Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

TCS Daily ^ | 10 Jan 2008 | Lee Harris

[neverdem]

Today, almost one hundred and fifty years after the publication of The Origin of Species, we are still arguing about Darwin. How is this possible? If Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory, as its defenders claim, then why hasn't it been able to establish itself securely in the public mind? Why, in short, is Darwin still the subject of continuing controversy and acrimonious debate?

Contrast this on-going battle over Darwin with the fate of the other great scientific revolutions. The same Christian fundamentalists who argue that public school should teach creationism have no quarrel with the Copernican revolution. No one argues that public schools should be forced to teach the Ptolemaic system because it permits Joshua to make the sun stand still. Yet polls in the USA show that a large segment of American society continues to reject Darwin's scientific revolution.

Modern proponents of Darwin, like Richard Dawkins, have an elegant explanation for this puzzling phenomenon. Those who reject Darwin are ignorant boobs who take the Bible literally. The Bible says God created man in his own image, and so that is what they believe, despite the evidence that shows that human beings share more than 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. Therefore, in order to get people to accept Darwin, you must first destroy their adherence to Biblical fundamentalism. Once people see that the story of Adam and Eve is simply a fairy tale, they will be in a position to embrace the idea that we all descended from lower primates. But is this interpretation really psychologically plausible? Is it only the second chapter of Genesis that stands in the way of a universal acceptance of Darwin's theory that we descended from creatures far more monkey-like than us-like?

The stumbling block to an acceptance of Darwin, I would like to submit, has little to do with Christian fundamentalism, but a whole lot to do with our intense visceral revulsion at monkeys and apes. This revulsion, while certainly not universal, is widely shared, and it is a psychological phenomenon that is completely independent of our ideas about the literal truth of the Bible.

Our visceral revulsion at the mere sight of lower primates has been noted by the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal. Observing the visitors to the chimpanzee colony at the Arnhem Zoo, de Waal noticed a frequent pattern among them. Many people would stare at the chimps for a few minutes, then, after saying, "Oh I could watch them all day," they would swiftly make their way to the nearest exit. They had had enough monkey business. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, another great naturalist, was equally aware of this deep-seated revulsion against monkeys. In his novel Elective Affinities, a character declares her feelings about monkeys in no uncertain terms: "How can anyone bring himself to expend such care on depicting horrid monkeys! It is debasing simply to regard them as animal [!], but it is really more malicious to succumb to the temptation of seeking in them the likeness of people you know."

This visceral revulsion against monkeys explains why so many people prefer to hold on to the far more flattering mythology of man's creation as it was presented in Genesis. It is not Genesis that turns them against Darwin; it is Darwin that makes them turn to Genesis.

Now the proponents of Darwin will argue that a visceral revulsion is not a logical argument, and the proponents of Darwin will of course be right. From the fact that most people are horrified to think of themselves as descending from the lower primates, it does not follow that they must have arisen from a more respectable ancestry.

At the same time, those who accept Darwin (as I do) need to understand the true origin of the revulsion so many people feel against his theory. For the basis of this revulsion is none other than "the civilizing process" that has been instilled into us from infancy. The civilizing process has taught us never to throw our feces at other people, not even in jest. It has taught us not to snatch food from other people, not even when they are much weaker than we. It has taught us not to play with our genitals in front of other people, not even when we are very bored. It has taught us not to mount the posterior of other people, not even when they have cute butts.

Those who are horrified by our resemblance to the lower primates are not wrong, because it is by means of this very horror of the primate-within that men have been able to transcend our original primate state of nature. It is by refusing to accept our embarrassing kinship with primates that men have been able to create societies that prohibit precisely the kind of monkey business that civilized men and women invariably find so revolting and disgusting. Thou shalt not act like a monkey - this is the essence of all the higher religions, and the summation of all ethical systems.

Those who continue to resist Darwin are not standing up for science, but they may well be standing up for something even more important - a Dawkinsian meme, if you will, that has been instrumental in permitting mankind to transcend the brutal level of our primate origins. Our lofty humanitarian ethical standards have been derived not by observing our primate kin, but by imagining that we were made in the image of God. It was only by assuming that we were expected to come up to heavenly standards that we did not lower our standards to those of our biological next of kin. The meme that asserts that we are the children of God, and not merely a bunch of wild monkeys may be an illusion; but it is the illusion upon which all humane civilizations have been constructed. Those who wish to eliminate this illusionary meme from our general meme pool may be acting in the name of science; but it is by no means obvious that they are acting in the name of civilization and humanity.

[allmendream]

I realize what they are getting at, I just dont think the same application of the word ‘code’ applies. One is like the Enigma code that translates DNA to the sequence of a functional protein; the rest is like the circuitry settings and destination codes of the Enigma machine - important, but not as central to the basic function and basic information which is contained in DNA and translated into functioning protein.

All the histone modification and DNA modification (epigentics) is a function of the DNA sequence being bound or modified, and the DNA that coded for the histone, or the DNA methylase, or the histone acetyl transferase, etc.

Do you see what I am getting at?

[BlueDragon]

You say you realize what they, the genetic researchers themselves are getting at, yet continue to fight it, with all you've got?

What is the problem? Are you afraid some ID proponent will come along and try and make hay out of it? Is that what your incessant denial is all about?

You ask;

Do I see what you are getting at?

yes, I do, and have, right from the very beginning, for you are in effect still repeating "there is only one [universal] code".
Now, I told you that no matter how manny times you would repeat that, I wasn't going to fully agree.

I have attempted to explain, and have provided links to support my demurral from your position. If that is not enough, perhaps you should(?) re-read the information, and follow some of the links there, for further study, etc.

If you can't figuratively hear the backbeats and counter-melodies the orchestra is playing [since you seem to be too busy proclaiming "it's still only one song"] I'll just have to assume you are being willfully tone-deaf on this issue.

Good day, sir...

[allmendream]

Well then, if it is a code then translate it for me.

Here is the translation of the Universal code. It is unambiguously a code in that it is a sequence that when fed through a key becomes useful information.

UUU Phenylalanine (Phe)
UCU Serine (Ser)
UAU Tyrosine (Tyr)
UGU Cysteine (Cys) U
UUC Phe
UCC Ser
UAC Tyr
UGC Cys C
UUA Leucine (Leu)
UCA Ser
UAA STOP
UGA STOP A
UUG Leu
UCG Ser
UAG STOP
UGG Tryptophan (Trp) G
CUU Leucine (Leu)
CCU Proline (Pro)
CAU Histidine (His)
CGU Arginine (Arg) U
CUC Leu
CCC Pro
CAC His
CGC Arg C
CUA Leu
CCA Pro
CAA Glutamine (Gln)
CGA Arg A
CUG Leu
CCG Pro
CAG Gln
CGG Arg G
AUU Isoleucine (Ile)
ACU Threonine (Thr)
AAU Asparagine (Asn)
AGU Serine (Ser) U
AUC Ile
ACC Thr
AAC Asn
AGC Ser C
AUA Ile
ACA Thr
AAA Lysine (Lys)
AGA Arginine (Arg) A
AUG Methionine (Met) or START
ACG Thr
AAG Lys
AGG Arg G
GUU Valine Val
GCU Alanine (Ala)
GAU Aspartic acid (Asp)
GGU Glycine (Gly) U
GUC (Val)
GCC Ala
GAC Asp
GGC Gly C
GUA Val
GCA Ala
GAA Glutamic acid (Glu)
GGA Gly A
GUG Val
GCG Ala
GAG Glu
GGG Gly

So either concede that none of these other ‘codes’ are a code in the same sense, or show me the translation of the code. If there is no code to decipher then perhaps the same sense of the word ‘code’ is not applicable.

[BlueDragon]

You sure are stuck in a rut, aren't you? Cannot give up [just a teeny tinsy bit!] what you have been taught as being dogma. Then you want me to take a test, that fits only your own narrow confines..? Oh, and if I don't, it proves something? HA. It proves nothing, not in the context of this conversation we've been having.

The link [that has been] provided describes how the understanding has gone beyond the 1970s–1980s definition of Gene(s) as open reading frame (ORF) sequence pattern, which the coding "test" you wish to force me to take, assumes is still the case!

Didn't you read the info? C'mon man, get up to speed!

And quite arguing with me, just for the sake of arguing, for pete's sake! READ what those currently in-the-know, right at the cutting edge of things are saying, whydontcha?

If you were to actually do that, with an open mind, this silly argument would END.

If your mind was open enough to it, you might even come back and apologize...

[allmendream]

It is still the case. It is just not as simple as the message always being from one source/gene/location on a chromosome. The source code is still the same, exactly as I described it. Open reading frames is still the operative concept, they just do not exist as contiguous units always.

What is the translation of this new ‘code’ if it is indeed a code in the same context?

[grey_whiskers]

Actually we have some on this website arguing for a geocentric view (i.e., denying the Copernican heliocentric view).

And yet other posters (on this site, as well as some on others) arguing most strenuously for an egocentric view.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

There is one exception to this, however. If a female lion and a male tiger mate, their offspring will be an animal called a tigon.

Napoleon Dynamite is very offended.

Cheers!

[unlearner]

A kind is most similar to family, but is formulated under a different set of assumptions.

To which genus do cattalo belong?

[BlueDragon]

Please, feel free to direct further questions to;

http://www.genome.org/cgi/feedback

[higgmeister]

Here I am in a moment of meaningful introspection.

Once the other chimpanzees realized that David Greybeard trusted Jane, they seemed to feel less threatened by her presence. From that point on, the ice was broken and Jane began to observe wild chimpanzees at close range.

[higgmeister]

Who says we don't?!

[webstersII]

Ping

[webstersII]

“Punctuated Equilibrium points out that evolution seems to happen by fits and starts”

PE is an incredibly pathetic and transparent attempt to make the data fit the original assertion.

Saying PE supports evolution is an example of working backwards from the answer.

[webstersII]

“Observation: if a pro-evolution or pro-science poster had made the insults we see in the above posts s/he would have been banned.”

Where did he call you a liar and an idiot? They were much more abusive and that’s why they were banned.

Yes, he’s being sarcastic but you started it. Try to evolve a thicker skin, will you?

[webstersII]

“Evolution of Britney Spears”

You mean she’s become a new species? One that can’t mate with humans anymore?

[Cvengr]

Our line of reasoning is leading to pregnant questions. ;^)

[GodGunsGuts]

==Allmendream writes: “Here is the translation of the Universal code....(and from another reply)...The epigenetic code is insufficient to explain large scale evolutionary change.”

Please note that we now know that (A) the “Universal Code” is not universal (B) many cellular functions lie outside the “Universal Code” (C) and that these functions “contribute greatly to phenotype.”

From Wikipedia (sorry Metom, I know how much you love Wikipedia):

Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see #RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact there are many variant codes; thus, the canonical genetic code is not universal. For example, in humans, protein synthesis in mitochondria relies on a genetic code that varies from the canonical code.

It is important to know that not all genetic information is stored as the genetic code. All organisms’ DNA contain regulatory sequences, intergenic segments, chomosomal structural areas, which can contribute greatly to phenotype but operate using a distinct sets of rules which may or may not be as straightforward as the well-defined codon-to-amino acid paradigm which underlies the genetic code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_%28biology%29

[GodGunsGuts]

PS I am increasingly coming to the opinion that the “Universal Code” simply makes bricks we call proteins, and that the really sophisticated stuff comes into play after the basic building blocks are made.

[GodGunsGuts]

PSS You may also want to note that what Allmendream calls the “Universal Code” is also known as the “Canonical Code.” Seeing how neo-Darwinian evolution (random mutation + natural selection) lies at the core of what has for many become a materialist faith, it should come as no surprise that they become disturbed and upset when the “Canonical Code” is shaken—and in the case epigenetics, shaken to its core.

[metmom]

LOL! Wiki has it’s place, but to be passed off as a scientific source by the same folks who criticize others for using it because of it’s unreliable, easily edited nature, is just a tad more than hypocritical.

That’s what I object to.