On the liberal penchant for elevating science to a religion
Bookworm on May 07 2010 at 5:21 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I always enjoy James Taranto’s writing. Today, however, he wrote something almost transcendent about the liberal misunderstanding of science’s incredibly important role in a healthy, functioning modern society:
The notion that conservatives or Republicans are “antiscience” is a liberal Democratic talking point of long standing, but what exactly does it mean?
Largely it is an assertion that liberals take the side of “science” in disputes that are cast as pitting science against religion. Sometimes they are right, as when they argue that biblical creation or “intelligent design” should not be taught in science classes as alternatives to the theory of evolution. Ideas about the supernatural belong in the domain of theology or philosophy. They are outside the realm of science, and maintaining this distinction is important to the integrity of science.
On the other hand, liberals are wrong to cast as “antiscience” objections to embryonic stem-call research. Whether or not one agrees with these objections, they are based not on a hostility to science per se but on ethical qualms about particular forms of research. Science is a method for answering empirical questions; it cannot yield answers to moral questions such as whether a human embryo has intrinsic value.
The implicit claim that scientists are better qualified than nonscientists to answer ethical questions points to the broader problem with the liberal attitude toward science. It seems to be more about asserting the political authority of scientists than adhering to the scientific method. This is very clear in the global-warming debate, in which, as last year’s “Climategate” scandal showed, scientists disregarded the scientific method in order to promote an ideologically favored hypothesis. In ignoring the scandal and pushing ahead with its “climate” agenda, the Obama administration has shown that it is more interested in ideology than science.
Right. That’s absolutely and totally right. Science is not morality, scientists are not infallible, and ideology can be as easily cloaked in false science as in anything else.
Email This Post To A Friend
57 Responses to “On the liberal penchant for elevating science to a religion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The new Priesthood of Bhaal is on the rise.
The problem with the so-called climate scientists is twofold:
1. They have linked themselves with a political agenda that cannot tolerate the evolving level of knowledge about the climate. The politicians need the certainty of an apocaliptic future to frighten citizens into surrendering freedom and lowering living standards. No conflicted views can be tolerated. Hence, mainstream climate science is transformed from the normal give and take approach to advancing knowledge in fits and starts of true science to a rigid dogma more appropriate to a medievial religion, such as Islam. Non-belivers can only be tolerated if they are science. Allowing dissent means losing the certainty required to destroy our current, industrialized society and replace with a mythical paradise of Gaia worshippers.
2. Climate science was a low-status field chosen by second raters because it is in it infancy and offered little in the way of an opportunity for significant research. The study of a system as complex as the Earth’s climate is really beyond our ability to quantify with any certainty. Frankly, any hope of improving our understanding of this complex system appears so far in the future that even today, no one wishing to do real science, providing real definite answers to serious questions would be willing to embark on a career in climate science. Climate science is effectively at the level of development that biological science was in the decades leading up to Darwin’s voyage. Interesting facts are being catalogued, theories, that are little more than bald conjecture and speculation are the best that can be managed at this point.
As one (relatively honest) person noted in one of the Climategate emails noted: We know very little (he used more expressive language) about the energy balance for the Earth. If we do not understand all the energy inputs and losses that form the basis of changes in the Earth’s temperature, how can be certain what might cause any change in the temperature. However, to return to my original point, even a non-statistician such as myself can see the amaturist treatment of data used by the so-called leading figures in climate science. I don’t think a first year graduate students in serious science fields would make such basic mistakes. To make major policy decisions based on such high-school level “science” is the height of lunacy. However, since it fits with quasi-religious doctrine of environmental catastrophe, the actual validity of the articles are less important than their fit with the believer’s world view.
Finally, I will add that the fanatical efforts by the climate science establishment to block all dissenting views (ignoring the contemptible efforts of the media and environmental groups to do the same) in a manner more reminesent of the Inquisition trying to suppress heliocentric models than real scientific debate, is clear proof that climate science as a discipline is without any scientific rigor or seriousness and should, until true scientists replace the scientific “fakars” currently in place, be relegated to the status accorded other quasi-scientific endevours such as the search for ancient astronauts and fantastic creatures of lore.
PS. Sorry for the spelling errors and typos. I am writing quickly (my wife demands I leave the blogosphere) and you have no spelling checker–I know, poor excuse but I am as dependent on spell checkers as I am on a calculator–though I started out with a dictionary and a slide rule.
I’d be happy if the Theory of Evolution were taught with the proper caveats. Like “we have absolutely no idea how matter or for that matter how we came into being. This is our best naturalistic guess. And by the time you graduate from ………(grade, middle, high, college) school our guess will have changed.”
Many liberals/”progressives” are people who have absolutely no scientific or technological background, never took a serious science course in school, and couldn’t tell you in even the vaguest terms how a car engine functions. They don’t understand the scientific method, and assume that science is like other fields they have studied in which *truth* means “whatever the book or the professor says.”
Hmmm. Where to start? Maybe with an apology for the fact that this is my longest comment ever, and it’s a bit of a tangent. That said…
A very dear friend of mine once commented that she believes there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. But since space was limited, she reasoned, they were probably baby dinosaurs. And from others I’ve heard several variants of “Well, I don’t know much about that [insert topic in science here], but what I do know is that you just have to trust Jesus.” Nice, well-meaning people, all of them. But this is what I call marching forward for Jesus with a cardboard sword and shield in the first case, and fleeing the field of battle in the second. [Insert Monty Python voice: "Run away! Run away!"]
Not meaning to toot my own horn, but I was that guy with the nosebleed-inducing SAT scores and a history of correcting friends in science and engineering during discussions on topics in their fields. (My favorite: the argument over heat absorption and re-radiation from a dust cloud near a heat source in interplanetary space, argued with a friend who literally works as a rocket scientist, with degrees in math, physics and astrophysics. In full disclosure, I had the advantage of having previously given it more thought.)
So, being a “show me your evidence or go home” kind of guy, I have always been left cold by the “just trust Jesus” approach to discovering the origins of life, and for years, that seemed to answer the whole question of religion for me. (“Christians: nice people, many of them, but terribly gullible.”) Roll eyes. Insert finger in mouth as if inducing gag reflex. Twirl index finger near temple while crossing eyes and whistling. If that’s the best they got, they got nothin’. After all, a man who throws pea gravel obviously has no larger rocks in his pile.
Nobody told me about the larger rocks.
My favorite large rock travels around a bright object about once every 365 days, and has a lot of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen molecules. Take a dozen or two of these little guys and stick them together in just the right configuration, and you have an amino acid. There are twenty types of amino acids, and if you’re reading this, you’ve successfully collected the whole set, possibly even without the purchase of a Happy Meal (TM). Whether or not it is possible for an amino acid to be produced by random chance on a large and lifeless rock is a matter of considerable debate. Miller and Urey produced three types of amino acids with their famous spark-and-bake experiment in 1953, but they used artificial conditions which were critically different from the early Earth. But for the sake of argument, I like to allow that an amino acid could have formed by random chance during the prehistory of the Earth.
If you assemble a bunch (~80 – 300, if memory serves) of the right kinds of amino acids in just the right way, you can make a protein. Please note that this requires not merely an amino acid to form at some point during the prehistory of the Earth, but a second, and a third, and… several hundred more, all at the same time and in the same place, and then for them to assemble themselves for no particular reason into a very particular pattern. The statistical odds of this happening are essentially zero, but for the sake of argument, let’s proceed anyway.
If you take about a kazillion proteins (sorry for rounding off, but I am without my references) and assemble them together in just the right way, you can form an organelle, such as a ribosome or a mitochondrion or an endoplasmic reticulum. Why do this? They are necessary to the cell we are building. Why build an entire cell? Because nothing short of a fully functional cell has all of the necessary functionality to be viable — to ingest organic compounds, digest them, convert them to energy, repair tissues, expel waste, and then carefully construct an exact replica of itself before dying. Why couldn’t the cell have evolved? Because evolution is a biological process which operates by the processes of mutation and natural selection of living things; we have not yet constructed a living thing, and chemicals do not evolve.
Please note that at each stage of this scenario, we have added many orders of magnitude to its unlikelihood. It would be as if bricks and wooden planks were molecules, and the fully functional cell known as London just coincidentally constructed itself, with businesses, houses, traffic coming and going, elevators elevating, and an electrical grid electrifying. Someone once calculated the odds of a cell simply coming together as being one in a very large number, with the very large number being greater than the number of elementary particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons) in the known universe. At that point — the establishment of the first living cell — the problems with macroevolution are only just beginning; many more await. (Darwin’s Black Box by the microbiologist Michael Behe is an excellent source for a number of them.)
Unfortunately for anyone looking for a coherent explanation of where we came from, I’m not convinced there is one yet. Gaping holes in the standard neo-Darwinian theory may have evolutionary biochemists wandering around in a confused daze, mumbling something about “panspermia,” but the Genesis account would seem to require a very metaphorical interpretation to be correct. Just to confuse matters even more, macroevolution may be riddled with insoluble problems, but microevolution is something you can take to the bank. And there is quite a lot of “creation science” out there, unfortunately, that is absolute cr*p.
Still, in spite of the complexities and uncertainties, there is one objective truth of the universe, and each of us must strive to find the closest inference to that truth. We’ll never be certain of all the details, but we must act on our best guess. My best guess has me attending the early morning service each Sunday, then staying around to clean toilets and pick up trash until early afternoon, and counting myself as profoundly blessed for having the opportunity to do so.
So, as you may have inferred by now, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Taranto’s elevation of evolution and dismissal of intelligent design. Even in taxpayer-funded schools, I would have them teach all of it — evolution, intelligent design, Biblical creation, that Japanese story about the gods dipping the spear in the water, and so on — not necessarily as established fact, but as a number of competing theories, both current and historical. That’s how we covered the world’s religions in my ninth grade social studies class, and nobody complained.
Other than that, I think he has an excellent point. =)
Spartacus, it sounds to me that you would really enjoy Rabbi and scientist Gerald Schroeder’s “The Hidden Face of God” http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Face-God-Science-Ultimate/dp/0743203259 , a discourse on science and creation written by a scientist who also has a nose-bleed intellect. As a scientist, I came to many of the same conclusions as you.
With regard to Genesis, what struck me was the sequence of creation depicted, starting with a “big bang” flash of light and Einstein’s subsequent linkage of light energy and matter. That was quite a sophisticated creation myth for ignorant shepherds to divine out of thin air while sitting around Middle East campfires , don’tcha think?
Or his “The Science of God”.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/B003E7ESY0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273333461&sr=8-1
“Admittedly, some of his arguments (for instance, that the sequence of Genesis creation is congruent with evolution’s progression from prokaryotic to human life) are compelling. But elsewhere Schroeder less convincingly rejects the notion of random, mutation-driven evolution, arguing instead that evolution is “channeled” toward an outcome preprogrammed into existing DNA. Schroeder’s other theories include an odd insistence upon a pre-Adamic, soulless hominid ancestor. It’s important to Schroeder that the literal Adam be the first ensouled human being, and since Genesis chronology (almost 6,000 years since Adam) doesn’t mesh with what science tells us of the age of humankind, Schroeder sets out to prove that the Bible only picks up the story near the close of human development. Such hermeneutical gymnastics seem strangely outdated and obscure in an often intelligent, cogently argued book.”- Kirkus reveiws
I thought his concept of a “pre-Adamic, souless hominid ancestor” was a stretch, but maybe not:
“Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves”
http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html
Thanks, guys — I’ll put those up at the top of my booklist on that subject.
I’m not overly hung up on an exact match between scientific evidence and the Book of Genesis — the main takeaway for me was the essential impossibility of randomness — but informed additional input is always welcome.
(I also began to regret that nosebleed comment upon more careful reflection after hitting the Post button. Around here, that probably generates a “Yeah, pal, good for you. Take a number and get in line.” I’ve come so far toward humility but, um, will keep working on it.)
Spartacus, no need for regrets. You are a damned good writer, so I’m not surprised there were nose bleeds in the wake of your SAT scores. Folks like you, Danny, Mike D, suek, SADIE, jj, Ymarsakar, BrianE and several others here are why this site is a regular and highly pleasurable stop for me. (Book, too, when she’s not whining
Money quotes for me:
“Why couldn’t the cell have evolved? Because evolution is a biological process which operates by the processes of mutation and natural selection of living things; we have not yet constructed a living thing, and chemicals do not evolve.”
“Please note that at each stage of this scenario, we have added many orders of magnitude to its unlikelihood. It would be as if bricks and wooden planks were molecules, and the fully functional cell known as London just coincidentally constructed itself, with businesses, houses, traffic coming and going, elevators elevating, and an electrical grid electrifying.”
One recycled argument on the issue of randomness (posited by an Anglican priest-scientist in the 19th Century, I believe) goes as follows (with suitable nods to modernity). If you were an astronaut and arrived on a planet to find a laptop computer, fully designed with a logo albeit in an indecipherable language, would you ascribe that computer to random accident of molecular organization. As Spartacus points out, we would not because the probability of that happening is an infinite declination toward zero.
However, so-called “scientists” have no trouble deducing that the human cell, not to mention the organism, is the product of such random organizations when, in fact, the living cell is a far-more complex piece of machinery than the laptop computer.
Charles — You are consistent in being entirely too kind. Thank you.
Danny — Trust me, I recycled that one, too. =)
It is one thing for the designer and creator of a laptop computer to tell me that when he found this other laptop computer on another planet that it was the result of random construction. I assume that the designer and creator of a laptop that does the exact same things as the foreign laptop, knows what is or is not possible in constructing laptops.
But biologists have not constructed a single cell yet designed specifically to do something that they specified. They can’t even design viruses to kill off human beings and that’s relatively easy in the biological scale of things. So when biologists and other scientists tell me that they know what is or is not possible with the creation of life, what is or is not feasible or rational or reasonable to believe about life, this is basically the same as a Leftist parasitic idiot telling me he knows how to run the US economy.
He doesn’t know a damn thing because he has never personally succeeded at it. He may know parts of it. He may have money because he stole it from the oppressed. But he doesn’t know how to make it work so he can’t tell me why it ticks or why it doesn’t tick.
The same applies to intelligent design. This is not a Creationist myth that can be never be disproved. The scientific data will be solid should experimentation in the creating of new life, new species, ever succeed. And there’s no reason to believe that science can’t manipulate genetic and biological matter to form new life given current trends. All that remains to be seen is whether people are able to do what they said God or Nature has done. That is the real proof. Should humans be capable of designing life, then that capability would also have to be in God or other entity’s hands. If Darwinists prove that humans can evolve and create new life, then at least they can say with a straight face that they have the knowledge base in order to judge what is or is not “random”.
Good to hear from you, Sparticus.
But I think you gave the other side too much leway. Where did the rocks come from?
Al
I absolutely agree that liberals are more likely to take the side of ‘science’. That is because liberal ‘scientists’ are more likely to let their politics drive their ‘science’. Don’t just think Climategate. ‘Nuclear Winter’ was so-called science whose sole purpose was to bolster the nuclear freeze movement back in the 80′s. And don’t get me started on non-global warming environmental science. Now we learn that chemicals in the environment are much more likely to cause cancer. Not that the studies have shown this to be the case yet, but they are certain that they will. Now that is what I call the scientific method.
I’m a person who accepts evolution as true, and is a “global warming skeptic”. I’ve given considerable thought to my reasoning in holding to a pair of beliefs that are considered to be on opposite sides of the left/right divide.
In the case of evolution, I’ve studied the matter for a couple of decades, both the reasons why scientists believe evolution happened and the arguments anti-evolutionists give for their disbelief. I’ve found the evidence in favor of either evolution or some process very like it is compelling. I’ve also found the arguments offered against it either fail to explain observed facts, or miss the point altogether.
As but one example, Spartacus wrote:
Miller and Urey produced three types of amino acids with their famous spark-and-bake experiment in 1953, but they used artificial conditions which were critically different from the early Earth. But for the sake of argument, I like to allow that an amino acid could have formed by random chance during the prehistory of the Earth.
How does this fail?
1) Lack of relevance to evolution: The Miller/Urey experiment deals with abiogenesis — the question of how life came to be. Evolution doesn’t apply until after living things exist.
2) Tendentious definition: The issue is not whether the conditions in the Miller/Urey experiment were artificial or natural. The question is whether such conditions could plausibly have existed in the prebiotic world.
2-a) Failure to keep abreast of the science: As it happens, the “critically different conditions: objection has been raised by scientists, and different mixes of gases have been tested with different sources of energy. Amino acids are produced in any non-oxidizing atmosphere with a reasonable composition. (E.g., gases that could reasonably have existed on the early Earth.)
3) No alternative proposition: No anti-evolution argument has addressed how observed change has occurred. If we decide to be generous and lump evolution and abiogenesis together under the question of “origins”, creationists and intelligent design advocates offer no alternative other than “poof, it happened”.
And that’s just that one point. The rest of the argument is no better.
When the opposition to evolution is based on arguments of this quality, and real-life observations have been entirely consistent with evolution, I’m inclined to believe it happened. (Further comments may be found at Big Lizards.)
Now, climate change.
Climate has been changing for as long as the planet has been endowed with anything that can reasonably be called “climate”. Climate change advocates believe they’ve isolated enough of the underlying science to be able to predict the long-term effect of relatively minor changes.
They have built large, intricate climate models on computers to predict the effect of gradually increasing the temperature of the planet. In these models, we can see unexpected side-effects of this change — hotter in some places, colder in others; wetter in some, dryer in others. Unfortunately, the predictions offered in the climate models keep refusing to match up with observations. Furthermore, while the details of the Miller-Urey experiment were published in full, allowing other researchers to replicate them and see what happened when they changed the parameters, climate scientists have been sitting on their data.
So, in order to believe in evolution, I have to believe that random variation plus natural selection can yield huge changes in organisms. In order to believe in abiogenesis, I have to believe that the normal operation of natural laws is sufficient to yield life.
In order to believe in the climate change scenario, I have to believe that the climate is changing (I do), that it’s headed toward catastrophe (not necessarily), and that changing the course of the climate is in our ability (I doubt it).
Even if I believed all three of those points, I’d still have to be convinced that the proposed (very expensive and burdensome) fixes are the best way to deal with the problem.
Karl, I think you made the distinction yourself between “evolution” as a process for change and the separate question regarding the origins of life. I don’t see evolution as being in any way contradicted by the points made on this page.
I see the theory of evolution providing a model to explain for the tools whereby change occurs. This theory is constantly changing as new information becomes available (Barbara McClintock’s jumping-genes, for example). The theory says nothing about who or what created or guides the process. The problem many of us have is the idea that it occurs via purely random events. The theory explains part of the picture, not the whole picture. Remember, the man who established the foundations of Mendelian genetic theory was priest. Evolution hasn’t been helped by the numbers of so-called scientists who deliberately distorted scientific data to prove their pet evolution theories, however.
Well, Danny, at the risk of wandering off into the weeds, the point remains that genetic variation, which is the feedstock for natural selection to work upon, is random.
Now that randomness is within limits, the way a random roll of a die will yield a number between 1 and 6, but never 7 or 4½. There are limits on how genes can vary, depending on the laws of chemistry. But within the limits of those laws, there seems to be nothing to tilt the odds in favor of any particular change or against any other. Changes happen randomly, distributed according to their relative likelihoods, and selection then occurs based on the non-random effects of these changes.
The point here is, if the process is being guided by an external force, be it a supernatural designer or a researcher with Star Trek level technology, this guidance is being accomplished with enough subtlety to stay well within the limits of statistical noise.
Those who disagree are welcome to produce evidence of deviation from the random probabilistic model.
(waiting…. waiting… waiting…)
Let me flip that one around, Karl.
Show me the proof of how any event, such as the aerodynamic design of a bird feather or the Devonian explosion of life was the outcome of purely random events. Waiting, waiting….
Are these accurate statements?
“Because of internal chemical restrictions (certain chemical bonds are easier to form than others) and because certain intermediate structures are more stable than others, there may well have been a sort of ‘natural selection’ occurring even at the molecular level The result is that quite complex chemical structures necessary for life are far more readily formed than chance alone would suggest. The odds against the sudden yet complete, formation of a DNA molecule are greater than the atoms in the universe. Yet in the early days of the earth’s history, simple building blocks may have occurred not just once but many times. The route from these sub-units to the final DNA is still shrouded in mystery. But ignorance is insufficient reason for us to plead impossibility.”- (Blackmore & Page, pp. 181-182)
“By a process not entirely understood and in a time span that is difficult to comprehend, elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus combined, dispersed, and recombined to form a variety of molecules until a combination was achieved that was capable of replicating itself.” -p.1 Devlin, T.M. (editor) (1997) Textbook of Biochemistry with Clinical Correlations, 4th ed
(emphasis mine)
“I’ve also found the arguments offered against it either fail to explain observed facts”
Evolution fails to explain the observed fact that life exists and that new species do come into existence. It fails to explain the how of it and it has no experimental data to prove how it came about either. This isn’t even concerning just one theory of life biology, but every theory. Because humans have yet to replicate new life or replicate/create a new species. Thus people claiming knowledge on the creation of life or the creation of a new species, isn’t talking about knowledge (what is known to be true) but instead talking about suppositions and what if statements.
That’s nothing hot by itself to base science on.
Danny: Again, your insistence on calling evolution “purely random events” tells me you don’t understand the theory. Study it from a real science text, then get back to me.
Ymarsakar: Evolution doesn’t need to explain how life came about. That’s the job of abiogenesis. When you conflate the two topics, that tells me you understand neither.
The formation of new species has been observed in the wild and in the lab. Populations of one species are isolated from each other for long enough, and random changes in each population take their gene pools in different directions. If they are separated for long enough, they won’t interbreed with each other when they come in contact with each other once again. After that, differences pile up.
Brian E: Yes, those are accurate as far as they go. The first statement says that chemical laws may have an effect on the stability of certain molecular groups. This means that, after chemical selection takes place, some molecules will be more abundant than our naive guess would allow. But this isn’t that different from saying that if we throw hydrogen and oxygen together into a bucket and let them react, we get a lot more H2O and a lot less HO2, HO, H3O, etc than “chance” would “allow”. Maybe the laws of nature were “fine tuned” so the chemicals of life would be more likely to arise than otherwise, but still, we’ve yet to see any example of a chemical process throwing out particular products in violation of the laws of chemistry or statistical physics in order to make the building blocks of life.
And yes, the process is “not entirely understood”. That’s one of the reasons why research is ongoing. Lots of things are “not entirely understood”. That doesn’t mean we invoke an explanation outside the realm of natural law.
Yes, I’m irritated at those who attempt to elevate science to a religion — both those who claim science is the answer to everything, and those who claim that established science is only a matter of faith and conjecture.
Condescension won’t get you anywhere on this blog, Karl. State your point in rational, logical order and buttress them with facts. Thus far, you haven’t said anything that we don’t already understand.
However, when one posits a sequence of how things happened even as they allow the existence of huge gaps in the knowledge base needed to document such a sequence, then it is faith, not science, that drives one’s conclusions. Providing examples of new “species” created in labs (biotechnology being a wonderful tool in this regard) only buttresses arguments for a designer. Again, nobody has argued thus far against the proposition that a process of evolution occurs that leads to new species.
“we’ve yet to see any example of a chemical process throwing out particular products in violation of the laws of chemistry or statistical physics in order to make the building blocks of life.” I suspect that were we to observe such an event, the “laws of nature” would be amended accordingly. I have yet to come across a good scientific explanation for what life is, much less how it defies the laws of entropy by creating greater and self-replicating non-fractal complexity. And, I remain fascinated by the chemical processes that must define quarks and black holes, even though they appear to defy the “laws of nature”. Plus, I remain fascinated to understand the nature of existence within the eight or more dimensions of existence posited by physicists and mathematicians. Unfortunately, I do not be alive long enough to find out.
That is not to say that natural explanations cannot eventually be found for these phenomena, only to say that not all can be explained by what we know today. Thus, whether one concludes that there is or is not a creative designer based on what we know today is purely a matter of faith. If you conclude that, based on what we know, there is no designer, then I commend you for having a faith that is far stronger than mine.
Until all these questions have been answered, I will remain quite content to accept with humility that neither I nor any other credentialed scientist alive has anywhere near the ability, intelligence or perception to figure it all out. I suspect that Socrates, too, has reached similar conclusions. All else is vanity.
Danny: OK, my point is that natural law is adequate to explain what happens in nature. No “designer” or other supernatural intervention is required. The facts can be referenced in any number of science journals. I’d prefer not to use Her Bookwormship’s comment space lecturing on basic science. If people want to discuss science, I’m sure we can find a forum where such discussions are on topic. But I’m seeing a fair number of very basic errors in science, and I attribute it to a form of treating science as a religion.
There are a number of people who treat science as if it’s a religion with lab-coated priests. They argue science as if “scientific Truth” is determined by who makes the most authoritative sounding pronouncements. If a person wears the religion’s regalia (lab coat) and phrases his pronouncements in the appropriate liturgy, that’s supposed to make it scientific. Richard Feynman once called that Cargo Cult Science. It is imitating the external form without understanding the internal workings.
I don’t want to start lecturing on science in this blog. I’m more willing to do so on my own, where at least I’m not hijacking someone else’s comment space. Here, I’ll content myself with a few comments about specific issues.
New species: I’m not talking about biotechnology. I’m talking about reproductive isolation and letting genetic drift have its way. Populations of fruit flies, kept separate over many generations, lose the ability to interbreed with each other. By definition, new species. The same process, extended over longer times and larger areas, divide populations into species which then, as Darwin put it, “diverge indefinitely from the original type”. Not only has it been argued, it’s been documented to the point where it’s perverse to believe it doesn’t happen.
In two more areas, you display ignorance of science: “I have yet to come across a good scientific explanation for what life is, much less how it defies the laws of entropy by creating greater and self-replicating non-fractal complexity.“ Entropy is not a measure of complexity. It’s a measure of energy. Specifically, it’s a measure of energy at a given temperature. Creationists make hay over the notion that entropy cannot decrease. This is false. The entropy of the Sun is decreasing at an enormous rate. This rate can be calculated. Those who wish to show they understand entropy are welcome to make this calculation as a way of showing they understand it.
“And, I remain fascinated by the chemical processes that must define quarks and black holes, even though they appear to defy the ‘laws of nature’.“ Chemistry is governed by the interactions of the electron clouds of atoms. Quarks are not a matter of chemistry — they exist inside of particles in the nucleus, far away from the influence of electron clouds. Black holes chemistry either — by the time black holes are forming, any atoms, electron clouds and all, have been thoroughly disrupted.
Karl, a very basic problem that I have with “science” is when scientists begin treating conjecture as fact. This is one of the problems that has led the scientific process becoming so discredited in the “man-made global warming’ fiasco. I find that some scientists today can be just as fundamentalist about evolution theory as creationists.
This isn’t new: old examples of scientific fundamentalism include the theories of phlogiston, miasma, alchemy and the earth-centric universe, all of which were Man-conceived models for explaining the universe based on conjecture using the best knowledge available (another way of defining a hypothesis or theory). These models were eventually shown to be flawed but not before having provided practical templates for many very important discoveries. More modern examples of scientifically derived albeit flawed theories include eugenics, Lysenko genetics, nuclear winter and man-made global warming. These theories too came accompanied by their high priests and acolytes, except that the god they worshiped was human logic and reason.
Like a said, a bit of humility is in order. I have faith that the maxims of modern science today will be viewed just as quaintly in a 1,000 years as we look upon the state of science in the Middle Ages today and that the nature of human beings and scientists will be just as unchanged.
Bye the way, Karl…care to share with us your scientific credentials? They certainly sound impressive.
>>Populations of one species are isolated from each other for long enough, and random changes in each population take their gene pools in different directions. If they are separated for long enough, they won’t interbreed with each other when they come in contact with each other once again.>>
>>Populations of fruit flies, kept separate over many generations, lose the ability to interbreed with each other.>>
I was going to ask for an example. You have provided one – at least, theoretically – do you have references? I’d appreciate it.
I certainly understand the “gene” theory as it applies to random changes. I have problems with two factors: first, in order for a trait to become fixed within a population, it would require a male and female of the species to both have the same mutation within the breeding locale and within the lifetime of both. That requires another factor of randomness that raises the level of probability very high (low?)…from one in a thousand to one in a million, perhaps.
Even if you allow for the mutation of genes, that doesn’t really account for the variation in chromosomes – which have to “match” for sexual reproduction. Now I know that the isolation theory is used for much of this, but that really requires a multiplicity of isolated reproductive areas that stretches the imagination. Especially if you include the concept that there was originally one continent which eventually became all of those we know today as a result of earth crust shifting. To use a common example – the mule. Horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosome pairs – but only one pair apart. In mitosis, those pairs split, and if conception between a horse and donkey occurs, there’s only free chromosome floating around without a matching chromosome to make a pair. Contrary to common belief, mules _can_ reproduce, but they can’t produce another mule. Never have – as long as mules have existed. When bred to another mule, or a horse, or a donkey, if they conceive – and fertility is limited – they produce either a horse or a donkey depending on how the chromosomes pair up and what chromosomes are available.
If your fruitflies are still the same species, why can they not interbreed? what makes them different species? If they are no longer the same species, what change resulted that prevents interbreeding?
In some respects, I don’t care. We’re here – how we got here probably doesn’t matter – though it passes time to conjecture. When I think about the Bible and Genesis, I don’t have a problem with the creation theory. If you assume that evolution occurred, given the knowledge of biology we have in the present…how would those who wrote the Bible have conveyed that information? They didn’t even have the words to use! Think about telling your 4 year old about reproduction and genetic mutation…granted that the intellectual ability is different, still…how would you present it? What words would you use? How would they have expressed that to those they were leading? Heck…as I understand it, they were doing well to figure out that the act of copulation caused the birth of an infant 9 months later! There really isn’t a lot of connection between the two – if you don’t already know that there _is_ a connection!
“When you conflate the two topics, that tells me you understand neither.”
The person that is wise does not need to proclaim themselves to be so. Your attempt at self-declared titles doesn’t impress people in the know.
Nobody cares what you think you know. That is of Zero concrete benefit to actual human beings, apart from your ego.
The topic is evolution. If you want to drive off the rails over the cliff, try not to blame us about it.
“I’m talking about reproductive isolation and letting genetic drift have its way.”
All you have is your opinion. Provide real evidence. As in real, not self-proclaimed.
As but one example, Spartacus wrote: Miller and Urey produced three types of amino acids with their famous spark-and-bake experiment in 1953, but they used artificial conditions which were critically different from the early Earth. But for the sake of argument, I like to allow that an amino acid could have formed by random chance during the prehistory of the Earth. How does this fail?
1) Lack of relevance to evolution
2-a) Failure to keep abreast of the science
3) No alternative proposition – Karl
1. You’re point here is that evolution doesn’t involve itself with origins of life, merely the adaptations that occur after it existed? Seems like solving the mystery of origins would be pretty important.
2. You’re right that a lot of research has followed Miller/Urey, but are we any closer to understanding the process?
“Postulating alternative codes for an origin-of-life event at temperatures close to the freezing point of water is a rationalization designed to overcome what appears to be a set of insurmountable problems for the abiogenesis theory. Given these problems, why do so many biologists believe that life on earth originated by spontaneous generation under favorable conditions? Yockey concludes that although Miller’s paradigm was at one time
[snip]
“Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
The answer may lie in advanced alien engineering. Dawkins appears to be leaning that way.
3. Whether A is true or not doesn’t depend on B. The fact you don’t find ID persuasive doesn’t change the chasm in explaining the currently accepted hypothesis- from the mystery of dark energy to the complexity of even the simplest self-replicating life forms to the homogeneous nature of the fossil record.
The answer may lie in advanced alien engineering. Dawkins appears to be leaning that way.
So, Mr. Dawkins….who created the aliens? Or are we simply kicking the proverbial can down the wormhole?
One aspect of intelligent design that intrigues me is the question of what would define it? For example, humanity has successfully combined genes from a variety of species to produce food crops that have characteristics solely for the benefit of humanity. Would that qualify as ID? At any rate, to the larger question at hand about the anti-science tag. I know for certain many on the left passionately do not want some science to occur. Some of them don’t like nuclear weapons testing, sonar testing that might harm marine mammals, the aforementioned genetic modification of food, and many others. Are they anti-science? Of course not, it’s a value judgement. The fact that they don’t recognize they are doing the very thing they accuse conservatives of is amusing.
I had previously recognized the advantage of not RSS-ing the comments from this blog as being analogous to a recovering alcoholic declining to take that job at the local brewery. But it turns out that there is another wonderful advantage: others pick up comment threads one had supposed had subsided, and continue the debate far better than one would have oneself. Thank you in particular to Danny and BrianE. So just a few random points, here:
- Mr. Taranto’s original point was that evolution (and I infer that he also meant abiogenesis) should be the only explanation to our origins taught in the schools. Even if one accepts macroevolution as a fully valid explanation once the first single-celled organisms have either miraculously fallen together or been seeded from space, one cannot pretend to reach home plate after starting from first base. The naturalistic-only explanation must either explain the whole thing, or be presented in the context of something that does not explain the whole thing.
- Speciation — the evolution of new species — is actually pretty well documented. But in the taxonomic hierarchy of things (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species), species is the finest gradation, with just a gene tweak or two of difference, and this is relatively unremarkable. Taxonomic categorization is necessarily somewhat subjective (“Is this difference between these two organisms great enough to call them a separate family, or are they in the same family, but a different genus?”), but it seems the great leap of faith is that a new genus could evolve (never mind all the higher levels).
- Possibly the greatest problem with macroevolution is the one of irreducible complexity. As a very simple example, a standard mousetrap has maybe half a dozen parts which perform very simple functions. Take any single one of them away, and the whole thing is utterly useless. A mutation causing a mousetrap would need to cause all parts to develop all in one shot; partial credit is not awarded, as there is no evolutionary advantage to carrying around a broken mousetrap. In fact, mutations large enough to take meaningful evolutionary steps toward developing a new limb or organ are usually fatal to the mutant, which therefore fails to reproduce, thus destroying all forward progress. Now consider a much more complex system, such as the simple clotting of blood. If memory serves, this requires nineteen different enzymes. Take any one of them away, and the whole thing falls flat: you either bleed to death from a papercut, or that papercut causes runaway clotting of all the blood in your body, making you one giant scab (and then SEIU thugs come to beat you up). Were it only the clotting of blood, we might just chalk it up to an amazing coincidence of nature, like volcanoes that blow smoke rings, or Janus and Epimetheus, the square-dancing moons of Saturn. But instead, it is the clotting of blood, the conversion of photons into retinal impulses, the outboard-motor-like operation of every cellular flagellum, and literally countless other complex mechanisms inside of every organ in every system in every one of about a billion species on this planet. It’s a very tall stack of miracles.
- Unlike an assertion that Barack has been doing a good job of balancing the federal budget, reasonable people can disagree on this. Having been a devout agnostic with no significant doubts about evolution only a decade ago, I am hardly the one to say otherwise. =) (And Karl, you’ve brought up a number of good points, and are correct that since reading up on my amino acids a few years ago, I’ve not checked back in.) But in seeing a tall stack of miracles, I look to Ockham’s Razor (and choose Pascal’s Wager).
“. . .or that papercut causes runaway clotting of all the blood in your body, making you one giant scab (and then SEIU thugs come to beat you up).”
You just couldn’t resist, could you?
Suek: I was going to ask for an example. You have provided one – at least, theoretically – do you have references? I’d appreciate it.
Speciation FAQ at Talkorigins.org: Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
Three more examples in that FAQ. More examples of speciation here.
—
…first, in order for a trait to become fixed within a population, it would require a male and female of the species to both have the same mutation within the breeding locale and within the lifetime of both. That requires another factor of randomness that raises the level of probability very high (low?)…from one in a thousand to one in a million, perhaps.
Not quite true. All that is required is that a new trait be passed along to offspring. Take eye color: the gene for blue eyes is recessive. It can be masked and appear in the offspring of a blue-eyed parent several generations down the line.
—
Even if you allow for the mutation of genes, that doesn’t really account for the variation in chromosomes – which have to “match” for sexual reproduction.
Again, not necessarily true.
—
In some respects, I don’t care. We’re here – how we got here probably doesn’t matter – though it passes time to conjecture.
For something that “doesn’t matter”, it sure provokes some heated argument, doesn’t it?
BrianE: “You’re point here is that evolution doesn’t involve itself with origins of life, merely the adaptations that occur after it existed? Seems like solving the mystery of origins would be pretty important.”
True, but they’re different topics, and experts in one tend not to meddle in the other. Heart surgery is important, but it’s not brain surgery. An expert in one can’t be expected to be an expert in the other. Heck — food and medicine are both important, but we don’t expect cooks to operate on us.
—
You’re right that a lot of research has followed Miller/Urey, but are we any closer to understanding the process?
Judging by the published research, I’d say yes. I don’t know how close science is to connecting the dots, but they’re uncovering lots of dots.
—
Whether A is true or not doesn’t depend on B. The fact you don’t find ID persuasive doesn’t change the chasm in explaining the currently accepted hypothesis- from the mystery of dark energy to the complexity of even the simplest self-replicating life forms to the homogeneous nature of the fossil record.
True. And that’s yet another area where creationism and intelligent design fail. They argue that X is to complex to evolve, therefore evolution is falsified.
Well, OK, stipulated. That still doesn’t make either creationism or ID true.
Spartacus: The naturalistic-only explanation must either explain the whole thing, or be presented in the context of something that does not explain the whole thing.
Then all of science fails. There is no theory that explains every possible detail.
—
Speciation — the evolution of new species — is actually pretty well documented. But in the taxonomic hierarchy of things (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species), species is the finest gradation, … it seems the great leap of faith is that a new genus could evolve (never mind all the higher levels).
Actually, once you have speciation, the rest follows pretty much automatically. What is a genus but a collection of species? Two populations change enough to diverge into separate species. Repeat the process until you have two clusters of related species. The two clusters have a common ancestor that lived before any of the individual species in each cluster arose. If those clusters are distinct enough (and you admit it’s rather subjective), you have two genera.
—
Now consider a much more complex system, such as the simple clotting of blood. If memory serves, this requires nineteen different enzymes. Take any one of them away, and the whole thing falls flat: you either bleed to death from a papercut, or that papercut causes runaway clotting of all the blood in your body, making you one giant scab (and then SEIU thugs come to beat you up).
Interestingly enough, at the same time Behe was writing about how little research was being carried out on blood clotting, Dr. Kenneth Miller was carrying out just that research. It’s well worth reading.
But in seeing a tall stack of miracles, I look to Ockham’s Razor (and choose Pascal’s Wager).
For my part, I choose to believe in a designer capable of building the desired result into the initial set-up. A designer who needs to keep going in and fiddling is not worthy of near as much respect. IMAO, YMMV. But at least one person agrees with this proposition.
Danny Lemieux: Bye the way, Karl…care to share with us your scientific credentials? They certainly sound impressive.
Oh, just a B.S. in physics. Well, physics, radiological and health option — multidisciplinary degree, requiring nuclear physics, and biochemistry and biology courses regular physics majors are never subjected to. And I’ve been following the creationist debate for decades.
“But in seeing a tall stack of miracles, I look to Ockham’s Razor (and choose Pascal’s Wager)”
Ah….the perfect coda to a fine discussion!
I hate labels. Creationist and evolutionist are so limiting. I want evolution to be taught in science class, because we have a fossil record, and we have conclusions. These known facts definitely constitute a science, and should be taught that we.
But I also want science classes to acknowledge limitations. Those limitations actually make the whole thing more interesting. “We know this, but we don’t know that. “ Mysteries remain. Opinions change.
As for the spark that started it all, I think it’s very arrogant of science to deny the possibility of God.
Bookworm: Do you really want God reduced to a matter of science? I thought transcending the material world is part of what makes God … well … God.
Bookworm (again): Thought of this after clicking “post”. If you hate labels, why do you use “liberal” and “conservative”? Could it be that, despite your dislike of labels, you find some to be accurate and useful?
<B>Would that qualify as ID?</b>
It would qualify as proof of artificial evolution. Partial proof about the creation of new species, although that would be artificial creation not natural selection creation.
<B>- Mr. Taranto’s original point was that evolution (and I infer that he also meant abiogenesis) </b>
That would contradict his claim to me that evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories.
The methodological naturalist is the person who assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. Whether there are such forces or beings is another matter entirely and simply not addressed by methodological naturalism. Hence, although indeed evolution as we understand it is a natural consequence of methodological naturalism, given the facts of the world as they can be discovered, in no sense is the methodological naturalist thereby committed to the denial of God’s existence. It is simply that the methodological naturalist insists that, inasmuch as one is doing science, one avoid all theological or other religious references. In particular, one denies God a role in creation.- Michael Ruse (2002) “Methodological Naturalism Under Attack” p. 365
This attitude, I suspect, is what rankles most people who look at the data and conclude that mutation and natural selection won’t get us to the complexity of life that remains basically unchanged since the beginning.
But it’s not a particularly new attitude.
From the 1860 NYT review of The Origin of Species:
“Together, we feel justified in saying, they have laid the foundation of one of the mightiest changes in philosophical thought. It is certainly more in accordance with our ideas of the philosophy of causation to believe that the entire hierarchy of animate organisms are the result of the continuity of one mode of operation throughout the whole period that has elapsed since life was first introduced into our planet. It harmonizes better with our highest ideas of divine foresight, to believe that the scheme of evolution was originally made so perfect as to require no subsequent interference. We have no sympathy with those who, to use the admirable language of BADEN POWELL — “behold the Deity more clearly in the dark than in the light — in confusion, interruption and catastrophe, more than in order, continuity and progress.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/1860/03/28/news/origin-species-origin-species-means-natural-selection-preservation-favored-races.html?pagewanted=1
To the larger point of the original post, Karl is at least able to call out the poor scholarship masquerading as science regarding climate change, even though he must recognize that it at least allows the nose of the camel to protrude farther into the tent.
“Whether the science be physics or evolutionary biology, it teaches us only what the observable world is like and how it works. Such sciences as physics, chemistry, geology, physiology, and neurobiology, exactly like evolutionary biology, admit no supernatural causes for the actions of atoms, the sun’s energy, the health or ills of the human body, or the powers of the human brain. These sciences recognize only natural, material causes, and we rely on their naturalistic theories when we build airplanes, synthesize new plastics, listen to weather reports, or consult our doctors. We would no more apply religious principles to these activities than we would seek moral guidance from medical doctors, engineers, or chemists. So it is with evolutionary science: no more nor less materialistic than any other science, it offers no moral guidance, only dispassionate analysis of how biological systems function and came to be. What use we make of such information is for individuals and society to decide.”- Douglas Futuyma et al. (2001)
If only the scientific community would follow that advice. The celebrity status of their new position as priests of the technical age no doubt adds pressure to live up to the dispassionate nature of their work.
Allen: “…humanity has successfully combined genes from a variety of species to produce food crops that have characteristics solely for the benefit of humanity. Would that qualify as ID?”
In the reading I’ve done, ID consists of the proposition that natural processes are inadequate to explain nature. One of the reasons I object to ID as anything to be taught in science classes is that its message is: “If we can’t figure it out right away, we give up and say some designer made it.”
BrianE:
“The methodological naturalist is the person who assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. …. In particular, one denies God a role in creation.”
Actually, I like the distinction Eugenie Scott (at the National Center for Science Education) draws between “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism”. The philosophical naturalist believes that there are no extra- or supernatural forces operating on the world. (E.g., Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.) The methodological naturalist may be the most devout believer in the world, but recognizes that the rules of science do not allow for appeals to extra- or supernatural entities in formulating explanations of natural phenomena. (E.g., Kenneth Miller, Francisco J. Ayala, and Theodosius Dobzhansky)
“This attitude, I suspect, is what rankles most people who look at the data and conclude that mutation and natural selection won’t get us to the complexity of life that remains basically unchanged since the beginning.”
Tough. If you want to do science, you do it by the rules of science. If you don’t like those rules, do something else – like philosophy or theology. Just don’t call it science.
“To the larger point of the original post, Karl is at least able to call out the poor scholarship masquerading as science regarding climate change, even though he must recognize that it at least allows the nose of the camel to protrude farther into the tent.”
“If only the scientific community would follow that advice. The celebrity status of their new position as priests of the technical age no doubt adds pressure to live up to the dispassionate nature of their work.”
If only scientists were robots – or angels. But they’re not. They’re human, and just as likely as any other humans to start believing their own press releases. It’s nice to see scientists treated as celebrities, but in this society that values fame over knowledge or wisdom, I fear one side-effect has been to seduce scientists into cultivating fame rather than knowledge or wisdom.
Curiously, evolution has also given up proving the origin of life, yet at the same time not admitting of any constraints upon knowledge.
Theistic Evolution (TE) is the theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. TEs accept all the result of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well as in astronomy, physics, and geology. In particular, it is acceptable to TEs that one species can give rise to another; they accept descent with modification. TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene—some believe God created the laws of nature and is allowing events to occur with no further intervention. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans). - Eugenie C. Scott (2000) p.64 see also: The Creation/Evolution Continuum
I think it’s more the understanding of the limits of science. It’s not like the evolutionist is doing science as you’ve defined the distinction between evolution and abiogenisis. They’re just describing their version of history. If TE’s should be in the philosophy department, maybe evolutionists should be in the history department.
>>One of the reasons I object to ID as anything to be taught in science classes is that its message is: “If we can’t figure it out right away, we give up and say some designer made it.”>>
So…you object to ID because it would tend to close off discussion and further investigation? That’s interesting…. I object to teaching evolution as the correct and only answer, because it isn’t taught as a theory, but as a fact. That too, tends to close off discussion and further investigation.
As I said – I’m not sure that how we came into existence is really that critical a question to answer, but exploring the theories raised by the question is undoubtedly a good thing.
Besides – it give scientists something to keep them busy. If they weren’t doing that, they might be thinking up other questions – like how do we overcome global warming or something like that…!
The philosophical naturalist believes that there are no extra- or supernatural forces operating on the world. (E.g., Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.) The methodological naturalist may be the most devout believer in the world, but recognizes that the rules of science do not allow for appeals to extra- or supernatural entities in formulating explanations of natural phenomena.
Karl, I wonder if you would agree to how self- limiting these presumptions are to the field of inquiry. Basically, they say “we shall make certain assumptions about the nature of existence and the boundaries of inquiry that thereby delimit our allowable hypotheses and conclusions”.
To your other point, as suek addresses so well…
One of the reasons I object to ID as anything to be taught in science classes is that its message is: “If we can’t figure it out right away, we give up and say some designer made it.”
If I was to observe a new flying machine (UFO), the existence of which I was previously unaware, is it a false premise to posit the hypothesis that it was designed? The problem I have with your statement is the a priori assumption that there is no designer. The same objection applies to Carl Sagan, who was more PR man than scientist.
BTW…how about sharing with us your scientific credentials (see #24)? It would add greatly to the discussion to understand how your impressive and insightful points of view have come to be.
“how your impressive and insightful points of view”
Masaka. Joudan?
Ah, Soka.
Dozo
“Oh, just a B.S. in physics. Well, physics, radiological and health option — multidisciplinary degree, requiring nuclear physics, and biochemistry and biology courses regular physics majors are never subjected to. And I’ve been following the creationist debate for decades.”-K
Whoops! Thank you, YM. Sorry about that, Karl. I just missed your earlier post.
Just so you know, you are conversing with several credentialed scientists and engineers on this blog, one of whom you counseled to study “real science”.
Masaka, Danny. Only the elect knows real science. Human beings must be ruled by their betters, not Kami-sama.
Btw, you still remember enough of the language to know what those words mean, darou?
Danny: “Just so you know, you are conversing with several credentialed scientists and engineers on this blog…“ OK, that’s good to know.
Maybe… “BTW…how about sharing with us your scientific credentials (see #24)? It would add greatly to the discussion to understand how your impressive and insightful points of view have come to be.”
—
“… one of whom you counseled to study “real science”“ Well, to be precise, one of whom I counseled to “…Study [evolution] from a real science text…“ It is not just “random forces”. Random variation is random within the confines of the laws of chemistry, but natural selection is the very opposite of random. This point is made in real science texts that discuss evolution.
(And by the way, Behe, Dembski, and other creationists don’t count. They attempt to make the point that evolution is wrong, therefore their position is right. Aside from the logical fallacies inherent in that line of argumentation, simple fairness demands one first acquaint oneself with why evolutionary biologists think evolution is right.)
“Mutations are random. If you believe Nei then much of evolutionary biology must be due to chance events. The mutationists claim that mutation is the rate-limiting event in evolution and it’s the source of novelty. This contrasts dramatically with those who think that all required mutations will occur when needed and the species will always get to the top of the fitness peak. They don’t believe that mutations limit evolution.
In addition to their emphasis on the importance of mutation, mutationists are also tolerant of other non-random events in evolution.
In this book, I have examined various aspects of molecular evolution and concluded that mutation is the driving force of evolution at the molecular level. I have also extended this view to the level of phenotypic evolution and speciation, though I do not deny the importance of natural selection in evolution. I have challenged the prevailing view that a population or organisms contains virtually all sorts of variation and that the only force necessary for a particular character to evolve is natural selection. I have also emphasized the unpredictability of the evolutionary fate of organisms caused by uncontrollable external factors such as rapid climactic changes, geological catastrophes, or even asteroid impacts.
Masatoshi Nei (1987) p. 431
You don’t need to agree with Nei in order to get the point. The point is that one can’t dismiss the role of mutation out-of-hand as the chance-deniers usually do. Those who deny the role of chance need to make their case. It’s not good enough to simply declare that natural selection trumps mutation.”
[snip]
“I’ve tried to summarize all of the random and accidental things that can happen during evolution. Mutations are chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life. All this means that the tape of life will never replay the same way. Chance events affect speciation. All these things seem obvious. So, what’s the problem?
The “problem” is that writers like Richard Dawkins have made such a big deal about the non-randomness of natural selection that they risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A superficial reading of any Dawkins’ book would lead you to the conclusion that evolution is an algorithmic process and that chance and accident have been banished. That’s not exactly what he says but it sure is the dominant impression you take away from his work.
I said at the beginning of this essay that I was inspired to write it by reading John Wilkins’ essay on “Evolution and Chance.” Wilkins denies, as does Dawkins, that there is any “deep improbability” in evolution. In fact, his main conclusion is that “evolution is not fundamentally a random process.” I beg to differ. I think there’s a lot of randomness and improbability in evolution and I hope I’ve convinced you. I think the term “evolution by accident” is an accurate description of how evolution occurs.”
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html
Where do you fall in this? Your emphasis on natural selection, suggests you lean toward the adaptationist side.
BrianE: “This contrasts dramatically with those who think that all required mutations will occur when needed and the species will always get to the top of the fitness peak.”
Um… I’m not sure who actually says that. Indeed, studies of preadaptation tend to suggest otherwise.
—
Mutations are chance events. Random genetic drift is, of course, random. Accidents and contingency abound in the history of life. All this means that the tape of life will never replay the same way. Chance events affect speciation. All these things seem obvious. So, what’s the problem? The “problem” is that writers like Richard Dawkins have made such a big deal about the non-randomness of natural selection that they risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A superficial reading of any Dawkins’ book would lead you to the conclusion that evolution is an algorithmic process and that chance and accident have been banished.
We seem to be talking apples and oranges here. (*sigh* I didn’t want to turn this into a lecture hall.)
First of all, natural selection happens. It’s been demonstrated in the lab and the field. Furthermore, in many cases, it’s very straightforward to show how natural selection can shape an organism toward a defined goal. As long as small changes can move an organism toward higher fitness and away from lower fitness, chance is overwhelmed by the power of selection. (In a good text on evolution, there should be entries for “stabilizing selection”, “directional selection”, and “disruptive selection”.)
In any given organism, a mutation will lead to greater fitness, reduced fitness, or no change (= a neutral mutation). One of the arguments in evolutionary science concerns the relative importance of neutral changes compared with beneficial or detrimental ones. Darwin concentrated on the the occasional beneficial changes which would be selected for by natural selection, would accumulate over generations, and add up to pronounced changes. By means of small changes, accumulated over a long period of time, for example, you can go from a light-sensitive spot to a fully formed box-camera-type eye with a lens, iris, and everything, in a few hundred thousand years. What’s more, the process is broken down into steps, each of which represents an incremental improvement in the eye’s resolving power, thus the owner’s fitness. In contrast to the “what good is half an eye” argument, the process of evolving an eye passes through a series of perfectly functional organs, examples of all of which can be found in living organisms. Given the power of selection to shape an organism over time, it’s little wonder this mechanism held center stage for as long as it did.
Recently, attention has focused on neutral drift. Neutral changes, which have no effect on fitness, occur at some frequency in a population. Since these changes are neutral, there’s no particular reason to expect them to be eliminated from the population. The probability that such a neutral change will spread through the gene pool and become fixed in the population has been worked out mathematically. Depending on how many neutral changes occur in any given population and reach fixity, we can get some idea how quickly two populations, once separated, will drift away from each other. Things that aren’t well known include, how much change is required to produce reproductive isolation.
So the argument in science hinges on, how much evolution is due to adaptive change, and how much to neutral drift? There are different camps, favoring different proportions. Since Nei states that he has “challenged” the prevailing viewpoint, I suspect he’s trying to make a name for himself.
—
All of that having been said, when someone raises the objection of “how can random forces produce X?”, they’re neglecting the power of natural selection, which, as I’ve mentioned, has a decidedly non-random component. Neutral drift doesn’t shape scales into feathers or forelimbs into wings, and natural selection is not “random forces”.
“This contrasts dramatically with those who think that all required mutations will occur when needed and the species will always get to the top of the fitness peak. They don’t believe that mutations limit evolution.”
“You don’t need to agree with Nei in order to get the point. The point is that one can’t dismiss the role of mutation out-of-hand as the chance-deniers usually do. Those who deny the role of chance need to make their case. It’s not good enough to simply declare that natural selection trumps mutation.”
“Wilkins denies, as does Dawkins, that there is any “deep improbability” in evolution. In fact, his main conclusion is that “evolution is not fundamentally a random process.” I beg to differ. I think there’s a lot of randomness and improbability in evolution and I hope I’ve convinced you. I think the term “evolution by accident” is an accurate description of how evolution occurs.”
This is the opinion of Dr. Laurence A. Moran, co-author of “Principles of Biochemistry”, 4th edition, and professor of Biochemistry at University of Toronto. According to his bio his interests are molecular evolution and evolutionary theory.
BrianE: I’m not sure what you’re getting at with this cut-and-paste.
I believe the random parts of evolution are random, and I believe the non-random parts are not random. I don’t feel up to discussing sampling theory as it applies to population genetics when I have to get up so early tomorrow morning.
Sleep well.
(If you don’t sleep well, practice more.)
“Um… I’m not sure who actually says that. Indeed, studies of preadaptation tend to suggest otherwise.”
I’m sorry, I thought you were asking who made those statements.
http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/%E2%80%9C-neurons-brain%E2%80%9D-molecular-computer-evolves
science news on new AI hardware