This truly is sad...

[HebbianSynapse]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

I think the major theme here is the influence of religious thought on one's perspectives - even scientific views. As future physician-scientists, what do you think? How compatible are spiritual and scientific world views? (With regard to the evolution "debate" or other issues)

 

[mjs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

I think the major theme here is the influence of religious thought on one's perspectives - even scientific views. As future physician-scientists, what do you think? How compatible are spiritual and scientific world views? (With regard to the evolution "debate" or other issues)

ID, as it stands, is science by mouth-breathers. It has presented no data that has held up in the literature. When they publish articles after peer-review (rare events), they're swiftly and thoroughly rebutted. Furthermore, their reasoning and [lack of] methodologies were picked apart by a couple of lawyers in the recent Dover trial (way long but way worth it). The Discovery Institute is based in Seattle and I don't ever recall any of these guys coming any of our biomedical research seminars, even when their papers -see 11/10/05 were discussed. In retort to their goofy petitions, I think the phrase "come correct or don't come at all" applies.

As for worldview having such an impact on the way we do science, I think 9 times out of 10 that's a good thing. It spares people from doing experiments that they don't care about and makes investigators go the extra mile to prove their stuff is good. Unfortunately, up to this point, it can't be said about the methodology of the Discovery Institute's fellows.

 

[beetlerum]

Perhaps your comments are valid with regard to the Discovery Institute, but not all ID supporters are trying to develop a scientific theory. Also, they are in a difficult position, as the theory is a very difficult one to test scientifically, and as I said, many of the proponents aren't interested in becoming deeply involved in scientific debate. But just because their view is untestable/difficult to test doesn't mean they can't hold it.

ID, as it stands, is science by mouth-breathers. It has presented no data that has held up in the literature. When they publish articles after peer-review (rare events), they're swiftly and thoroughly rebutted. Furthermore, their reasoning and [lack of] methodologies were picked apart by a couple of lawyers in the recent Dover trial (way long but way worth it). The Discovery Institute is based in Seattle and I don't ever recall any of these guys coming any of our biomedical research seminars, even when their papers -see 11/10/05 were discussed. In retort to their goofy petitions, I think the phrase "come correct or don't come at all" applies.

As for worldview having such an impact on the way we do science, I think 9 times out of 10 that's a good thing. It spares people from doing experiments that they don't care about and makes investigators go the extra mile to prove their stuff is good. Unfortunately, up to this point, it can't be said about the methodology of the Discovery Institute's fellows.

 

[mjs]

Perhaps your comments are valid with regard to the Discovery Institute, but not all ID supporters are trying to develop a scientific theory.

The Discovery Institute FAQ

Intelligent design is preceisely that. Don't mistake it for belief in a creation myth or taking issue with evolutionary theory. As it is espoused it is a scientific theory.

 

[neoserenity333]

😱 ACK! I had one of those guys (Dr. Tour) for Organic Chemistry! He is very religious, and I believe he converted and became a preacher.

Disclaimer: He is not representative of Rice University!

 

[gaganheim]

I've been following this for a while now, and the misconception that bugs me the most is what people think they understand about ID. I've talked to several people who think God designed humans, so they support ID. The idea that we at all resemble or were planned by God is a religious belief. It cannot be proven either way no matter how hard you try.

The real question is do you believe that diversity of life arose through gradual small mutations in DNA, which maybe God could have directed or not. If so, you're a Darwinist. ID supporters always zero in on that word "random" mutations. It doesn't mean what they think it means. If you believe that God came down and phyiscally created new types of organisms, then and only then do you support ID.

As for the thornier issue, the origin of life. There is no good evidence in any direction. I honestly wouldn't care if they eliminated teaching about coacervates if it helps any religious people sleep better at night.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I think science and religion are compatible. They are in my own life. I believe in God and I believe that he created all things. I simply view science as a way of understanding that creation. Nevertheless, I don't believe intelligent design has a place in the scientific classroom. Science rests on data, logic, fact, evidence. Religion is about faith. They are not mutually exclusive, but just as I wouldn't base my religious beliefs on logic, I wouldn't base my scientific ideas on faith.

 

[neoserenity333]

They are not mutually exclusive, but just as I wouldn't base my religious beliefs on logic, I wouldn't base my scientific ideas on faith.

Well put! I agree, because science and religion are independent. One does not negate the other.

They say we shouldn't mix business with pleasure, and I say we shouldn't mix science with religion 😉 .

 

[Napoleon4000]

I sent this last year to Bill O'Reilly:

"Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I appreciate you point of view on including the "possiblity" that the universe arose out the will of a higher power. However, I disagree with your opinion that it should be included in a biology curriculum . Science is a process by which we may acquire knowledge of the physical world. This process is of course incremental. In this process scientists make "testable" hypotheses about a phenomenon to "observe" hypothesis is true or false. These hypotheses may be falseafiable. Meaning that a test can be created to unequivically determine if the hypothesis is false. If this cannot be done, then there can be no good "control" for the experiment, making the results questionable. There is no test to unequivically reject the possility of the existence of God. Conversely, it is not impossible to observe if galaxies are moving away from from each other at some speed, or if some drug will have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the human body. It is important to distinguish between faith and science, not on what is merely observable, but what can be tested. Biology is the study of life, not the study of the possible existence being that created life. Life can be observed, manipulated and tested. No one, at least to my knowledge, can observe God, manipulate God or test God. But you can believe in God. Again...science or faith. I suggest sticking to news reporting or sitting in an upper division science course at your alma mater. Thank you."

This doesn't mean that one must exclude God if practicing science, but that they should be kept separate. Faith (God) should not impact the scientific process.

On a more personal level, having been raised in a Jewish-Catholic houshold, I am a bit confused about religion in general, but believe that faith is a different thing entirely. One problem with the idea of ID is that the whole system of science, which was in place at the time of Galileo, was denounced as heresy during those times. Frankly, my travels throughout the world and the US have not convinced me that we have advanced much as a civilization. Many people, despite scientific progress remain quite superstitious. If one thinks logically, about the time span of the universe, at least that which states that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old, conflicts with the time line of the bible. I think it is in the human consciousness to believe that we are somehow "special." We may not be. We may just close our eyes and that's it. If we were to truly have some open dialogue about this subject, both sides would have to listen to both points of view. The problem I have encountered in conversation with some of those who practice a religion, is that they cannot believe that there is no God. However, this is antithetical to the practice of a religion which requires almost a blind belief. Science, on the other hand, has to be reproduced, and a high degree of skepticism exists. However, if multiple poeple all over the world reproduce results then it makes certain areas of science more accepted then not. However, as Einstein has proven, even Newton's "laws" have limits at a molecular level. The other side (those of religious backgrounds) have to be well versed in both, as does the scientific side. If both sides openned up to the possibilities then we could get somewhere. However, I think that society would collapse if people "knew" for certain that there infact was no God. So, in the spirit of humanity we all hope.

 

[hawkeey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

I think the major theme here is the influence of religious thought on one's perspectives - even scientific views. As future physician-scientists, what do you think? How compatible are spiritual and scientific world views? (With regard to the evolution "debate" or other issues)

As scientists, we are required to consider all theories fairly and equally. While we might follow certain models or theories because there seems to be an increased amount of scientific evidence for it, this in no way disproves opposing theories thoroughly. In science, we actually need a tremendous amount of faith in some kind of theory to understand our work. For example, the details of nucleic acid replication have not been completely demonstrated. Many biophysicists argue that from a thermodynamic and kinetic standpoint the current dogma does not agree with experimental evidence. Yet to continue our work in molecular biology we need to understand and believe in this central dogma in order for us to design further experiments.

The best we can do it perhaps to overlay these many ideas as kind of a quantum superposition of two different theories eventhough they might directly oppose the other.

As for teaching religion in science classes, I believe that is wrong. Teach religion in religion classes and science in science classes. All that needs to be done in a science class is acknowledgement of different theories of creation when teaching evolution. This does not mean theologic creation should be taught, it merely needs to be said that "Yes, there is this other theory, but it involves principles which cannot be studied using scientific methods and as such we will not be discussing it in this class. Please refer to the appropriate philosophy or religion class for more information".

Frankly, I find people holding either extreme view quite narrow minded. For creationists, they are taking a very literal reading of a religious text written millenia ago and translated many times over. The original meanings of the words themselves could have easy changed over time and may have very well been figurative when written. The importance of such messages should be how should I conduct my life if I believe in this religious theory, faith if you will.

Similarly, scientists who discount religion entirely are not truly thinking as scientists; they are not allowing for what could be a perfectly valid theory. Sure it is not something that can be really tested or observed, but what evidence do you truly have against it that cannot be explained otherwise?

I do not understand why humanity imposes this need to have such single tracked mind and have the need to only believe in one and only one theory out of a set of opposing theories. If we could only consider, for one moment, that the other theory might have some validity then we are doing both ourselves and the other people a great service. Thinking in such a way will help us be better scientists and better physicians as we will be able to grasp concepts that others think are impossible; such a methodology will help us evaluate and diagnose patients for things that others would not even consider. Meanwhile, if others thought like this, a great deal of conflict could be avoided.

The debate between evolution and intelligent design (both as theories of creation) is particularly silly though since both have basically the same consequence in that life is related in some fundamental way. The best way to deal with this is to simply acknowledge the debate and then move on with your life.

Whatever you may think, it is not necessary to force it upon others. While I think that is important to receive a thorough education in in the theories of evolution and creation, it is not necessary for one to necessarily believe either.

 

[mjs]

Whatever you may think, it is not necessary to force it upon others. While I think that is important to receive a thorough education in in the theories of evolution and creation, it is not necessary for one to necessarily believe either.

This, in my mind, is a very dangerous statement. In what public school class shall the notion of earth's creation be taught?

 

[shortyganoush]

This, in my mind, is a very dangerous statement. In what public school class shall the notion of earth's creation be taught?

Exactly, if we require that intelligent design be mentioned in biology class, then we have to require that every religion's unprovable theory be also mentioned. Many, if not most scientists have their own religious affiliations such that they can form their own opinions regarding how to deal with faith and evolution. But bringing intelligent design into the classroom, especially a public one, because we do not completely understand everything about the mechanics of evolution is an affront to separation of church and state.

 

[hawkeey]

This, in my mind, is a very dangerous statement. In what public school class shall the notion of earth's creation be taught?

It need not be taught in a public school, you could be readily taught by a person's religious place of worship. I do not think that separation of church and state necessarily means that public schools cannot mention a thing about religion, however. I believe in my high school there was a world religion's class that went through and did a comparative study of different religious ideas.

And by the way, I think there was some mention of earth's creation in grade school when they would start telling you how the world is approximately 4 billion years old yada, yada, ya.

 

[hawkeey]

Exactly, if we require that intelligent design be mentioned in biology class, then we have to require that every religion's unprovable theory be also mentioned. Many, if not most scientists have their own religious affiliations such that they can form their own opinions regarding how to deal with faith and evolution. But bringing intelligent design into the classroom, especially a public one, because we do not completely understand everything about the mechanics of evolution is an affront to separation of church and state.

First of all I did not advocate that intelligent design specifically be taught or be even mentioned in biology class. Intelligent design is distinct from theories of creation in general. Chemical and biological evolution is one theory of creation. Intelligent design is another. The theory supported by the Catholic church in their interpretation of the Bible is yet another distinct theory of creation (note that the Catholic church has condemned the theory of Intelligent Design cf. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 ). We also see examples of religious institutions acknowledging science (cf. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...350.story?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed ).

Your phrasing seems to indicate that evolution is a fact and is the only possible explanation for the observed phenomena. I think that this thinking is very dangerous and almost makes evolution into a religion itself. I think that we must be careful to consider evolution to be a vague scientific theory that we are still trying to figure out the details of.

It should also be recognized that there are many components of evolution that not everybody believes in. Some believe in intraspecies evolution and not interspecies evolution. Many of the details of evolution are still being refined and the "theory of evolution" is actually quite a vague term.

The conflict is not about misunderstanding evolution but it is more about how to resolve two differing ideas. Perhaps you are making arguments in reference to that of the far religious extreme. What I am trying to argue is that a lot of these views you guys are expressing are of the other extreme, a scientific extreme that is very non-scientific.

Science at its core is the study of ideas. It teaches us how to think about and discern theories and knowledge. I think it is very important that in modern science that we need to begin thinking about more than one conflicting concept at a time. That is we should not become so entrenched in one theory or the other, but rather that we must think objectively and without prejudice.

If you study quantum mechanics, you begin to realize that even though two states conflict each other they can coexist harmoniously. The shades of grey analogy does not really apply because it really is not a linear combination of two different basis states. Rather quantum mechanics tells us that there is some probability that something will be in either state. In a similar way, I think this idea should be extending to our own minds. Eventhough two ideas may conflict, it is not necessary to exclude either in our heads.

Anyways, let me address some questions to make things clear:

1. Are you advocating teaching intelligent design or any other religious theory in biology class?

No. I am merely saying that it should be mentioned that there are other theoriesand that evolution is being taught in this class because it is a predominant theory in modern biology. The theories of evolution should not be presented as a fact but rather clearly as a theory as should every other concept in science. Rather the scientific method should be emphasized. It should also be explained that religious theory or intelligent design is not being taught - not because of a fundamental opposition to it, but rather because these theories cannot be explored scientifically and therefore are not properly taught in a science class.

2. Are you advocating teaching religious theory or any other "creationist" philosophy in school, especially public school?

My stance on this is neutral. I believe that if someone is seeking a religious education that one can be found at a religious institution. I do not feel that the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state" precludes religion from being taught at all. If it is taught then it must be done in a fair and unbiased way such that the state is not particularly advocating a religion in the same manner that science should be presented. In practice, I feel that this is most readily done in a "comparative religion" or a "philosophy" class. I do not feel that merely teaching or requiring a subject constitutes advocacy, but the manner in which it is taught or required could constitute advocacy.

3. What are you trying to say then?

I am trying to say that an artificial framework for this conflict of ideas has been imposed upon us by an outside entity (ie. the media, society, etc). As scientists of high caliber we must remember the scientific method and not get drawn into inane simplifications of the matter. The scientific method allow for a procedure to state and test hypotheses; it also allows for the existence of multiple hypotheses although conflicting. It does not tell us that things we cannot experiment are not to be believed - in fact it sets a very high bar for hypotheses to be disproved. Fundamentally, it tells us that we may gather evidence for evolution and that we cannot disprove "creationism" via evidence. It also tells us that we cannot "prove" anything for sure.

Furthmore, recent scientific advances demonstrate that we need to stop thinking in a classical linear fashion, but rather it is very important that we begin contemplating alternate theories. For scientists, this apparent conflict with religion really should be null. For many people of faith, this issue should also be a non-issue. The argument that is occuring in between extremes that do not truly represent either method of thinking; we as future physician-scientists should be cautious of reducing the problem to such simplifications and extemes.

 

[hawkeey]

Article VI

...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[\QUOTE]

The separation of church and state is a constitutional principle, but a lot of the ideas connected to it are not actually enshrined in law or the constitution. A reading of the two places where religion is mentioned in the constitution reveals that religious freedom is not only protected, but so is the practice of religion.

It is not a fundamental violation of the above quotes for the state to teach religion in general. It is a violation for a law to made to either require or prohibit it.

 

[Newquagmire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

I think the major theme here is the influence of religious thought on one's perspectives - even scientific views. As future physician-scientists, what do you think? How compatible are spiritual and scientific world views? (With regard to the evolution "debate" or other issues)

One's beliefs inevitably bias his perspectives. Part of our profession(s), however, is to remain objective.

The histories of science and faith are inextricably entwined, and any question of their "compatibility" is moot. You might be interested to find that there are significant prizes addressing the interface, for example the Templeton Prize.

 

[gaganheim]

Hawkeey, let me first say I was very interested in your post. Very well thought out and organized. You have, however, fallen into some of the classic pitfalls that the discovery institute has tossed into this debate.

1. Evolution, as should be obvious from the etymology, is the modification of one form of life into another. It makes no mention of the creation of life, as I metioned earlier. No one knows anything about the creation of life. Hence there is no theory for it, only guesses.

2. Your definitions of scientific terms are completely garbled by colloquial definitions.

Fact: A repeatble, observable outcome of an experiment. Chimpanzee DNA shows 98% homology to human is a fact.

Theory: A unifying concept that pulls together many facts. Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a theory. ID is not a theory. It's a 200 year old concept who's modern central tenet, irreducible complexity, has been debunked for several years. Zero experimental evidence equals not a theory. The more a theory is proven, it never turns into a fact. That is why it is still the theory of gravity, theory of general relativity etc.

3. Not believing in interspeices evolution is not sturdy ground. Especially in light of the genomic data available now, it seems like an absurd violation of occum's razor.

4. As scientists, I agree that we can never really prove anything. However, it is our duty to weed out the most likely explanation for all observed phenomena. At this point we put alternate hypotheses on the back burner until some COMPELLING evidence tells us we need to start over. I won't pretend there isn't some scientific supression of new ideas. Barry Marshall is evidence of that. But he didn't go around signing a petition saying "We doubt that ability of stress to be the only cause of peptic ulcers." He got good evidence and now has a Nobel sitting in his trophy case.

I do believe that alternate theories and nuances should be explored. However, that should be reserved for once a student has complete and full knowledge of what exactly the scientific communities believes in currently. Maybe someone else here will contradict me, but the scientific theory was NEVER used to teach me in high school. The closest we came was learning about one specific experiment that proved the concept. To do so takes up way too much time, and it would be improper to single out evolution for that treatment.

 

[gaganheim]

While I'm still on my high horse, check out the editorial from science this week:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5764/1071.pdf

 

[hawkeey]

Hawkeey, let me first say I was very interested in your post. Very well thought out and organized. You have, however, fallen into some of the classic pitfalls that the discovery institute has tossed into this debate.

1. Evolution, as should be obvious from the etymology, is the modification of one form of life into another. It makes no mention of the creation of life, as I metioned earlier. No one knows anything about the creation of life. Hence there is no theory for it, only guesses.

2. Your definitions of scientific terms are completely garbled by colloquial definitions.

Fact: A repeatble, observable outcome of an experiment. Chimpanzee DNA shows 98% homology to human is a fact.

Theory: A unifying concept that pulls together many facts. Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a theory. ID is not a theory. It's a 200 year old concept who's modern central tenet, irreducible complexity, has been debunked for several years. Zero experimental evidence equals not a theory. The more a theory is proven, it never turns into a fact. That is why it is still the theory of gravity, theory of general relativity etc.

3. Not believing in interspeices evolution is not sturdy ground. Especially in light of the genomic data available now, it seems like an absurd violation of occum's razor.

4. As scientists, I agree that we can never really prove anything. However, it is our duty to weed out the most likely explanation for all observed phenomena. At this point we put alternate hypotheses on the back burner until some COMPELLING evidence tells us we need to start over. I won't pretend there isn't some scientific supression of new ideas. Barry Marshall is evidence of that. But he didn't go around signing a petition saying "We doubt that ability of stress to be the only cause of peptic ulcers." He got good evidence and now has a Nobel sitting in his trophy case.

I do believe that alternate theories and nuances should be explored. However, that should be reserved for once a student has complete and full knowledge of what exactly the scientific communities believes in currently. Maybe someone else here will contradict me, but the scientific theory was NEVER used to teach me in high school. The closest we came was learning about one specific experiment that proved the concept. To do so takes up way too much time, and it would be improper to single out evolution for that treatment.

Gaganheim, thank you for the interest. I'm having fun fleshing out these ideas. My main concern I think is that people are starting to treat evolution as if it were a religion, and this bothers me deeply.

1. I do not completely agree here. I think there is plenty to be said about natural selection within a species. There are some molecular evolutionary that argue about things like the formation of the first nucleic acids and things like an "RNA World" which I think comes very close to a story of creation.

2. I agree with your definition of fact.

I'm not so sure about your definition of theory. Theories are hypotheses that that explain experimental evidence, "facts" as you call them.

The more general theories become, however, the more they lie. For example, in "How the Laws of Physics Lie" ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198247044/102-8863008-1654515 ) we see that the very best theories are those made directly from experimental evidence. My argument is that when people refer to evolution they are referring to something general and very broad.

The grand unifying theories of gravity and general reflectivity are not completely proven and are in fact wrong in a few cases as physicists are begining to find out. For example there is an increasing amount of evidence that gravity is actually a repulsive force over long distances. If this is true, then the existence of "dark matter" that so many physicists are thinking about might not exist.

The most accurate theories are those based directly on observed phenomena and that are very specific. The more specific a theory is the more accurate it probably is, but the less useful it becomes.

Natural selection is a subset of evolution that is much closer to the experimental evidence. It is something that we can test in the lab. The conclusion is that given environmental pressures a population will adapt over several generations in order to increase the abilitiy to reproduce.

3. I'm not saying that I do not believe in interspecies evolution, but I am pointing out that evolution is a very broad theory that consists of many different components some of which has been directly observed and others that have been inferred.

I do not think sequence homology is a very good way to prove interspecies evolution. It merely says that different species are very similar genetically under our current understanding of genetic code.

The first problem is that our understanding of the genetic code is undergoing something of a revolution at the moment. The realization that non-coding RNAs have an enormous significance is going to make us start looking in places that we have never looked before. The entire field of bioinformatics has its roots in this search.

The second problem is that without direct evidence of speciation, homology can be equally attributed either to the evolution of distinct populations evolving apart or to an Intelligent Designer. I think this is where Intelligent Design has some root. Why could not this homology just be the incremental changes of some all encompassing engineer?

Occum's Razor is actually what gets us in trouble. Different people have different ideas about what the simplest explanation would be. To many scientists, yes, there must exist some mechanistic, observable way for homology to occur. To those who are more willing to believe in a higher being, the probably of an observable mechanism seems very unlikely given the biodiversity we are now observing.

4. "However, it is our duty to weed out the most likely explanation for all observed phenomena. At this point we put alternate hypotheses on the back burner until some COMPELLING evidence tells us we need to start over. I won't pretend there isn't some scientific supression of new ideas." I disagree that we have a duty to weed out the most likely explanation. Scientists do so because it is most convenient, and they develop a consensus.

It is important that we avoid looking down upon other theories. If those advocating Intelligent Design start belittling evolution, we should rise above that debate and not engage them on those terms.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Gaganheim, thank you for the interest. I'm having fun fleshing out these ideas. My main concern I think is that people are starting to treat evolution as if it were a religion, and this bothers me deeply.

1. I do not completely agree here. I think there is plenty to be said about natural selection within a species. There are some molecular evolutionary that argue about things like the formation of the first nucleic acids and things like an "RNA World" which I think comes very close to a story of creation.

2. I agree with your definition of fact.

I'm not so sure about your definition of theory. Theories are hypotheses that that explain experimental evidence, "facts" as you call them.

The more general theories become, however, the more they lie. For example, in "How the Laws of Physics Lie" ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198247044/102-8863008-1654515 ) we see that the very best theories are those made directly from experimental evidence. My argument is that when people refer to evolution they are referring to something general and very broad.

The grand unifying theories of gravity and general reflectivity are not completely proven and are in fact wrong in a few cases as physicists are begining to find out. For example there is an increasing amount of evidence that gravity is actually a repulsive force over long distances. If this is true, then the existence of "dark matter" that so many physicists are thinking about might not exist.

The most accurate theories are those based directly on observed phenomena and that are very specific. The more specific a theory is the more accurate it probably is, but the less useful it becomes.

Natural selection is a subset of evolution that is much closer to the experimental evidence. It is something that we can test in the lab. The conclusion is that given environmental pressures a population will adapt over several generations in order to increase the abilitiy to reproduce.

3. I'm not saying that I do not believe in interspecies evolution, but I am pointing out that evolution is a very broad theory that consists of many different components some of which has been directly observed and others that have been inferred.

I do not think sequence homology is a very good way to prove interspecies evolution. It merely says that different species are very similar genetically under our current understanding of genetic code.

The first problem is that our understanding of the genetic code is undergoing something of a revolution at the moment. The realization that non-coding RNAs have an enormous significance is going to make us start looking in places that we have never looked before. The entire field of bioinformatics has its roots in this search.

The second problem is that without direct evidence of speciation, homology can be equally attributed either to the evolution of distinct populations evolving apart or to an Intelligent Designer. I think this is where Intelligent Design has some root. Why could not this homology just be the incremental changes of some all encompassing engineer?

Occum's Razor is actually what gets us in trouble. Different people have different ideas about what the simplest explanation would be. To many scientists, yes, there must exist some mechanistic, observable way for homology to occur. To those who are more willing to believe in a higher being, the probably of an observable mechanism seems very unlikely given the biodiversity we are now observing.

4. "However, it is our duty to weed out the most likely explanation for all observed phenomena. At this point we put alternate hypotheses on the back burner until some COMPELLING evidence tells us we need to start over. I won't pretend there isn't some scientific supression of new ideas." I disagree that we have a duty to weed out the most likely explanation. Scientists do so because it is most convenient, and they develop a consensus.

It is important that we avoid looking down upon other theories. If those advocating Intelligent Design start belittling evolution, we should rise above that debate and not engage them on those terms.

Hawkeey, I commend you for this post. Part of me wishes this thread were moved to the lounge, for greater access, but another yearns from a (hopefully) more sophisticated perspective from MD/PhDs and prospective MD/PhDs.

I agree on the question of evolution. It takes certain undeniable scientific facts, such as natural selection and mutation (whether it is entirely random, or partially in response to a stress, I am not sure), and extrapolates it out to claim that all life has a common origin. That aspect of the theory is untestable - it is a narrative and an inferrence. Experiments that can be done in the lab with minimal assumptions do not reproduce 'evolution,' but may reproduce or test certain mechanisms that evolution incorporates.

I, too, wanted to comment on the genetic phylogeny studies (we were actually debating that in the lounge). The fact that a chimpanzee has 98% or 99% genetic homology with humans is proof of nothing except that our proteins are very, very similar. It does not prove that we have a common ancestor, nor does it disprove the creationist/ID hypothesis of a creator separately creating two creatures with a high degree of physical similarity, i.e. similar proteins.

I don't want to reignite the same debate I had previously on phylogeny, but I simply must mention that some of the more distant lineages it postulates are either not in coherence with evolution or are not in coherence with animal physiology, morphology, biochemistry, etc. The case of cytochrome c suggests that kangaroos (marsupials) are closer to humans than are horses (both placentals). It also suggests that lungfish are closer to cows than they are to salmon.

I don't discard genetic phylogeny for trying to establish relation between putatively closely related organisms, perhaps by using non-conserved proteins. But in its attempt to establish relation between distantly related organisms, I think it fails to convince.

 

[gaganheim]

Gaganheim, thank you for the interest. I'm having fun fleshing out these ideas. My main concern I think is that people are starting to treat evolution as if it were a religion, and this bothers me deeply.

1. I do not completely agree here. I think there is plenty to be said about natural selection within a species. There are some molecular evolutionary that argue about things like the formation of the first nucleic acids and things like an "RNA World" which I think comes very close to a story of creation.

2. I agree with your definition of fact.

I'm not so sure about your definition of theory. Theories are hypotheses that that explain experimental evidence, "facts" as you call them.

The more general theories become, however, the more they lie. For example, in "How the Laws of Physics Lie" ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198247044/102-8863008-1654515 ) we see that the very best theories are those made directly from experimental evidence. My argument is that when people refer to evolution they are referring to something general and very broad.

The grand unifying theories of gravity and general reflectivity are not completely proven and are in fact wrong in a few cases as physicists are begining to find out. For example there is an increasing amount of evidence that gravity is actually a repulsive force over long distances. If this is true, then the existence of "dark matter" that so many physicists are thinking about might not exist.

The most accurate theories are those based directly on observed phenomena and that are very specific. The more specific a theory is the more accurate it probably is, but the less useful it becomes.

Natural selection is a subset of evolution that is much closer to the experimental evidence. It is something that we can test in the lab. The conclusion is that given environmental pressures a population will adapt over several generations in order to increase the abilitiy to reproduce.

3. I'm not saying that I do not believe in interspecies evolution, but I am pointing out that evolution is a very broad theory that consists of many different components some of which has been directly observed and others that have been inferred.

I do not think sequence homology is a very good way to prove interspecies evolution. It merely says that different species are very similar genetically under our current understanding of genetic code.

The first problem is that our understanding of the genetic code is undergoing something of a revolution at the moment. The realization that non-coding RNAs have an enormous significance is going to make us start looking in places that we have never looked before. The entire field of bioinformatics has its roots in this search.

The second problem is that without direct evidence of speciation, homology can be equally attributed either to the evolution of distinct populations evolving apart or to an Intelligent Designer. I think this is where Intelligent Design has some root. Why could not this homology just be the incremental changes of some all encompassing engineer?

Occum's Razor is actually what gets us in trouble. Different people have different ideas about what the simplest explanation would be. To many scientists, yes, there must exist some mechanistic, observable way for homology to occur. To those who are more willing to believe in a higher being, the probably of an observable mechanism seems very unlikely given the biodiversity we are now observing.

4. "However, it is our duty to weed out the most likely explanation for all observed phenomena. At this point we put alternate hypotheses on the back burner until some COMPELLING evidence tells us we need to start over. I won't pretend there isn't some scientific supression of new ideas." I disagree that we have a duty to weed out the most likely explanation. Scientists do so because it is most convenient, and they develop a consensus.

It is important that we avoid looking down upon other theories. If those advocating Intelligent Design start belittling evolution, we should rise above that debate and not engage them on those terms.

I'm really enjoying this. I've never had this discussion before with someone who is scientifically literate and not letting emotional inclinations interfere.

A few counterpoints to keep the discussion going:

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have heard the whole RNA in coacervates idea taught with evolution. I don't think it belongs there, and would be happy if teachers were willng to admit "We have no idea what happened."

The term "evolution" I agree has become to big for its britches. There are no hideous equations, so everyone thinks they understand it. There are so many nuances and subtheories, you really have to try to keep up with it. Take a look at the length of Steven Jay Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory." The problem with lots of evolutionary critics is they are attacking a straw man that they've created.

I think the most compelling evidence from genetics is not from cDNA, but from neutral regions. As you mentioned, we're running into trouble with knowing what DNA is really under selection, and what's truly neutral. However, I think the degree in homology is compelling. For the cytochrome c argument, looking at individual genes under selective pressure I will agree is useless, and I don't know anyone who is doing this.

When you mentioned that maybe the homology is the result of a higher engineer, this would be a case where ID is useless. It is IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish whether mutations happen for solely random biochemical processes, or whether they are guided by an unobservable divine force.

I stick by my statement that scientists need to pick out one theory. I didn't say that every scientist needs to pick the same one. It's good to keep an open mind, but you'll never get anywhere if you continue to conisder every possible explanation for your data. You need to operate in a conceptual framework, or paradigm if you're feeling Kuhnian.

 

[Ecthgar]

Interesting thread........however, I'm gonna stay way out of this one. Anyway, some more required reading for this topic in the Feb 10th 2006 issue of Cell:

Creationism and Evolution: It's the American Way.
Cell, Volume 124, Issue 3, Pages 449-451
E. Scott

You may need university library access to view this commentary.