Posted on 02/26/2009 7:59:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Last week, University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne criticized Forbes (See "Why Evolution Is True") for including views skeptical of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in its forum on the 200th anniversary of his birth. As a member of the National Academy of Sciences, I beg to differ with Professor Coyne.
I don't think science has anything to fear from a free exchange of ideas between thoughtful proponents of different views. Moreover, there are a number of us in the scientific community who, while we appreciate Darwin's contributions, think that the rhetorical approach of scientists such as Coyne unnecessarily polarizes public discussions and--even more seriously--overstates both the evidence for Darwin's theory of historical biology and the benefits of Darwin's theory to the actual practice of experimental science.
Coyne seems to believe the major importance of biological science is its speculations about matters which cannot be observed, tested and verified, such as origin of life, speciation, the essences of our fossilized ancestors, the ultimate causes of their changes, etc.
Experimental biology has dramatically increased our understanding of the intricate workings within living organisms that account for their survival, showing how they continue to function despite the myriad assaults on them from their environments. These advances in knowledge are attributable to the development of new methodologies and instruments, unimaginable in the preceding centuries, applied to the investigation of living organisms. Crucial to all fruitful experiments in biology is their design, for which Darwin's and Wallace's principles apparently provide no guidance.
Contrary to the beliefs of Professor Coyne and some other defenders of Darwin, these advances are not due to studies of an organism's ancestors that are recovered from fossil deposits.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Forgot to add the author’s credentials :
Philip S. Skell is emeritus Evan Pugh professor of chemistry at Penn State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
To Admin Moderator,
Please correct the title. I forgot to add the T in “The” on the title.
Thanks.
he he
Biochemistry, anatomy, microbiology, physiology, pharmacology, immunology are sciences. Evolution is fascinating, but in 30 years of working with scientists in all of the basic medical sciences, plus clinicians, I don’t ever remember any references to evolution when we were designing or evaluating studies (pharmaceutical R&D).
And pretty much an idiot as well. For evidence, consider this: "... matters which cannot be observed, tested and verified, such as origin of life, speciation, the essences of our fossilized ancestors, the ultimate causes of their changes, etc."
With the exception of the origin of life, everything else is observable, testable, and verifiable. Legitimate disagreement may result, but the matters are testable.
Clearly, all he is doing is picking word bytes to support his predetermined conclusions.
That's curious. Why would you need to design or evaluate studies in pharmaceutical research and development? What's wrong with plain old penicillin?
Penicillin was discovered in the 1920’s and finally came into practical use in the mid-40’s (WWII helped). I owe my life to the fact that it became available for civilian use as soon as the war was over, since I developed “blood poisoning as a six-year old in 1947. We have come a long way in pharmaceutical R&D since penicillin. I know there is a lot of antipathy to medicine among some on this forum, but I am sure that more than a few here also have benefited from modern pharmacological progress.
I was kinda hoping you'd mention why we need new antibiotics.
“With the exception of the origin of life, everything else is observable, testable, and verifiable. Legitimate disagreement may result, but the matters are testable.”
Show us the observed experiment that demonstrates “the essences of our fossilized ancestors, the ultimate causes of their changes,”
“Legitimate disagreement may result, but the matters are testable.”
Design a test to show the progression of different types leading to man. It can’t be done because it takes too long for it to happen. This is a central tenet of the TOE, of which you are well aware.
The only thing which can be shown is adaptation of organisms in the lab under controlled conditions, such as adaptation of bacteria to certain environmental stimuli. Unfortunately for the evos, though, this does not answer the mail because the bacteria after many generations are still bacteria.
So, to say that this has been observed, tested, and verified is, as the Professor said, an overstatement.
“I am sure that more than a few here also have benefited from modern pharmacological progress.”
The ‘modern pharmacological progress’ is studied and tested independently of the TOE, as it only relates to adaptation of organisms (which is not the same as the TOE). Pharma drugs can be tested in real-time, under controlled conditions, unlike the TOE.
“Penicillin was discovered in the 1920’s and finally came into practical use in the mid-40’s (WWII helped)”
Since you mentioned penicillin, I wanted to point this out from the article:
“In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin’s and Alfred Russel Wallace’s evolutionary theories.”
NicknamedBob has been hinting that new antibiotics are urgently needed because pathogens have evolved resistance to existing ones. Drug companies don’t study this effect directly, although it is observable over periods of years. They merely respond to the effect by trying to invent new antibiotics, which are destined to become ineffective also.
Why would taking a long time be a problem? From the destruction of the dinosaurs to the rise of man was a relatively short time in the history of the Earth.
More specifically, it would be interesting to design a procedure that leads from a small, burrowing mammal to intelligence of any kind, not just that of a brachiating biped.
Oddly, such a program would look a great deal like periods of relative plenty punctuated by periods of intense competition for survival.
Like ... well, like the history of the Earth.
Just so. The same could probably be said for most applied research.
If that chair had an invisible cat in it, that chair would look empty.
But that chair does in fact look empty.
There is therefore in invisible cat in that chair.
NO Primordial Soup for you!
Cheers!
Sure, sure. There is no forest, there is no tree, only this very rough bark in front of me.
There are none so blind as the microscopically myopic.
Interesting analogy. What is it supposed to be analogous to?
Maybe you should cut back on your drinking, even if you are a cheerful drinker.
read later
“They merely respond to the effect by trying to invent new antibiotics, which are destined to become ineffective also.”
Yes, and all of this is studied independent of the TOE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.