Re: [asa] Mendel Upended?

> This seems really interesting:
> http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54194/
>
> Curious if any genetics folks here can comment on significance.

Sounds interesting and overhyped. There's plenty of data showing that
Mendel's laws work fairly well as a rough first approximation, but
reality has long been known to be much more complex. In this
particular situation, there seem to be problems replicating the exact
results and a good deal that's not known, so it's probably too early
to assess it. It's extremely likely that additional genetic
mechanisms exist which we don't understand. It's hard to tell whether
this particular example really requires a novel explanation or not.
Many things behave exactly as expected under current understandings,
so the standard picture shouldn't be thrown out. It might need a bit
of revision, however.

This sort of thing ties into two other aspects of faith-science
interaction. First, there are a number of cases in which some people
try to claim "my genes made me do it, so it's not my fault" or "it's
genetically predetermined, so it's morally OK" (e.g., sexual
orientation, addictions). Both arguments for such a position and
arguments against tend to rely on overly simplistic ideas about how
genes work.

Secondly, excessive claims about the implications of a discovery are
all too common. Many arguments made against evolution or an old earth
are of the form "here's one thing that appears problematic for the
conventional view, therefore we should entirely throw out the
conventional view." Conversely, evidence that evolution does provide
an adequate explanation of one thing doesn't mean we can absolutely
rule out any role for ID-type action.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.