Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, October 06, 2006

Why do we invoke Darwin?

The following is basically what I have been stating for decades:


The Scientist, Aug. 29, 2005

Why do we invoke Darwin?
Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology

By Philip S. Skell

Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however, remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils¬ – even exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures – but none are credible ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin’s theory has been raised to its present high status because it’s said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” A. S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins’s subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed¬ – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Darwinian evolution¬ – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit.

None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

Philip Skell (tvk@psu.edu) is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor, The Pennsylvania State University, member, National Academy of Sciences, research contributions to Reactive Intermediates in Chemistry: Triplet/Singlet Carbenes, Free-Atom Reactions, Bridged and Optically Active Free Radicals, Reactions of Free Carbonium Ions, etc.

1. A.S. Wilkins, BioEssays 22, 1051(2000).


From The Scientist, Sept. 26, 2005

Philip Skell responds: My essay about Darwinism and modern experimental biology has stirred up a lively discussion, but the responses still provide no evidence that evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of experimental biology. Comparative physiology and comparative genomics have certainly been fruitful, but comparative biology originated before Darwin and owes nothing to his theory. Before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, comparative biology focused mainly on morphology, because physiology and biochemistry were in their infancy and genomics lay in the future; but the extension of a comparative approach to these sub-disciplines depended on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not on evolutionary theory and immersion in historical biology.

One letter mentions directed molecular evolution as a technique to discover antibodies, enzymes and drugs. Like comparative biology, this has certainly been fruitful, but it is not an application of Darwinian evolution — it is the modern molecular equivalent of classical breeding. Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop improved strains of crops and livestock. Darwin extrapolated this in an attempt to explain the origin of new species, but he did not invent the process of artificial selection itself.

It is noteworthy that not one of these critics has detailed an example where Darwin’s Grand Paradigm Theory guided researchers to their goals. In fact, most innovations are not guided by grand paradigms, but by far more modest, testable hypotheses. Recognizing this, neither medical schools nor pharmaceutical firms maintain divisions of evolutionary science. The fabulous advances in experimental biology over the past century have had a core dependence on the development of new methodologies and instruments, not by intensive immersion in historical biology and Darwin’s theory, which attempted to historicize the meager documentation.

Evolution is not an observable characteristic of living organisms. What modern experimental biologists study are the mechanisms by which living organisms maintain their stability, without evolving. Organisms oscillate about a median state; and if they deviate significantly from that state, they die. It has been research on these mechanisms of stability, not research guided by Darwin’s theory, which has produced the major fruits of modern biology and medicine. And so I ask again: Why do we invoke Darwin?


Let the flailing begin...

31 Comments:

  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger jhay said…

    I guess we invoke Darwin simply because his theory of evolution is something concrete, scientific and in certain ways verifiable by evidence as opposed to the creation theory.

    It's encompassing scope is also a factor. Whether we like it or not, Darwinian evolution is here to stay.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Skell is a chemist, not a biologist or even a biochemist. As such, he is speaking outside his field of expertise. In addition, he is expressing an opinion that is not accepted by the vast majority of biologists. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, comprised of twenty-two scientific organizations representing over 84,000 members, states [pdf], "Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences... intelligent design and creationism are not science."

    More importantly, Skell's assertion that most biologists "can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas" is highly misleading. For instance, the journal Genetics has 7196 articles with the word 'evolution' or 'evolve', 439 just in the last year. Claiming that the reference to evolution is extraneous is clearly false as can be seen just from some of the titles where evolution is an intrinsic character of the research.

    * Non-neutral evolution of organelle genes in Silene vulgaris
    * Reconstructing the Evolutionary History of Paralogous APETALA1
    * Model for the Evolution of Genomic Imprinting via Selection for Parental Similarity
    * No Accelerated Rate of Protein Evolution in Male-Biased Drosophila pseudoobscura Genes

    Or similar articles found in Science.

    * Out of the Tropics: Evolutionary Dynamics of the Latitudinal Diversity Gradient
    * Genomic Evolution of Hox Gene Clusters

    Or Nature.

    * Evolution caught in the act
    * Genetics: Junk DNA as an evolutionary force
    * Evolution of allelic dimorphism in malarial surface antigens

     
  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    jhay:
    I guess we invoke Darwin simply because his theory of evolution is something concrete, scientific and in certain ways verifiable by evidence as opposed to the creation theory.

    That is a bad guess because the theory of evolution is anything but concrete and definitely not verifiable. Heck we don't even know what makes an organism what it is beyond the following:

    What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following -

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    jhay:
    It's encompassing scope is also a factor. Whether we like it or not, Darwinian evolution is here to stay.

    I don't like it and neither do many people. I would also add that it is on borrowed time...

     
  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Skell is a chemist, not a biologist or even a biochemist.

    He did research into anti-biotics. The same anti-biotics that you try to claim show non-random selection.

    and anyone who states the following:

    "Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences... intelligent design and creationism are not science."

    Is totally clueless and even lying.

    And again you are confusing "evolution" which is merely a change in allele frequency over time with "the blind watchmaker". The papers you speak of point to the former while you try to use it for the latter:

    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.


    Your continued deception is duly noted.

     
  • At 5:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And seeing that living organisms are made up of chemicals and require chemical reactions to live, a chemist probably understands quite a bit about biology. Especially a chemist conducting research on anti-biotics, which are used on living organisms.

    IOW once again Zachriel has proven to be a sophist. Go figure...

     
  • At 10:51 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "He did research into anti-biotics."

    I would be interested in any valid peer-reviewed cite to Skell's research into the *biological* sciences. Thanks!

    joe g: "Is totally clueless and even lying."

    Yes, I understand. You say that The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, comprised of twenty-two scientific organizations representing over 84,000 members, is lying.

    joe g (quoting): "To find out, I substituted for 'evolution' some other word – 'Buddhism,' 'Aztec cosmology,' or even 'creationism.'"

    Try actually reading the relevant literature. That statement is literal nonsense.

     
  • At 11:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "He did research into anti-biotics."

    Zachriel:
    I would be interested in any valid peer-reviewed cite to Skell's research into the *biological* sciences. Thanks!

    Then look it up. He is a member of the NAS...

    And until any one of those 84,000 members can tell us what makes an organism what it is then all they have is speculation.

    joe g (quoting): "To find out, I substituted for 'evolution' some other word – 'Buddhism,' 'Aztec cosmology,' or even 'creationism.'"

    Zachriel:
    Try actually reading the relevant literature.

    Too bad there isn't any relevant literature that would demonstrate evolutionism is indicative of reality.

    Zachriel:
    That statement is literal nonsense.

    Only to an illiterate like you. Ya see word substitution goes on daily. That way one can see if the operative word(s) actually work or convey meaning to the rest of the text.

    Then we have this:

    "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

    and also:

    The “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” Myth:
    An Empirical Study and Evaluation

     
  • At 11:50 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Then look it up. He is a member of the NAS"

    In other words, you can't. But you feel more than capable of calling tens-of-thousands of working biologists and professional organization liars.

    Most of Skell's work was with hydrocarbons and is irrelevant to this discussion. He once did a bit of work back in 1945, years before the structure of DNA was determined, on assay of Streptomycin, but such an assay is also irrelevant to this discussion. He is essentially an educated layperson in the biological sciences, and he is contradicted by the vast majority of relevant specialists, so the appeal to authority fails.

     
  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Then look it up. He is a member of the NAS"

    Zachriel:
    In other words, you can't.

    No IOW I refuse to look up anything for you.

    Zachriel:
    ut you feel more than capable of calling tens-of-thousands of working biologists and professional organization liars.

    They are if they said what you posted they did.

    Zachriel:
    Most of Skell's work was with hydrocarbons and is irrelevant to this discussion. He once did a bit of work back in 1945, years before the structure of DNA was determined, on assay of Streptomycin, but such an assay is also irrelevant to this discussion.

    Anti-biotics is very relevant to this discussion.

    Zachriel:
    He is essentially an educated layperson in the biological sciences, and he is contradicted by the vast majority of relevant specialists, so the appeal to authority fails.

    There wasn't any "appeal to authority", just an appeal to reality.

    However if any scientist can show how the thinking that all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of singled celled organisms has helped them in their research then present their case.

    And then we still have this:

    "I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

    As well as the other essay that I linked to.

    And the bottom line is chemists better understand what goes on in living organisms than biologists do.

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "No IOW I refuse to look up anything for you."

    In other words, you don't have anything to offer your readers concerning Skell's qualifications. I'm sure your readers appreciate your help. I did the legwork for you, though. And you're welcome! Skell has no particular professional knowledge in any biological field. He is a layperson.

    joe g: "They are if they said what you posted they did."

    I provided the relevant cites. You are more than welcome to follow up. To get you started, here are a list of affiliated organizations.

    joe g: "Anti-biotics is very relevant to this discussion."

    He didn't study the biology of antibiotics. He just developed an assay. Important chemical work, yes, but not relevant to his qualifications concerning biology.

    joe g: "And the bottom line is chemists better understand what goes on in living organisms than biologists do."

    Um, no. Skell is not a biochemist and has done no work in the field. That's like thinking a quantum physicist has specialized knowledge in biology because organisms are made of quanta.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "There wasn't any 'appeal to authority', just an appeal to reality."'

    Sure it was. That's why it's important to you that a member of the National Academy of Sciences made such a statement.

    There are several issues when speaking to authority. He must be speaking in his relevant specialty. He must be expressing the consensus view of experts in the relevant field. So, the appeal to authority fails. I provided a valid cite to authority contradicting Skell's stance. That leaves Skell's actual opinion which can then be argued on its merits — which I have done.

    The claim I addressed is that "In the peer-reviewed literature, the word 'evolution' often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology." This is false. There are voluminous studies in Genetics, Nature and Science in which evolution is an intrinsic character of the study, and provides a framework for unifying these disparate findings in fields as far afield as geology, paleontology, microbiology and bioinformatics.

    Google Scholar
    * phylogeny 255000
    * 'natural selection' 337000
    * evolution 4800000
    * biological, evolution 1340000
    * mutation 1820000

    A look at the titles, abstracts and articles clearly indicates that there is a great deal of work done where the concepts and theories of evolution are of paramount importance to understanding and unifying the observations.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "No IOW I refuse to look up anything for you."

    Zachriel:
    In other words, you don't have anything to offer your readers concerning Skell's qualifications.

    There is still the matter of the 70 emminent researchers plus the other article written by someone who is in the field of biology.

    joe g: "Anti-biotics is very relevant to this discussion."

    Zachriel:
    He didn't study the biology of antibiotics.

    LoL! You just made that up! There isn't any "biology of antibiotics".

    joe g: "And the bottom line is chemists better understand what goes on in living organisms than biologists do."

    Zachriel:
    Um, no.

    Umm yes. You see it is irrelevant in what the chemicals are contained. Chemical reactions are still chemical reactions.

    And seeing that not one person in any biological field can tell us what makes an organism what it is it is pretty obvious there aren't any experts in that field, just specialized researchers who do not use the premise that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms.

     
  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel- ALL YOU do is to appeal to some authority. And it is very noticeable when your "authorities" cannot substantiate their claims.

    And again you miss the point- "Evolution" isn't the issue and you are showing your ignorance by refusing to understand that basic fact.

    For example I have talked at length with many cetacean experts. I have yet to find one that relies on the idea that whales "evolved" from land mammals in any of their research.

    And then there is still those 70 researchers plus the article from a biologist.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dr John A Davison responds:

    "Antibiotic resistance, like insecticide resistance, is not evolution as proved by the fact that both are reversible and soon disappear when the challenging molecules are no longer present. Like ontogeny is now, evolution WAS never reversible."

    “At most, the environment plays a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAL THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT.”
    Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontolog, page 313, his emphasis.

    "Hence the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."

    see Uncommon Dissent- same topic

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "And again you miss the point- 'Evolution' isn't the issue and you are showing your ignorance by refusing to understand that basic fact."

    Nay, nay. Skell made a specific comment that evolution is a "sort of coda in academic papers in experimental biology." This is false and I have provided voluminous cites indicating otherwise. I would be happy to provide even more evidence, if that would help.

    joe g: "For example I have talked at length with many cetacean experts."

    Cite them. Thank you.

    joe g: "I have yet to find one that relies on the idea that whales 'evolved' from land mammals in any of their research."

    What are you talking about? I repeatedly cited the discovery of cetaceans with hind limbs by Professor Gingerich et. al.

     
  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger JohnADavison said…

    joe g

    You, like myself, are wasting your time trying to reason with Darwimps. They are unable to think straight. You may feel to reprint any or all of my comments. I refuse to deal with these clowns beyond exposing them as the
    "prescribed" intellectually handicapped, chance-worshipping, ethical degenerates they all so obviously are. Insult them, laugh at them but for God's sake don't try to reason with them.

    I love it so!


    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

     
  • At 4:42 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Bob O'H at antievolution.org has found two other articles by Skell from the 1940's that also concern the chemical properties of streptomycin.

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey Zachriel- From Philip Skell:

    "I invite the new participants to do what, thus far, none of the earlier critics have yet done, to set forth a published paper containing experimental results, in which there is a clear heuristic connection to Darwinian Principles that served to guide that experimental work to its goal."

    Phil Skell’s first post - thanking Prof. Davison and Joseph and greetings to all

     
  • At 9:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "And again you miss the point- 'Evolution' isn't the issue and you are showing your ignorance by refusing to understand that basic fact."

    Zachriel:
    Nay, nay. Skell made a specific comment that evolution is a "sort of coda in academic papers in experimental biology." This is false and I have provided voluminous cites indicating otherwise. I would be happy to provide even more evidence, if that would help.

    What is wrong with you? Two points:
    1) "evolution" has several meanings
    2) That word substitution thingy that follows

    joe g: "For example I have talked at length with many cetacean experts."

    Zachriel:
    Cite them. Thank you.

    My apologies but I didn't transcribe my conversations.

    joe g: "I have yet to find one that relies on the idea that whales 'evolved' from land mammals in any of their research."

    Zachriel:
    What are you talking about? I repeatedly cited the discovery of cetaceans with hind limbs by Professor Gingerich et. al.

    Two more things:
    1) Hind limbs were never debated
    2) When Dr G can demonstrate that any number of mutations can allow for the differences- some 50,000+ differences- you may have a point.

     
  • At 10:26 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I invite the new participants to do what, thus far, none of the earlier critics have yet done, to set forth a published paper containing experimental results, in which there is a clear heuristic connection to Darwinian Principles that served to guide that experimental work to its goal."

    Many studies, including in paleontology, make use of the Theory of Evolution to make predictions and guide research. I have provided many examples, including Gingerich, Leakey, Horner, Johanson and Shubin; as well as multiple cites from scientific journals, including Genetics, Nature and Science. They don't go away just because you wave your hands.

    joe g: "Hind limbs were never debated "

    They were predicted, and their geographical location and age of strata were predicted. From the Theory of Evolution despite Skell.

     
  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "I invite the new participants to do what, thus far, none of the earlier critics have yet done, to set forth a published paper containing experimental results, in which there is a clear heuristic connection to Darwinian Principles that served to guide that experimental work to its goal."

    Zachriel:
    Many studies, including in paleontology, make use of the Theory of Evolution to make predictions and guide research.

    The KEY words are "Principles that served to guide that experimental work to its goal."

    Paleo does NOT involve experimental work.

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Darwinian evolution¬ – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."

    Paleontology is NOT experimental biology.

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Paleontology is NOT experimental biology."

    I already provided a large number of references to scientific journals, including Genetics, many if not most of which are experimental.

    One of the most fascinating is Richard Lenski's Long-term evolution experiment which studies the "Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations." Widely cited.

    Google Scholar lists hundreds of references to "experimental evolution".

    * Experimental evolution of parasites.
    * The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity.
    * Experimental evolution of aging, growth, and reproduction in fruitflies.
    * Experimental evolution of learning ability in fruit flies.
    * Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies, "The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms..."
    * The Role of Hybridization in Evolution, "A century after Darwin, the field of experimental evolution which he founded is
    opening up ever widening vistas of thrilling research for the nat- uralist.
    "

    Published in a wide variety of prestigious peer journals, including Science, Evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Molecular Microbiology, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genetics, Journal of Bacteriology, The American Naturalist and the National Library of Medicine.

    These represent only a tiny portion of such studies. The Theory of Evolution undergirds nearly all work in modern biology.

     
  • At 7:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Again Zachriel is missing the point even though it was explained to him.

    This is very typical-> refuse to understand what is being discussed and then provide "evidence" for what he believes is being discussed- even though it is irrelevant to the original topic.

    Strawman

    However I will ask if someone more qualified than I will take a look at what you provided. I will post it on UD...

     
  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: He didn't study the biology of antibiotics.

    joe g: "LoL! You just made that up! There isn't any 'biology of antibiotics'."

    There is the chemistry of antibiotics", and there is the biology of antibiotics". I'm not sure why you would find this surprising.

    joe g: "Again Zachriel is missing the point even though it was explained to him."

    Two issues have been discussed. I raised Skell's misleading assertion that most biologists "can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas" and that "the word 'evolution' often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology." Reading even a few articles in the Journal Genetics puts that claim to rest. Evolutionary theory undergirds nearly all research in genetics and related fields.

    You raised Skell's challenge of papers demonstrating "a clear heuristic connection to Darwinian Principles that served to guide that experimental work to its goal." This challenge has been easily met with multiple cites from multiple journals.

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That Zachriel continues to miss the point just tells me he doesn't want to understand the argument- oh well.

    As I have stated several times "evolution" has several meanings. Dr Skell is referring to evolution as all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via Darwinian mechanisms.

    However Zachriel's links all show "evolution" as just a change in allele frequency over time.

    Scientists use the latter but NOT the former. THAT is the point.

    The following comes from Dr John A. Davison:

    "Of course evolution is the cornerstone of biology. That does not mean the Darwinian version of the process has any validity."

    Now I am sure that Zachriel will also refuse to understand that statementb also.

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Dr Skell is referring to evolution as all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via Darwinian mechanisms."

    Actually, Skell conflates various meanings referring repeatedly to "Darwin's Theory" which includes Common Descent from one or a few ancestors, as well as proposed mechanisms for this change. For instance, Skell states "In the peer-reviewed literature, the word 'evolution' often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology." Yet, 'evolution' is not a mere coda in the vast majority of genetic research, but intrinsic to the studies. I have provided a large number of cites.

    Scientists try to use words in very specific ways. Evolution generally refers to the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Natural Selection means differential reproduction due to heritable characteristics. The Theory of Evolution refers to a collection of related assertions explaining the fact of evolution. If you or Skell mean the Theory of Common Descent, you or he should try and be specific.

    The Theory of Common Descent is used in a variety of studies, mostly historical. As such, experimentation is often related to determining the events and mechanisms that make up this history. Many valid predictions are made from the Theory of Common Descent. These involve everything from the geological to the biochemical. That many of these observations do not take place in the field is irrelevant to any scientific validity.

    Recent experimentation in the evolution of developmental pathways have been strongly tied to theories of common descent. Here's a couple of interesting examples from Pharyngula.

    Deep homologies in the pharyngeal arches

    Evolution of hormones

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Reality demonstrates that Dr Skell is very specific and it is YOU who conflate the meanings in order to refute a strawman.

    The following should have been a clue:

    "Of course evolution is the cornerstone of biology. That does not mean the Darwinian version of the process has any validity."

    Homolgies are mainly assumed. IOW one's "homology" is another's common design. And homology says NADA about a mechanism.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Reality demonstrates that Dr Skell is very specific..."

    Both you and Skell are very vague. Even his 70 scientists are unnamed, and his work in antibiotics is not even relevant to his assertions. And he falsely stated that "evolution" is a mere "coda" in biology.

    On the other hand, I have provided very specific information, including cites to relevant experiments and observations in a wide variety of fields. These observations include the valid predictions of the content of geological strata to the plausible characteristics of genomes. And you continue to show no interest whatsoever in the actual empirical evidence.

    Nevertheless, I would be happy to provide as many journal cites as you feel is necessary to reach a conclusion.

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "'Of course evolution is the cornerstone of biology. That does not mean the Darwinian version of the process has any validity.'"

    Just to be clear, you are not quoting Skell. You are quoting Davison who does strongly accept Common Descent. He rejects natural selection as a valid mechanism of evolutionary change. His views have not been accepted by his scientific peers, as he will surely tell you as often as you would like to hear it.

     
  • At 8:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "'Of course evolution is the cornerstone of biology. That does not mean the Darwinian version of the process has any validity.'"

    Zachriel:
    Just to be clear, you are not quoting Skell. You are quoting Davison who does strongly accept Common Descent. He rejects natural selection as a valid mechanism of evolutionary change.

    Just to be clear Dr Davison's quote is in support of Dr Skell's premise.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home