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]

Now your catching on. Controlling the controllers is what signal transduction and transcriptional control is all about.

It is all DNA and protein interaction. Specific proteins interact with specific DNA sequences to control reading of the genetic code and the epigenetic pattern of DNA methylation and histone modification.

If your trying to say that it is all hideously complex I am not disagreeing with you. If your trying to say that there is some hidden code behind it all that is not understood I disagree.

As ive said before, we don’t know what more than half the proteins of the body even do. And of the ones we even have a clue about we have yet to catalog ALL their control mechanism and protein/protein interactions. But we do know how they are made and how the code for them is stored in DNA and the basics of how transcription of this code is accomplished and how laying down and removing epigenetic markers is accomplished.

[RightWhale]

Have noted a lot of this scientific lingo on these threads. It is definitely not a widely known language such as English. However, it might be that DNA does not create and control the cell but vice versa. Not that this would have anything to do with Darwin even if it were so.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Those myths are from different peoples, and most likely are referring to different events which happened at different times.

Or they are all referring to the same global flood. Has that ever occurred to you?

==Care to cut-and-paste again, sticking to archaeology this time?

Are you actually saying that folklore IS NOT an important part of archeology?

[GodGunsGuts]

But it could have everything to do with modern Darwinism, which is based on the premise that “random” mutation of the genetic/universal code are responsible for the diversity of all life on earth.

[allmendream]

I consider the possibilities but X-ray crystallography and predicting protein structure is NOT my field. If there is some master key behind protein/DNA interaction it would be an excellent finding though! Although I’m not sure where it would fit in any Creationist/I.D. philosophy because the evidence of a predictable correlation just isn’t there (and I’m unsure of the theological implications even if it was). There are families of proteins that will interact with ‘variations on the theme’ of a sequence, but each family of protein seems to accomplish this DNA interaction in different manners.

I am not opposed to seeing patterns and correlations in nature, in fact the Scientific method attracted me for just those reasons - that it explains and predicts and establishes correlations and patterns.

[RightWhale]

Does anybody actually buy into that neoDarwinism? By now any follower of these C/E threads should have figured out that random mutation is not and cannot be the driving force of evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

I do find it interesting, particularly wrt the geometry. But alas, I have been swamped and haven’t had time to engage in as many sidebars as I’d like.

[VOA]

bump

[allmendream]

It is sort of a chicken/egg situation. Both are controlling each other. DNA cannot do anything without protein to ‘run the program’; and protein cannot be made without DNA to store the sequence. RNA is the intermediary between the two usually.

[GodGunsGuts]

But you do realize that there is a whole new world out there that lies on the other side of the univeral/genetic code? Get off your hind-end and boldy discover what got you interested in molecular biology in the first place! If I had your training, I would be hard-pressed to contain myself!!!!

[willyd]

Bikes are made out of rubber and metal... cars contain 98% of the same materials as bikes. Therefore, cars evolved from bicycles...

We all live in the same atmosphere, participate in the same carbon cycle. Of course we are all going to be made of the same set of chemicals and chemical reactions....they are the only ones that can exist in this environment.

[GodGunsGuts]

Of course, those of us “in the know” have known this all along. But the details have yet to be explained, and this is what makes my hair stand up on end. The thrill of discovery!

[GodGunsGuts]

Well get unswamped. The reason why I ping you is because I appreciate your many insights. Selfish, I know. But you have no right getting COMPLETELY bogged down in assundaries. I’m just kidding, but you get my point :o)

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Our spinster cousin had a stroke a few months back and it has been keeping us very busy getting her affairs in order, arranging rehab and so forth.

[GodGunsGuts]

Oh....oh...my bad. Ok, you get a free get out of jail card. But I hope to see you back once you are finished doing God’s work. You hear me Alamo-Girl! And may God bless and keep both you and your cousin. All the best to you and YOURS—GGG

[RightWhale]

What I find interesting is how fast the DNA functions in the neurons. It not only covers for synaptic reactions but cycles at an incredible rate per second. None of this replacement in seven years thing like other organisms in the body, but so fast we can see our electric lights and monitors flicker if we pay attention to that.

[Coyoteman]

You claimed there was archaeological evidence. Feel free to present it.

[allmendream]

Sorry, but it is nearly impossible to talk about Biology without getting caught up in strange words to describe molecules and processes.

DNA = Deoxyribonucleic Acid (A T C G) a four digit code of nucleic acids that in an open reading frame specifies the amino acid sequence of a protein.

RNA = Ribonucleic Acid (A U C G) a messenger RNA (mRNA) transcript is made when RNA polymerase (a protein) is recruited to the promoter region of a gene. This mRNA is then translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein.

Protein = A sequence of Amino Acids specified by the mRNA that forms a 3-D structure, the electromagnetic interactions of which accomplish enzymatic chemical reactions, perform structural tasks, methylate DNA, phosphorylate other proteins, etc, etc.

Enzyme = A protein that performs a chemical reaction.

Methylate = add a methyl group to a molecule

Phosphorylate = add a phosphate group to a molecule.

Acetylate = add an acetyl group to a molecule.

Transcription factor = a protein that binds the specific DNA sequence of the promoter region of a gene and recruits RNA polymerase.

RNA polymerase = a protein that transcribes the DNA sequence of a gene into a messenger RNA sequence that will translated into the amino acid sequence of a protein.

Histone = a protein that binds DNA, enabling it to be packaged into DNA that is activly undergoing transcription into mRNA and DNA that is stored away.

DNA methylase = a protein that methylates certain DNA sequences making them more likely to bind histones and turn off the active transcription of nearby genes.

Histone Acetyl Transferase (HAT) / Histone De-Acetyl Transferase (HDAC) = proteins that control the addition and removal of acetyl groups on histones and make them more or less bound to DNA.

[RightWhale]

I’ll let somebody else do that chemistry stuff. Could have gone into that in school but chose physics and math as something mindless that won’t suddenly decide to jump out of its cage and eat a heckler.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You claimed there was archaeological evidence. Feel free to present it.

I don’t know about archeological evidence. After all, a global flood would have wiped almost everthing clean. But there is plenty of scientific evidence, and there is plenty of global folklore, all leaning in the direction of a global flood. In the meantime, your archeological brethren are leaving you behind:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=