What Should You Read Next?
by MikeGeneAfter reading The Design Matrix
But let me start with three points.
First, the title of the book is a little misleading, as you might think Kirschner and Gerhart are going to make a case for abiogenesis. Not so, for as the authors note, "Everything about evolution before the bacteria-like life forms is sheer conjecture." Instead, this is a book about evolution and the appearance of novelties. This excerpt probably best explains the title:
Could they have been plausibly assembled, small piece by small piece, each presupposing a selective advantage? It is this feature of Darwin's theory, the uncertain accounting for novelty, that creationists seize on; meanwhile, evolutionary biologists assert that variation must be sufficient, though they lack a general explanation for the origin of complex novel structures. Answers to these questions affect the plausibility of life's arising by way of evolution.
This leads to the second point. While the authors clearly set out to explain their new hypothesis about evolution, one gets the feel that, at least in part, this hypothesis is a reaction to Intelligent Design. Why? The book is bracketed by ID. The first paragraph of the Preface begins:
This book is about the origins of novelty in evolution. The brain, the eye, and the hand are all anatomical forms that exquisitely serve function. They seem to reveal design.
The Introductory chapter is entitled A Clock on the Heath and kicks off with William Paley. From there, the authors move to hypothetical modern day Paleys to set the stage for the remainder of the book.
Finally, the last chapter returns to directly address some of the claims of the modern ID movement, where the authors offer up their hypotheses as a refutation of ID claims. And this leads to my final point.
The hypotheses the authors offer about the mechanisms of evolution are extremely friendly to front-loading. In fact, if you have read The Design Matrix, you will be amazed to find just how many points of convergence the two books share. In other words, to defeat the claims of the ID movement, evolution is perceived and presented in a manner where it looks increasingly plausible that evolution itself was designed.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
They only "seem to" reveal design?
Comment by nobody — May 1, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
How do they defeat Intelligent Design by pointing out design?
Comment by nobody — May 1, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Insofar as "Intelligent Design" means "Anti-Evolution", they're defeating it.
Hey Mike, is this the first official announcement that the first book has done well enough that you are indeed seriously working on book two?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 1, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
MikeGene,
When evolution was merely an idea about history, it was a different situation. I could be wrong, but it seems like the earliest supporters didn't really foresee evolution or biological processes themselves becoming so amenable to technological use. Maybe man could have been pictured vaguely charting a course through the evolutionary process people were otherwise at the mercy of. What we've discovered and done with it, even this early, however.. that becomes a bit more difficult to ignore.
Comment by nullasalus — May 1, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Hi nobody,
As WFO pointed out, it depends on what we mean by ID. Mainstream ID arguments attempt to argue for design by arguing against evolution "“ "it couldn't have evolved, thus it must have been designed." This form of ID argument is then rebutted by showing that something could indeed evolve, which is the objective of Kirschner and Gerhart.
But once you finish The Design Matrix, you'll see there is another form of ID argument and if someone reads The Plausibility of Life, they'll see that my ID views are actually supported by Kirschner and Gerhart theories. You don't have to read their book too closely to find rabbit prints all over it.
Comment by MikeGene — May 1, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Hi WFO,
Not quite. First, I have already seriously worked on it as the first five chapters are written. I've been reading through them, and yes, I do plan to finish it up because, hey, I gotta say this stuff. At that point, I would have a manuscript and I then make some decisions.
Comment by MikeGene — May 1, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hi nullasus,
Did you check out the video at this site?
Think about why biologists were surprised to find that a mouse gene could provide the needed information for a fly eye? There was something about evolutionary theory, at the time, which completely failed to prepare them for this. And note that Carroll says we now recognize that evolution is more "simple" than we thought. Very interesting.
If one is used to thinking of evolution as something that opposes design, they could easily miss the profound change in thinking that is happening in our life time - evolution is a design. Natural selection, while still important, is being dethroned.
Comment by MikeGene — May 1, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Hi, Mike,
After watching that video, I've got a question. If the mouse gene for the mouse eye is the same as the eye gene for the fly, then what makes the mouse eye and the fly eye develop into structures that are so radically different in appearance and size? It seems to infer that genes determine function but not the shape, at least not exclusively.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 2, 2008 @ 12:24 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Hi AnaxagorasRules,
While it's more complicated than this, think of the mouse gene acting as a master gene that brings an array of genes online. When placed in the fly, it simply turns on the fly array. So what's different are the gene interactions downstream of the master switch.
Comment by MikeGene — May 2, 2008 @ 12:33 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 am
Programming.
Comment by nobody — May 2, 2008 @ 12:42 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
MikeGene,
I did. Amazing, of course. And I'd agree with your estimation of the situation.
I didn't know an experiment like that was done. Impressive.
Comment by nullasalus — May 2, 2008 @ 1:28 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 am
Hi, Mike,
Thanks. Well, this is certainly something to chew on for a while.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 2, 2008 @ 1:55 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Modular programming and cascading switches, like a series of domino paths or subroutines. Or even CSS if you like. The information is readily available from the get go, what unfolds is dependent upon several major and minor contingencies pre-programmed into major phyla categories.
1) Fly a) fruit b) horse c) dragon
2) Body Design a) small b) large c) # legs d) # wings
3) Climate Environment a) tropical b) cold
4) Diet/Reproduction Environment a) fresh water b) swamp c) foliage d) animal life
Yes, 1) is purely for fun, just to make a point
1 = eye
2 = type
3 = shape
4 = size
oversimplified, but if you look at life from a controlled or designed evolution, front loading can make sense, and it could open vast new opportunities in research discovery going forward. Instead of determining mutations look for modular design and guided adaptation with boundary limitations.
What appears fruitful may be to for branches and links to non-coded areas.
I remember reading one paper about size of a dogs snout dependent upon repetitive non-coded regions. If that is the case and thinking modular, reusable design, size would be regulated in NC regions for all areas from legs to spine, etc., and wedded to environment and diet. Besides the genetic makeup, could it be that non-coded regions are storage units for the beneficial richness of environmental surroundings that can then be passed down thru normal inheritance? There would be certain limitations as well within species to size. Surroundings could limit size as well.
This is seen by fish in smaller or large fish tanks. Artificial selection is a way to limit or expand these non-coded regions.
Maybe some hardcoded limitations. Possibly? Variation is related to size, color, etc., but not to overall body plan. It would be multiple trees. If front loaded, to me at least, this makes more sense and punctuated equilibrium more applicable as well as pre-programmed space adapts quickly, not gradually to surroundings. Gould would be right. Evolutionist would be right and Design would be right.
BTW, when will they rename these genomic regions to something more practical? It appears the more we learn, they're functional in one way or another.
Also, I'm not aware of the major IDist denying evolution or common descent. From what I've read front loading is an option. Seems to be a fairly big tent.
To pick up on a statement by Bilbo in another post. If you think towards the future, what will be likely for scientific progress? It will be designed proteins that become prevalent. I'd imagine, designed includes guided evolution with a preset limit of environmental dependent adaptation.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — May 2, 2008 @ 9:36 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi, TeleAboveGround,
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 2, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I read their last book: When Mike gene starts talking about "front-loading" I think Toyota, and then I think "adaptability" or "evolvability."
These concepts have been criticized as conditioning an existing state upon a state (condition) that does not exist.
Teleology is a theory about causation… About causes which cannot be demonstrated (here and now) to exist!
Comment by Rock — May 2, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I noticed Paul Nelson's recommendation at UD of Eliot Sober's new book, and I already ordered it. (He's a good philosopher of science. I'm curious what his latest take on ID is). I guess I'll get the Kirschner book next.
Comment by Bilbo — May 2, 2008 @ 5:25 pm