One thing I find interesting about biological systems is their
frequent ability to function reasonably well after experiencing
major perturbations. "Complex & well buffered" is an apt
description (By contrast, I consider computers "complex & fragile").
That's why you can produce a six-fingered hand with relatively
few changes (if any) to the genome. Overall, I suspect that
the buffering and autoregulation of developmental systems permit
a wide range of morphological variation/evolution.
> After Darwin, cell biologists thought the
> cell was a simple blob of protoplasm - but their expectations were
> confounded.
I don't think that most biologists ever thought that the cell
was "a simple blob of protoplasm". I certainly never did. Nor did
any of my professors or colleagues. Perhaps some physicists did.
> Now, we have genetic reductionists - but they are
> continually oversimplifying the systems they are studying and
> claiming too much for their findings.
Yes, this happens. We can't get too far in biology without
a lot of simplifying assumptions.
For some reason (and I've discussed this topic before with Brian),
many researchers like to make broad claims/speculations about their
work. I agree with Brian that these pronouncements often aid
further research by providing "big targets" to shoot at.
A biochemist at Lehigh University once claimed that the functions
of a cell were entirely chemical in nature. Yet this has never
been determined: Nobody has been able to reduce the entirety of
a single cell to basic chemical interactions. In fact there
is a guy, Rupert Sheldrake, who is claiming that a yet
undiscovered "force" of nature must be involved. Admittedly,
Rupert is having a tough time demonstrating the existence of this
other form of interaction but we can't say conclusively that
it's not necessary to cell biology.
Aside: Personally, I suspect that the workings of cells have
an entirely chemical basis. However, unlike Behe, I recognize
that this assumption has never been completely demonstrated.
We can't model cells at this time (Brian Harper suggests why
in another letter).
> People like you, Tim, are
> willing to say that these researchers are over-simplifying,
Even the researchers themselves are probably aware of their
oversimplifications.
> but I
> would suggest that you need to offer an alternative paradigm in
> order to resist the tide of genetic reductionism. If Gilbert,
> Opitz, and Raff's paper has failed to check the momentum, what
> can do it?
Data? Results? Those guys promised something in their papers.
Let's see how far they get.
I believe that the "tide of genetic reductionism" out there is
more an artifact of "doing doable science" than an a priori
assumption.
> We need a different paradigm that can do justice to the complexity
> in living things. We need a paradigm which can handle information
> at more than the signalling level, and which can view the cell as
> an integrated whole.
This is the basic goal shared by many biologists. The trouble
is that one cannot begin to understand the cell as an integrated
whole without understanding something about its parts first.
It's like trying to understand how a particular radio functions
without opening it up.
Reductionism is basically the approach of trying to understand
a bigger system by breaking it up into more easily understood
component parts. A holistic approach, bereft of any understanding
of component processes, is like obscuring a section of a map
and scribbling "There may be tigers here" over the area.
I strongly suspect that Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff have other
reductionistic approaches in mind with regard to understanding
developmental processes. The term, "morphogenetic" suggests
that their reductionistic approaches simply include more factors
in the "equation".
> Could it be that this is what ID is able to offer?
Natural theology had its time in the sun. I'm not sure what
purpose it would serve to resurrect it now.
I share Brian's skepticism on this matter. At this time, the only
thing IC/ID does is scribble "There may be tigers here". Sometime
in the future, someone may formulate a version of IC/ID that makes
positive statements about biological systems, but I doubt even then
that it will help understand the chemistry behind development.
For example, I can watch someone assemble a radio. I can even
follow directions to assemble an identical, working radio. But
knowing that the radio was assembled tells me nothing about how
it operates or what it can do.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com