer-review but the welfare of researchers and students. Some of the comments from Larry Moran and others have been of concern to me.
The outcry by Coyne and Sam Harris against a theistic evolutionist like Francis Collins was troubling to me. When PZ Myers accused Nobel Laureate Charles Townes of being a fraud, that attitude was troubling (though not against the law). Though neither Coyne, Harris, or Myers broke any law or caused injury, if their prejudicial attitudes are representative of their peers, it would not be surprising that some who are not principled may use their positions of power to make judgements not based on a person's qualifications but rather on their religious views.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2010 @ 11:38 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:41 am
trollegt,
Why don't you guys publish something in peer-review that supports the contention that all living organisms are related via blind, non-goal oriented processes?
You guys do realize that it is the failure of you and your ilk to support your claims that has allowed ID to persist.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:41 am
February 8th, 2010 at 11:45 am
trollegt links to an article by Nick Matzke- crank extraordinaire.
Nick misrepresents ID every time he posts about it and talks about it.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 11:45 am
February 8th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This whole culture war thing strikes me as rather cartoonish. Let me get this straight: olegt, Matzke et al. are ridiculing people because their thinking is conspiratorial, because… they believe their own conspiratorial thinking, that an obscure think tank, the Discovery Institute, in Seattle WA, is conspiring to take over the academic world and impose a theocracy on everyone. And, they believe that they (the evil DI people) could really succeed. How? Are they going to put something in the water?
Okay, so where does Mazur fit in with all this? Does she work for the Discovery institute? Yes, I already know that she doesn’t work for them officially, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a secret connection somewhere. I mean their could be, couldn’t there? It’s possible, isn’t it? After all this is a conspiracy, and that’s how conspiracies work. Isn’t it?
For some reason this reminds me of the spy vs. spy cartoons that entertained me as a kid. Apparently they are still publishing those things. They have never run out of material.
Like I have said before, olegt, "is the gift that just keeps on giving."
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 8, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
John,
You're reading too much into my comments.
I didn't say that Suzan Mazur was on the DI payroll. I said she was not a reliable source.
You're free to read her stories, but I am also free to laugh at you for finding them credible.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
My whole point, olegt, is: Why does any of this matter?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 8, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
trollegt,
You are free to read the stories written by evolutionuts and I am also free to laugh at you for finding them credible.
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
John,
Not sure I understand your question: why does any of what matter?
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Mazur has been referenced before at TT and without much objection to the points made in her articles. That's the difficulty with painting someone with a broad brush rather than dealing with specific points made. Some of her articles are notably non-crankish in any respect.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Here is a specific case where a world class geneticist Joe Felsenstein made a very dubious criticism of something submitted to peer-review by Walter Remine.
http://saintpaulscience.com/Felsenstein_comments.htm
ReMine claims natural selection requires reproductive excess (each parent has on average more than 1 offspring) for natural selection to create a sustained influence of change. This is of course true (even from Darwin's writings where he cites the necessity of curbing geometric growth).
Felsenstein gives a supposed counter example. But it is a flimsy one.
But Felsenstein's supposed counter example is flawed. Over time the parents produce more than children than themselves.
Felsenstein is a world renowned expert, but this error should be obvious to even non-specialists.
Bypassing peer-review in this case is warranted, especially when the reviewer is making a quibble, not a material objection.
It is examples like this that make me distrustful of some parts of the review process. Felsenstein is a world class geneticist, and his disqualification of ReMine's work seemed a bit petty.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I dunno. The Altenberg 16 story was over-the-top conspiratory.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Sal,
Where is the flaw in Fenselstein's argument? I think he got it right: the offspring of the initial 10% with the good allele will keep reproducing forever and their numbers will remain constant, while those with the bad allele will die.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Or just a case of evolutionary paranoia…
Comment by ID guy — February 8, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
As long as whacks are being taken at some what do we make of this?
Truth is a good defense unles the truth is indicting. Isn't he really saying that he is not skilled at spinning a bad situation to mitigate the damage? Is this not much more damaging to science than Mazur and ReMine combined ever could be?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Jones's story has nothing to do with peer review. The gist of the article is that he feels hounded by the climate skeptics who would stop at nothing, including death threats.
So maybe this story does not belong here. Unless you want to hijack your own thread.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Felsenstein is a quibbling. Say we have a population has 100,000 individuals. Say 10% of the population have the good allele and 90,000 individuals with the bad are killed. The new population number is 10,000. This could in principle be sustained without reproductive excess (excess meaning parents have more than 1 child on average).
One could argue this is a "substitution" without reproductive excess. But this is not in the spirit of most conceptions of substitution via natural selection, and won't work over long stretches of time.
Consider if we repeated the process on the population of 10,000, sifting out 90% would result in making the population 1000. Doing the process again reduces to 100, and then eventually 10, and then eventually 1. That would be about 5 "substitutions", and then no more possible evolution.
But that is certainly not in the spirit of how most biologists view natural selection. In that regard ReMine is reflecting the mainstream view of natural selection more than Felsenstein.
Felsenstein then sneaks in the reproductive excess:
So, in then end reproductive excess is called upon. All we have is semantic quibbling. If ReMine used the word "on average" that would have easily negated Felsenstein's quibble.
ReMine has the right to publish his ideas elsewhere. And he did so.
There will be experimental and observational work in the coming years. ReMine and Sanford believe the human genome is deteriorating. That is subject to empirical validation. In that sense, the peer-review process is a secondary issue. If they are right, that sort of data can't possible be policed, we'll know one way or another if their hypothesis is correct once sequencing technologies become cheaper. Already Illumina and Solexa technology is permitting this.
So I agree with you. To some extent the peer-review process can be bypassed.
If ID proponents come up with experimental evidence which can be replicated by others, the facts will speak for themselves. I've argued the medical community will be interested in the spread of genetic disease. ReMine's theoretical work on population biology will be either vindicated on refuted by the facts.
So, I agree with you, no need to bitch. Simply do research and publish elsewhere. The facts will eventually emerge.
I do know for a fact some creationists with reasonable credentials: Sanford, Baumgardner, Wes Brewer have teamed up with ReMine on the question of genetic deterioration in the human genome. The theoretical ground work has been laid, we're now awaiting large scale sequencing data which I expect will be made available. I estimate we'll know in about 10 years who is closer to the truth. No need to bitch about peer-review, the facts will become evident.
My point is that with respect to evolutionary biology, I've not been satisfied with the way business is done compared to other scientific disciplines. I don't find the conclusions as believable as the conclusions in other scientific fields. But that's my opinion (which doesn't count for much in the scheme of things).
Personally, I'm less interested whether there are conpsiracies or not. I'm more interested in what the facts are.
As far as biology, I'm interested to see whether Sanford's thesis will be vindicated or not. There is a vested interest in determining if the human genome is deteriorating outside of creationist circles. However, if it is deteriorating, it would be consistent with the notion humanity is a recent phenomenon and it would cast doubt on the claims that we evolved via natural selection.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Most scientists see no reason to aggressively promote or defend their theories, and most scientists don‘t expend much effort trying to impose their theories upon the public. Cosmology has many weird concepts and the public usually accepts them for what they are. The facts are open to reinterpretation and the theories are admittedly fallible and influenced by optional philosophical assumptions. Neo Darwinists are presently resorting to evangelicalism. They harass anyone voicing scepticism because Neo-Darwinists see themselves as a beleaguered minority. They may be right. Few religious people are materialists, and even most people calling themselves agnostics probably would not regard themselves as materialists. However laymen are understandably reluctant to discuss the scientific details of Neo-Darwinism. This debate should be redefined as one between materialism vs. non materialism. This is a debate which neither side can claim an unchallengeable victory. Everyone is entitled to choose his own philosophy.
Does NeoDarwinism assume philosophical materialism? Evolution is either caused by “natural selection” somehow organizing genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems — or some intelligent, purposeful organizing force is involved in the process. No one has come up with another alternative. Does creative free choice exist? If free will exists, is it restricted to human organisms? Or is non materialistic creativity an aspect of all living processes? Is it even restricted to living organisms? My thoughts on those questions are as valid as the thoughts of someone with a PhD in some scientific field.
In an effort to include more of the public into this debate I offer a criticism of Freudianism, another materialist theory that has bitten the dust.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — February 8, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Olegt:
Listen to Michael.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
here
The scientific community? Does that include peer reviewers?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
ClimateGate part 2: What is revealed?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
That's a juicy sound bite, Bradford, but I am afraid there is nothing sinister in the quote when you provide the context.
Here it is:
Given the level of noise in the temperature data, it makes little sense to talk about a cooling trend over a period as short as 7 years. If someone were to make such a claim in a scientific article, he or she would be correctly shot down by referees.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
A lesson of ClimateGate is that the value of peer review is recognized albeit in a perverted way. A paper passing peer review, which the ClimateGaters found objectionable on ideological grounds, motivates them to seek revenge against the journal itself. Kill the filter for the messanger because the filter accords it credibility which is the last thing we want- so the thinking goes.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Bradford,
Let me reiterate my advice. Keep this thread clear of climate change. You have plenty of other topics dedicated to that.
On second thought, maybe we should ask Bilbo to add his perspective on peer review and 9/11.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
But of course. We don't want legitimacy conferred to the wrong types.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Of course. Get your own damn journals and publish there. It's a free world.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Or attack Suzan Mazur. As if that addresses the article itself.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Bradford,
Suzan Mazur is an amateur who does not have the slightest idea about the subject. Why should I take her seriously?
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
On April 2010 MIT Press will publish this book by some Altenberg folks:
Evolution – the Extended Synthesis
Edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller
In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley's landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo.
Most of the contributors to Evolution—The Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism. This continuing revision of a theoretical edifice the foundations of which were laid in the middle of the nineteenth century—the reexamination of old ideas, proposals of new ones, and the synthesis of the most suitable—shows us how science works, and how scientists have painstakingly built a solid set of explanations for what Darwin called the "grandeur" of life.
Contributors: John Beatty, Werner Callebaut, Jeremy Draghi, Chrisantha Fernando, Sergey Gavrilets, John C. Gerhart, Eva Jablonka, David Jablonski, Marc W. Kirschner, Marion J. Lamb, Alan C. Love, Gerd B. Müller, Stuart A. Newman, John Odling-Smee, Massimo Pigliucci, Michael Purugganan, Eörs Szathmáry, Günter P. Wagner, David Sloan Wilson, Gregory A. Wray
About the Editors
Massimo Pigliucci is Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York.
Gerd B. Müller is Professor of Theoretical Biology at the University of Vienna and Chairman of the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research. He is a coeditor of Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press, 2003) and Modeling Biology (MIT Press, 2007).
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12173
Comment by neddy — February 8, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
A very amusing interview is Mazur's phone conversation about the Altenberg meeting with Richard Lewontin:
http://darwiniana.com/2008/07/10/mazur-lewontin-more-from-altenberg-18-ebook/
Comment by KC — February 8, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Get your own journals.
Like we did.
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/time_07.html#0100
Comment by Pez — February 8, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Olegt:
Do I really need to explain this to you, olegt?
Suppose that instead of being skeptical about the sufficiency natural selection, I was skeptical of the existence of black holes. Would you treat me with condescension and ridicule because of my skepticism? (Or, suppose I was the believer and you were the skeptic.) Would you treat your students scornfully if they expressed a belief about black holes that differed from yours? Or, do they have to believe what you believe? As a reasonably informed layperson, do I have a right to have an opinion about the existence of black holes?
Are there organizations out there promoting skepticism of black holes? Are they raising funds so that they can continue their work? Are there other organizations defending their existence? Are they also raising funds so that they can protect science from the skeptics who they believe want to teach their religiously inspired doctrine in the public schools. It all sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it? It does to me.
What is so sacrosanct about Darwinian evolution that it needs to be defended so passionately, if not obsessively? If it is science then why can’t it be treated like any other kind of science?
I suggest there are reasons. But the reasons have little to do with science.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 8, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
John, we have good evidence for the existence of black holes, including a supermassive one at the center of our own galaxy. As a lay person, you have every right to form your own opinion, but I would highly recommend reading science books and magazines as your primary source, not the writings of some fringe group.
The defense of evolutionary biology is a reaction to a strong cultural movement in the conservative religious circles. So if we are to get to the bottom of this matter, perhaps the question should be turned around:
What is so disturbing about Darwinian evolution that it needs to be attacked so passionately, if not obsessively? If it is science then why can’t it be treated like any other kind of science?
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Here is the history of NCSE, John. It was the answer to scientific creationism.
Comment by olegt — February 8, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
JAD, Olegt's response is like a bucket full of holes. It springs leaks in every direction so let me help translate this as I have some professional interpreting experience.
Olegt typed this with a smirk on his face. He knew you raised the point about black hole skepticism to make a point about critics and not to assert your own belief about their non-existence. But let's play along.
This is misleading. He means that there is a reaction to people of faith who doubt, not only evolution, but the whole ball of wax including abiogenesis and the philosophical materialist baggage that is predominant among mainstreamers. How do I know this? I was around before the DI got off the ground and before ID was ever mentioned. The attitude was the same only there was no cover for the faction arrayed against doubters of orthodoxy. So the verbal bludgeoning took place without mention of an overriding justification except perhaps the familiar defense of science mantra.
It is, at least here at TT for the most part. But this brings us back to JAD's black hole point. Noone would pay much attention to those doubting black holes. A better example might be a proposal that is not mainstream like, for example, multi-verse theory. It does not arouse passionate resistance against doubters of it yet abiogenesis does. The ball is back in Olegt's court.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
There are numerous reasons. For some (not all) it challenges their belief in God and all the Bible. Representative of that view would be Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino).
For others, from less orthodox Christian circles, or even agnostic circles, it seems like a wrong theory. Representative of that view would be the likes of Michael Denton.
Myself, I think I fall in between, but I'm not a political activist (as in writing people to vote for certain candidates based on the creation/evolution issue).
To be fair there are those like Mike Gene and Francis Collins who are not against the mainstream view of common descent.
I'd like to believe the creation story. I'm pretty sure Darwin's theory is wrong. Although I'd like to believe the universe is young, the evidence is shaky. The mainstream view (of an old universe) strikes me as very very defensible and stands a good chance of being true.
So even granting there is religious motivation to attack the theory of evolution, as a science hobbiest, Darwin's theory appears very inadequate to me.
Even though I have some skepticism of mainstream physical theories: electrodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, I revere the subject matter and view the ideas as correct for the most part. If they are wrong, they can't be wrong by much, experiment has borne that out.
When I was asked a homework question in modern physics about the Big Bang, I had no problem responding as if I believed it were true. I thought the reasoning was by and large correct, and I was in no position to offer an objection given what little I know about physics……
But with respect to evoltuion, it's a different story. I'm more qualified than Dawkins to understand the implications of his WEASEL program than he is. When evolutionary biologists step in the domain of information and computers, I feel I have equal if not better say on some matters. I take exception to them saying I'm not entitled to criticize their ideas about the evolution of complexity. I'm more qualified to understand Yockey's work Information Theory and Molecular Biology than most biologists. I'm not saying that my qualifications give me a right to be heard. What I am saying is their snooty attitude toward engineers only underscores weaknesses in Darwin's theory.
If someone said, "gravity is the cause of life's complexity" and then proceeded to enumerate all the evidence of gravity's existence, would that be a believable argument? No. By way of comparison, let me rephrase, "natural selection is the cause of life's complexity". All that I see are proofs that natural selection happens, not that it creates complexity, and I have argued, NS often selects against complexity the few times it is in play in the biological world. The way many biologists argue their case is very disturbing. It seems illogical and thus unscientific.
As far as what to teach in public schools and universities: let Darwinism be taught and let it be compared to established disciplines like chemistry and physics. The contrast should be telling. As far as universities, it seems that its lack of mention is the norm, this is not because of attacks by the religious right.
Darwin's relative absence from the university curriculum is because it has little relevence to modern science, imho. This fact is lamented by evolutionists: Evolutionary Biology National Agenda
And Coyne himself unwittingly confessed the closet view of many scientists:
I've yet to meet a physicist who would welcome his discipline being likened to the rigors of evolutionary biology.
One might view ID as crackpot science, pseudo science, etc. Even granting that, it doesn't let the claims of Darwinism off the hook.
Finally, with respect to peer-review (the topic of the post), I agree. If rejected by one journal, publish elsewhere and in other venues. No need to bitch.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 8, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
February 8th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
olget
How's this for an answer?
Ignore it and get on with your life.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 8, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
February 9th, 2010 at 1:36 am
Olegt:
Olegt, I try to choose my words very carefully when I write. Notice that I used the word “suppose.” I would expect you to at least suspect that I wasn’t stating my actual opinion about black holes here. However, it is true that up till a few years ago I thought the existence of black holes was quite tentative. After all, they can’t be observed directly. However the ongoing observations of Sagittarius A* at the center of our galaxy makes a very compelling case that at least super massive black holes really do exist. So that has moved me from being a skeptic to being a believer.
In the same way, I am willing let evidence to sway me one way or the other regarding the viability of Darwinian evolution. However, I am mystified as to why it is that every time we begin to discuss problems with Darwinism that you and Zachriel have to parachute in. It’s like you are on a mission or something.
I think some ID’ists do attack it too passionately, and I don’t think that has helped. However, I also think that there are some legitimate questions that have been raised about Darwinian evolution, by non-ID’ists over the last 30 years that have been obscured by controversy. In fact, I would criticize Philip Johnson and the Discovery Institute for badly misreading academic climate in the early 90’s. I think he sensed that the dam was ready to break and he could help it along that damn wedge of his. (pardon the pun) Obviously, things have not worked out the way he originally planned. However, I am surprised that now twenty years later some the original non-ID’ist doubts about Darwin have resurfaced. I would have thought that any hint of an association with anything resembling ID would have scared off any remaining skeptics. Apparently there are a few brave or foolish souls still out there.
Mazur may not be accurate in all her reporting, but she has been spot on with some of it. For example, she did interview Fodor about his skepticism and he just coauthored a book about that. And then there is Stuart Newman who was a member of the Altenberg 16. He has also been very skeptical and critical of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis. I suspect that most of Mazur’s understanding of what happened at Altenberg comes via him.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 9, 2010 @ 1:36 am
February 9th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Thanks for the detailed answers, John.
I noticed the word suppose and did not assume that you were talking about yourself. My point was that it would be strange for anyone to deny the existence of black holes these days.
But since you mentioned that you indeed had been a skeptic prior to the latest results from Sagittarius A*, I'd like to expand a little a bit on that. Imagine we're in 2007 (or even 2000 if you will). Why would you doubt the existence of black holes? They're clearly predicted by general relativity. There was good evidence for supermassive black holes at centers of other galaxies. Here is a Hubble news release from 1997: Massive Black Holes Dwell in Most Galaxies, According to Hubble Census. Here's a preprint from 1999, Astrophysical evidence for the existence of black holes, listing the lines of evidence both for that type and for stellar-mass black holes. What were your reasons to doubt all of that?
I have a meeting in a few minutes, so I'll have to get back to the rest.
Comment by olegt — February 9, 2010 @ 11:20 am
February 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Did Einstein believe in black holes?
For me it’s all a matter of when did I get the information, and when do I have time to evaluate the information, and that all depends on my level of interest at the time. Hawking was reluctant to accept the existence of black holes with certitude so as an interested layman I’m going to lag a little behind the experts.
In his book A Brief History of Time he writes:
"This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse. When we made the bet in 1975, we were 80% certain that Cygnus was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled."
—Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988)
As an amateur astronomer I got interested again in the subject of black holes about 5-6 years ago because of Sagittarius A* That was about the same time I spent my “summer in Sagittarius“. Of course you can’t see any evidence of Sagittarius A* through an amateur telescope, but there are a number of open clusters, globular clusters and emission nebulas including the spectacular M17 or the famous “Swan Nebula" in Sagittarius. BTW the some of the objects M17, globular cluster M22 and open clusters M6 and M7 are not only very visible but very enjoyable to look at through even a pair of 10 x 50 binoculars. Telescopes just don’t give you the panoramic view that binoculars do. On a dark moonless night out deep in the country the view can be spectacular.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 9, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
February 9th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
He didn't, but then again he died at a time (1955) when black holes only existed in theory. The first black-hole candidate, Cyg X-1, was observed only later (1964).
I think there's a good chance that he would be more agreeable to their reality had he lived long enough to see the experimental evidence. For instance, it is a well-known fact that he initially did not believe in the possibility of an expanding universe. He changed his mind after seeing Hubble's data.
Your quote from Hawking dates back to 1988. Two years later, he conceded the bet. See Black holes and time warps: Einstein's outrageous legacy by Kip Thorne, p. 315. And even in 1988, Hawking estimated the odds against black holes to be rather long, 19:1. So he wasn't exactly being skeptical about their existence, don't you think?
I think the larger point is that by 2000, few astronomers and astrophysicists doubted the existence of black holes and, more to the point, I can't see any good reason why one should have been skeptical about them.
On to your earlier points.
These people did not invent anything new. They simply repackaged the existing creationist objections against evolution and renamed the Creator into a designer. (This is not even controversial: see Henry Morris's review of The Design Revolution.) Creationism never worked before, so there was no reason to suspect it would work this time.
Challenging an established paradigm is a dangerous undertaking. Not just because the establishment is hostile, but because the old theory has been thoroughly tested and you have to come up with a new theory that (a) reproduces the results of the old one and (b) does better in some respects. It does happen, but few people are capable of such a feat. In fact, many attempts to stage a revolution in science fail not because the old guard is vigilant but because the attempts fizzle on their own: a successful theory is hard to make. So let's have a look at the brave souls you mention.
Fodor says that "adaptationism is independently incoherent." By his own admission, he is not well acquainted with the biological theory and is making a philosophical argument against it. (See his article Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings in London Review of Books.)
Well, color me unimpressed. I have seen philosophers argue about physics and it just amazes me how little of it they understand and how inconsequential their arguments are. Likewise, biologists (and even philosophers!) shake their heads at Fodor's points. You can see some of the responses in that link and there are plenty more elsewhere.
Newman is a professional biologist who would like to shift the emphasis from natural selection to EvoDevo with some self-organizational principles. It's clear from reading his linked piece that even he realizes that his proposal has a long way to go before it will become accepted science. More power to him. That's how new theories are made: they compete with the old ones and the better theory wins. As far as I understand, Newman is not exactly a pariah in the biological world, so change is possible.
I'll note finally that Newman compares the situation in biology to that in physics in the early 20th century when the classical theory was found insufficient to explain atomic structure and magnetism. It's important to remember that the new theory—quantum mechanics—did not exactly put the old one—classical mechanics—out of business. The two theories actually agree in the domain of validity of classical physics. We still teach Newtonian mechanics in college and even in graduate school and it forms a cornerstone of physics.
So if you think that people like Newman will do the dirty job of killing Darwin's theory for you will be sorely disappointed. Natural selection is here to stay. If Newman et al. are successful in pushing their theory to acceptance, it'll still be part of evolutionary biology. Don't hold your breath.
Comment by olegt — February 9, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
February 9th, 2010 at 9:18 pm
A scientific consensus seems to forming: Suzan Mazur is Perpetually Clueless.
Comment by olegt — February 9, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
February 10th, 2010 at 2:25 am
Suppose I designed a catapult system to launch fighters off an aircraft carrier that was 95% reliable. Would that be a good design?
Hawking thought his doubts were significant enough to wager a bet.
How many scientific theories have been proven to be absolutely 100% certain?
Well, as late as 2006 there was still some doubt that the super massive object at the center of our galaxy was a black hole. Ghez et al. in a 2004 paper mention an alternative explanation known as the “Fermion Ball Hypothesis. Here is a paper describing the hypothesis. And, here is a 2006 Power Point presentation that also mentions the controversy.
Do Ghez and her colleagues treat the proponents of the alternative hypothesis with disdain and ridicule? Do they resort to character assassinations? Are they working with an advocacy group to have this alternative hypothesis discredited.
I disagree with your revisionist history. For example, both Behe and Johnson were influenced by the Michael Denton’s book, Evolution a Theory in Crisis: New Developments In Science Are Challenging Orthodox Darwinism. Denton is neither a creationist nor is there any evidence that he was influenced by Creationism. Denton, a religious agnostic acquired his doubts studying and working in mainly a secular environment. So trying to link everything back to Henry Morris is grossly inaccurate. It’s a silly caricature.
Why do they need to invent anything new? If all they did was point out that Darwinian evolution is a deeply flawed theory, I think that would be a significant accomplishment in and of itself.
You’re projecting. I don’t have that agenda. I don’t share that agenda. I don’t promote that agenda. I am just pointing out that there are other people out there, non-ID’ists, that also have doubts about Darwinism. Darwinism is a kind of evolution. It is not the only kind.
Why the obsession with this woman? Did she harm you in some way?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 10, 2010 @ 2:25 am
February 10th, 2010 at 9:50 am
The funny thing about that is you linked to aknown crank- ie clueless individual- Jeffrey Shallit.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 9:50 am
February 10th, 2010 at 9:53 am
It is nonsense.
It cannot be objectively tested.
No one can produce a testable hypothesis based on blind, non-goal oriented processes.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 9:53 am
February 10th, 2010 at 9:57 am
That is false.
Only crackpots say things like that.
ID is not an argument against evolution.
ID is not an argument against Common Descent.
As for Creationism- it worked just fine with predicting the universe had a beginning.
And baraminology seems to be holding very well given all the data.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 9:57 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:22 am
John wrote:
A controversy? In 2006? Did you even read the cited papers? In that 2004 preprint, Ghez et al. mention some far-out alternatives—like a fermion ball—in the introduction to make a case for the precision testing they've been doing. Their conclusion, however, is quite unequivocal: "the dark mass at the center of the Milky Way has become the most ironclad case of a supermassive black hole at the center of any normal type galaxy." Some controversy!
Sure, there have been skeptics of Darwinian evolution among atheists like Denton and Fred Hoyle. Does that somehow disprove the link between ID and creationism? Morris points out that all of the arguments used by the ID people are recycled creationist arguments. It's not a caricature, it's a family portrait, John. Dembski concedes as much in his Reply to Henry Morris.
Well, good luck with that. Trouble is, even if the incompetent ID platoon of lawyers, philosophers, and a mathematician or two somehow managed to prove that Darwin's theory fails (and that's a big if), it would still not establish what they want to establish, namely "that humanity was created not by secondary but by primary causation — in other words, not by God acting strictly through the physical creation but by God’s direct activity," As Dembski puts it. They'd have to fight the next scientific theory that would inevitably come along. That's a fool's errand. Stephen Barr advises against that at First Things. Maybe some people will listen.
Suppose Newman's proposal wins and becomes accepted science—alongside Darwin's theory, as I explained. What would be your reaction?
Comment by olegt — February 10, 2010 @ 10:22 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:29 am
olegt,
IDists have already established what they wanted to.
The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect.
IOW it is based on obersvations and experience.
That inference can be tested and eit6her confirmed or falsified.
As for incompetence- your projection is duly noted- it is the incompotence of the anti-ID morons that has allowed ID to persist.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:29 am
February 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am
ID came before Creationism.
ID started with the ancient Greeks.
ID does not stand nor fall on the Bible- Creationism does.
True both argue against the blind watchmaker but ID does not argue against Common Descent and Creationism does, but the similarities end there.
Comment by ID guy — February 10, 2010 @ 10:33 am
February 10th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Let me recap what my own belief is. I believe that the evidence that there is a super massive black hole really exists at the center of our galaxy is very compelling based on the UCLA‘s research.
Indeed, I suspect that that Ghez and her colleagues believed from almost the very beginning that there was a black hole located at the center of our galaxy. However, settled science is not based on hunches and hopes. For example, we don’t find any papers from Ghez and her colleagues arguing, “it could be true, therefore, it is true.” Or, “everyone that is believes that.”
The following summary of their work from 2006 demonstrates that they had considered the fermion ball hypothesis as a serious alternative:
When did they become confident enough to make the claim that they were certain? (Absolutely certain?) I don’t know, but it was sometime about this time period.
Of course you ignored the point I was trying to make, which is how should skeptics be treated? So let me ask my questions again:
“Do Ghez and her colleagues treat the proponents of the alternative hypothesis with disdain and ridicule? Do they resort to character assassinations? Are they work with an advocacy group to have this alternative hypothesis discredited?”
They don’t because they are confident that their interpretation is the best interpretation and explanation of the evidence. However, I think their behavior would be the same even if they didn’t have that kind confidence. It’s a matter of being collegial and ethical.
Why should those, including a growing number of non-ID’ists and non-creationists, who dissent from Darwinism be treated differently any differently? Yet there is abundant evidence, including charges of “crank and crack pot” by those who visit this website, that Darwinists are very hostile towards those who question their central dogma.
Could it be that Susan Mazur is also spot-on in her reporting here?
“A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as ‘looney Marxist hangover‘, ‘philosopher,’ scientist who can't get grants anymore), ‘crackpot‘, is hardly surprising.”
She wrote that back in 2008. Do you think that she believed then, that she would be a target? Do you think that she probably regrets getting involved in this controversy?
Darwinist would never have to resort to these kinds of tactics if they had the evidence to back up their claims. As far as I can tell, the vitriol and vehemence comes from a lack of confidence and a fear of the truth.
Explain that to me. Darwin’s theory argues that natural selection acting on random variations is sufficient to explain virtually all evolutionary diversity, change including the emergence of novel forms. Newman is saying that that is not sufficient to explain evolution, we need other mechanisms. (Which is that same thing that I have been saying.) While no doubt he believes those other mechanism will turn out to be completely naturalistic, if that is what he is arguing, then Darwinism is dead. Darwin’s main mechanism was natural selection. You cannot consign to asecondary role without undermining his whole theory.
Of course, any new theory must be able to stand on it’s own.
BTW I have never advocated ID as an empirically testable theory, so it isn’t, in my mind, an alternative to Darwin’s theory. Of course you don’t know that because you have never bothered to ask. Why is that?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 10, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
February 10th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
John,
There was little doubt that Sgr A* is a supermassive black hole. By 2000, measurements ruled out all of the plausible alternatives (such a cluster of dark stellar objects) and by 2002 even some of the far-out scenarios (like a ball of degenerate fermions). See these papers in Nature:
A. Ghez et al., "The Accelerations of Stars Orbiting the Milky Way's Central Black Hole," Nature 407 349, (2000); preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0009339.
R. Schödel et al., "A star in a 15.2-year orbit around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way," Nature 419, 694 (2002); free copy.
There is an important difference between alternative astronomical hypotheses such as the fermion ball and the negative arguments advanced by people like Dembski, Behe, or Fodor. The former are empirically testable, while the latter are not. The fermion ball scenario made certain predictions that were eventually ruled out by observations. IDers and Fodor don't make testable predictions, they just say "Darwin's theory can't possibly work." And the problem is not just that ID is in its early stages, no. Dembksi wrote in no uncertain terms that "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." If you think such arguments are ever taken seriously in science, I'd like to see examples of that.
That's a false dichotomy: either natural selection explains everything in evolution or it explains nothing. There is no reason why this should be the case. By now we know with certainty that natural selection works in some well-documented cases such as bacterial resistance in antibiotics. No matter how successful Newman's quest will be, natural selection is not going away.
Comment by olegt — February 10, 2010 @ 11:50 pm
February 11th, 2010 at 3:05 am
It appears that I allowed you to pull a bait and switch on me. You originally asked me:
I was sincerely trying answer your question and reconstruct how I got the information that convinced me to believe in the existence of black holes. But for some reason this has become a pointless debate about recent history. I don’t care. I wasn’t a fly living on the wall of some UCLA conference room while these things were being discussed. My only point is that I read some things about black holes in the late 80’s or early 90’s, but remained cautiously skeptical. Then to the best of my memory, I read a popular magazine article about Sagittarius A* in 2005 or 2006. That’s the way it happened to me, as I recall it.
Is natural selection empirically testable? Is the claim that natural selection acting on random variation accounts for all evolutionary change a testable claim? Has it been tested? How and when was it tested? Are those legitimate questions? Those are scientific questions? People don’t deserve to be persecuted for asking those kinds of questions.
Can you establish natural selection as a sufficient cause that explains all evolutionary change, with the same degree of certitude that Ghez and her colleagues established that Sagittarius A* is a supermassive black hole. If you could do that, if anyone could do that there would be no reason that I or any other skeptic for not accepting Darwin’s theory.
In my last post I wrote; “I have never advocated ID as an empirically testable theory, so it isn’t, in my mind, an alternative to Darwin’s theory.” So, I part company with Dembski on this point.
But, notice what the materialist, or naturalist, or atheist does. They do exactly the same thing that they accuse creationists or ID’ists of doing. They draw a metaphysical conclusion from a scientific theory (Or, is it they impose a metaphysical conclusion on a scientific theory.) In essence they argue that Darwin proved there was no need for a creator, therefore no creator exists.
Once again, I dispute such a claim because it has never been proven that natural selection can do everything that Darwin claimed it can do. What you are really arguing is: “natural selection could do this, therefore it does do this.” That is something I would have to accept on faith. Scientific theories are not the kind of things that I accept on faith.
Oh sure, I don’t deny that and neither does Michael Behe, Steven Meyer or any of the other well knowns ID’ists. What we dispute is that you can take what natural selection can do in a trivial cases like bacterial resistance extrapolate it to account for complex structures and novel forms. If you want to make an extraordinary claim like that you need to back it up with the evidence. (What was it that Carl Sagan use to say?) And since Darwin argued that natural selection proceeds slowly and sequentially step-by-step you need to provide real data not just imaginary scenario’s.
Behe has a whole chapter in his book, The Edge of Evolution, entitled “What Darwinism Can Do” followed by another entitled “What Darwinism Can’t Do.” So yes, Natural selection is here to stay, but only IMO in a very limited way. That is not what Darwin had in mind. He argued that natural selection acting on random variation could and would explain all our questions about the evolution of the species.
But the new developments in the evo-devo field, Behe argues, actually reveals the weaknesses of the old Darwinian paradigm. He writes:
Behe then gives several examples of how Darwin’s theory actually has lead some well known theorists to make the wrong predictions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 11, 2010 @ 3:05 am
February 11th, 2010 at 8:35 am
quoting Dembski:
That is because we don't have to know how it was deigned before determining if it was designed.
But to refute the design inference one has to know how blind, non-goal oriented processes can do it.
Yetr bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is not what evolutionists should be aclling on to suppoprt their position:
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
Comment by ID guy — February 11, 2010 @ 8:35 am
February 11th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Yes.
When talking about a long and varied history, you have to include environmental conditions, mechanisms such as speciation, as well as contingent events.
Natural selection and variation don't explain "all evolutionary change," however, natural selection and variation have been directly observed and can be shown to be powerful engines of adaptation.
Natural selection and variation don't explain "all evolutionary change," but fundamental to understanding that history is Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
February 11th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
John wrote:
The point of this was to highlight a simple idea: in order to form a sensible opinion about a scientific subject one needs to be well informed. You were skeptical about the existence of black holes because you did not pay much attention to that area of astronomy. Ignorance in itself is not bad: it's impossible to be knowledgeable about everything. What's bad is when someone knows little about the subject and still passes judgment on it.
John, this barrage of questions suggests that you haven't looked into the subject at any depth. How about taking a bit of time to study the subject before drawing your conclusions? Have you heard of the ongoing long-term evolution experiment with E. coli performed by Richard Lenski? He observed how some of the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citric acid instead of glucose. Because Lenski regularly freezes a portion of his bacteria, he was able to "rewind the evolutionary tape" and start it anew, from a point in time before the lucky mutation arose. These are quantitative tests of the standard evolutionary mechanisms, random mutations + natural selection. Read Lenski's account in PNAS:
Z. D. Blount et al., "Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103, 7899 (2008). doi:10.1128/JB.01419-08
I'll add more later.
Comment by olegt — February 11, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
February 12th, 2010 at 12:13 am
(continued)
John wrote:
You're comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you have a scientific theory, on the other a yes-or-no question. Let me formulate a similar question: Can we establish Newtonian mechanics as a sufficient cause that explains all of the physical phenomena in the Universe, with the same degree of certitude that Kepler established that planets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits? Of course we can't. And furthermore, we know that Newtonian mechanics does not explain all of the physical phenomena. We need quantum mechanics to understand the properties of metals. Does that mean that classical mechanics is a failed theory? No, it doesn't. So I'm afraid your question is not particularly interesting.
Well, I am an atheist, but I don't make such a claim. In my view, science cannot disprove the existence of God any more that it can disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. It can, however, make references to God unnecessary in certain contexts.
Ah, Behe, I remember him. He draws lines in the sand and challenges the blind Darwinian processes to cross them, oblivious to the fact that they have already done so. I've already mentioned One, Instead of Zero, a few times on this blog. Irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade is another example. Ignorance in an amateur is one thing, but he is supposed to be an expert.
Enough for tonight, I suppose?
Comment by olegt — February 12, 2010 @ 12:13 am
February 12th, 2010 at 1:39 am
I would agree. But, so far, at least as far as I can see, all the known examples of natural selection are really quite trivial.
You haven’t answered the question. No one at present knows how to test this claim. At present Darwin’s theory simply asks us to make the apriori assumption that NS + RV is sufficient.
I think we’re justified in doubting that natural selection is the answer or even part of the answer until we are able test this claim. That also means that maybe that answer is not natural selection, but some kind of poorly understood epigenetic process.
But that’s ass backwards. Darwin realized he needed establish his mechanism, natural selection, before he could claim that the species were related by common descent.
I also would argue that all bets are off until we understand how life originated. I suspect that if the origin of life is natural, it’s probably not as improbable as we presently believe. If that is the case maybe life originated not once but twice or three, four or more times. If that is the case that there is no single common ancestor. So, I would argue that we can’t claim common ancestry until you answer that question.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 12, 2010 @ 1:39 am
February 12th, 2010 at 3:22 am
Yes. Assuming this is true, then we can confidently predict from it that no detrimental alleles can ever become fixed in any population. We know detrimental alleles can arise at random, and fixation of a detrimental allele in a population is evolutionary change, so if natural selection acting on that variation is responsible for all evolutionary change, then fixation of detrimental alleles should be impossible. But we know that this can happen in very small populations. Kerr and Wright experimentally showed that even severely detrimental alleles could become fixed in small populations of Drosophila due to genetic drift.
Kerr WE & S Wright (1954). Experimental studies of the distribution of gene frequencies in very small populations of Drosophila melanogaster: II. Bar. Evolution 8:225-240.
Comment by KC — February 12, 2010 @ 3:22 am
February 12th, 2010 at 9:05 am
What you call "trivial," allows organisms (e.g. malarial parasites) to feed on human children despite the best efforts of their science (e.g. anti-malarial drugs).
The answer was the claim is false. There are many other mechanisms involved.
No, it doesn't. As stated, there are other mechanisms in play. Some environmental. Some related to how species form, or ecosystems evolve.
The claim has been tested, repeatedly.
Epigenetics does not replace natural selection. It's a component of phenotypic variation. Even if it writes-back to the genome, that doesn't suggest Intelligent Design. Indeed, Darwin suggested such a mechanism in his Pangenesis Theory of Inheritance.
You can keep saying that, but if we can established Common Descent—which we can—then it is a very significant scientific finding, and that would impact any discussion of the mechanism of that descent with modification. Common Descent can't be ignored if you wish to understand the history of life on Earth.
That's no more reasonable than saying we can't reach any conclusions about the history of the Solar System if we can't account for the Big Bang.
And most scientists would agree. The question now is how common are intelligent organisms.
Possibly, though the evidence indicates a single ancestral population, highly diverse, but without species demarcations.
We'll start with Common Descent of vertebrates. Wouldn't you agree that a world where fish and fishmen share ancestry is much different than one in which they don't? If we can establish that with some certainty, that would be a profound finding.
Into a few forms or into one.
Most of the universe is unknown and perhaps unknowable, but science casts a ray of light into the darkness. We can't know everything, but we can know some things. And though Darwin couldn't say for sure whether all life had a common ancestor, he could show that humans and hummingbirds were cousins.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2010 @ 9:05 am
February 12th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel is confused.
Wikipedia:
How can a "part of an answer" be involved in anything other than a response to a question?
Comment by Mung — February 12, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
February 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
"If there is any one way to confess one's own mediocrity, it is the willingness to place one's work in the absolute power of a group, particularly a group of one's professional colleagues. Of any form of tyranny, this is the worst; it is directed against a single human attribute: the mind–and against a single enemy: the innovator.
The innovator, by definition, is the man who challenges the established practices of his profession. To grant a professional monopoly to any group, is to sacrifice human ability and abolish progress; to advocate such a monopoly, is to confess that one has nothing to sacrifice. "
- Ayn Rand, "The Return of the Primitive" (Yes, she derails easily and often, but the idea contains more than a few dozen pounds of truth).
Comment by Liam — February 16, 2010 @ 9:06 pm