Darwin loses again

www.evolutionnews.org ^ | 4/13/07 | Michael Egnor

[conmanning1]

Dr. Steven Novella doesn’t think much of people who disagree with him about Darwinism. Dr. Novella, a Yale neurologist, assistant professor and specialist in neuromuscular disorders, is also a ‘skeptic’ and co-founder and president of the New England Skeptical Society. He’s quite unskeptical about Darwinism:

…evolutionary theory is complex. Evolution is a beautiful and subtle theory – one of my favorite scientific theories to study. I have spent years reading about it, learning from the best like Dawkins, Leakey, and Gould…

He took issue recently with those of us who doubt the adequacy of Darwin’s theory to account for all natural biological complexity:

…there is enough complexity in all of this that if someone smart and eloquent – like ID’ers Behe or Demski [sic] – want to create confusion they easily can. They pull an intellectual three card monte and the evolutionary rubes buy it.

I’m an "evolutionary rube" myself. Dr. Novella insists:

This is not an excuse for Dr. Egnor’s ignorance – he threw his hat into the ring, he deserves what he gets. He should have had the proper humility to stay out.

Actually, all I did was ask a question: how much biologically relevant information can Darwin’s mechanism of chance and necessity actually generate? I didn’t settle for hand-waving or for reassurances that "Darwin’s theory is a fact." I wanted a measurement of biological complexity, with empirical verification, in a way that was meaningful to biology. I never got an answer to my question.

Nonetheless, Dr. Novella is disdainful of Darwin-doubting "evolutionary rubes" who lack his immersion in the field:

Now I don’t blame the rank and file for not having read dozens of books and hundreds of articles on evolution. But I do blame them for thinking they deserve to have an opinion if they haven’t…

It seems that those of use who "don’t deserve to have an opinion" also haven’t been thinking the right way:

Also, it is obvious in their arguments that they do not have a proper mental image of what genetic information is like.

He tells us that "a proper mental image" of genetic information is books:

Each time this volume of books is copied there is the potential to make mistakes. Because of the complexity, the arrangement of paragraphs in a chapter can change, altering the meaning of the chapter in some way. Entire chapters that are active can become skipped, and vice versa. Entire chapters can be copied twice, and rarely entire volumes can be duplicated. Imagine the text of these books. A change might cause a sentence to go from “today is a sunny day” to “today is a foggy day” (remember, in this language every possible three letter combination has meaning – there are no nonsense words).

With a reasonable working model of genetics, it is much easier to imagine how shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information could easily result in meaningful and even useful new information.

Distancing himself from his literary metaphor (it's hard for rubes to relate), he switches to a farm-machinery metaphor. Dr. Novella explains how Darwin’s theory of chance and necessity can account for all natural biological complexity:

Evolution is like a two-cycle engine: mutations increase the amount of information and then natural selection gives that information specificity.

Dr. Novella is missing a much better example of random mutation and natural selection that’s not metaphorical at all. Cancer is a test of Darwin’s theory. Cancer is real biological evolution by random mutation and natural selection, writ fast. There’s no reason to invoke encyclopedia typos or tractor engines in order to understand what "chance and necessity" can do to a living system. Brain tumors are perfect little Novellian "two-cycle engines" nestled inside the skull, "random mutations" coming out the ears, and "natural selection" like there’s no tomorrow (excuse the metaphors). Brain tumors are constantly generating new biological variation, and they are avatars of natural selection. They provide a tremendous spectrum of variation, from "variation jet-engines" like malignant glioblastoma multiforme to "variation tortoises" like benign pilocytic astrocytomas. Cancer wards are full of patients brimming with "two-stroke engines" of evolutionary change.

Dr. Novella, again:

…it is [easy] to imagine how shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information could easily result in meaningful and even useful new information.

The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer. According to Dr. Novella’s reasoning, brain tumors ought to be generating quite a bit of "meaningful and even useful new information." Better neuroanatomy and better neurophysiology ought to be popping up "easily." Better frontal lobes and cognition, from cancer. Better temporal lobes and memory, from cancer. Better cerebellums and coordination, from cancer. If random mutations and natural selection—Dr. Novella’s "two stroke engine"—is the source of all functional integrated biological complexity, brain tumors ought to help our brains evolve in some way.

Perhaps Dr. Novella has data that show real evolutionary improvements in the brain caused by brain tumors. If he has, he should show us.

I'm just a rube, not a Darwinist from Yale. But I’ve never seen cancer make a brain better.

[hellbender]

American History is fundamental to being a good citizen and understanding our political system and culture...the kind of things we're supposed to be concerned with as conservatives on FR--not obsessing about some theory of rather limited utility to most people, even most scientists.

Besides, American history, at least the non-revisionist, pro-American variety, is one of the things disappearing from middle and high school education. Evolution and other materialistic themes are not disappearing or threatened. Far from it.

Evolution is not "basic science." Quit claiming it is.

[Coyoteman]

But since we are afraid of death, we are afraid of being alone, of the idea that we are alone in the universe, that all the worlds except ours is dead. Having banished spirits, we are left to long for visits from men from “Mars”.

Or, some of us are driven by a burning desire to learn as much as we can about the world(s) around us.

[ndt]

I may have to eat my words. The Latin theoria does in fact appear to be based on the root theo (God). Getready, you seem to be correct.

[RobbyS]

And pretend we will never die.

[Coyoteman]

And pretend we will never die.

BS. That is your biased, apologetic, interpretation of what scientists do.

It has no necessary relationship to the real world.

[ndt]

"American History is fundamental to being a good citizen and understanding our political system and culture not obsessing about some theory of rather limited utility to most people, even most scientists."

That's nice, but what does American history have to do with being a professor of neurosurgery? Nothing. Yet it is still important that he learn it.

Unlike American History, evolution really is the backbone of modern biology. There is no way to understand biology without it. Whether evolution comes into play in his day to day activities, which it does now that he is a professional propagandist, it is critical that doctors understand it because without it they do not understand biology.

"Evolution and other materialistic themes are not disappearing or threatened."

I recall several recent organized attempts to make evolution disappear.

"Evolution is not "basic science." Quit claiming it is."

Would you prefer the term "cornerstone of biology"?

[RussP]

Thanks for your honesty. The next question is: what does theory have to do with God? Do we become a bit like God when we understand a theory (a correct one, that is)?

[hellbender]

American History may have nothing to do with neurosurgery, but everything to do with being a good citizen, one smart enough not to fall for liberal lies. That makes it useful to everyone, neurosurgeons as well as the rest. Neurosurgeons need basic biology also, yet they can get away without evolution. So evolution is not critical even to biology.

What kids should be learning in middle school is math and basic physics and chemistry. Those are what biology is based on. Evolution can come later, and only for those who need it. I think the real reason for teaching it to young impressionable middle school students is to inculcate a materialistic, reductionist view of human nature, which is encouraged by evolutionary thinking in the absence of other values; values which have been purged from our schools.

There is no serious, massive threat that evolution will be purged from the curriculum. That's hype and paranoia. However, American students are woefully deficient in hard science and math.

[ndt]

"The next question is: what does theory have to do with God?"

Beyond the etymology of the word, nothing.

"Do we become a bit like God when we understand a theory (a correct one, that is)?"

Well, you are talking to an atheist so you might as well ask me if we become a bit more like Thor. Simple answer, no, although I would like to get my hands on Mjolnir.

When we understand a theory, we are a little less ignorant, no more no less.

[ndt]

"What kids should be learning in middle school is math and basic physics and chemistry. "

Skipping evolution in biology is equivalent to skipping Atomic theory in chemistry. You might still be able to make wintergreen oil by following the directions, but without Atomic theory, you just don't get chemistry. Without evolution you just don't get biology..

"...the real reason for teaching [evolution] is to inculcate a materialistic, reductionist view of human nature."

No, it's really not. It really is the cornerstone of biology. No sinister plot.

"There is no serious, massive threat that evolution will be purged from the curriculum."

This article is from the Discovery Institute. Purging evolution and materialism in general is their stated goal.

"That's hype and paranoia."

No, thats the thread you are reading.

"However, American students are woefully deficient in hard science and math."

Well I can agree with that.

[RussP]

“Well, you are talking to an atheist ...”

Are you an atheorist too? 8^)

[RobbyS]

I’m not talking about science but philosophy.

[Gumlegs]

From the article:

Actually, all I did was ask a question: how much biologically relevant information can Darwin’s mechanism of chance and necessity actually generate? I didn’t settle for hand-waving or for reassurances that "Darwin’s theory is a fact." I wanted a measurement of biological complexity, with empirical verification, in a way that was meaningful to biology. I never got an answer to my question.

Hey, Doc -- Calculate the total entropy generated since the beginning of time, or stop all the hand-waving and reassurances that "the second law of thermodynamics is a fact."

[js1138]

This guy's a neurosurgeon at Yale. Beat that Darwin!

How about someone who actually knows something about mathematics, molecular biology and information theory, and who is also a critic of evolution?

It's interesting that both sides of this debate quote Yockey. He says we cannot learn the origin of life, but he also demolishes the concept of irreducible complexity and argues that common descent is proved beyond doubt.

[si tacuissem]

Also you shouldn’t use the term “theoretical” since the root word is “theos”(i.e. God)... in science you should never use anything that smacks of belief in God.

From an online etymological dictionary:

theory 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. The verb theorize is recorded from 1638.

So the root is theoros, i.e., spectator. And that's an apt description of a scientist...

[RightWhale]

The true test is whether one thinks Artificial Intelligence is possible.

[si tacuissem]

Now, that's embarrassing. Normally, I wade through the whole thread before answering, but I stumbled over this "theory"/"theos" equivocation (,too) ...

repetitio est mater studiorum

[js1138]

The true test is whether one thinks Artificial Intelligence is possible.

The answer to which will not be known until it is possible.

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

The best real biological test of "shuffling around information, duplicating, and altering the information" is cancer.

Huh?

Cancer is cancer. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Non-Sequitur.

[DungeonMaster]

You are only allowed to have an opinion if....