Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

I can understand your point to Cameron, Dennis. But I really like
Cameron's contrast of how a disproof of atomism would put a complete
log-jam in the physical sciences while a disproof of some general
historical evolutionary framework would allegedly have no effect on
current biological research programs except those (granted --many) that
were concerned with evolution itself. Perhaps Cameron overstates his
case, but as another non-biologist myself, I'm interested in how a
professional biologist could specifically defend the notion that
evolutionary history is indispensable to microbiological research.

In the broader sense, I think I can begin to answer my own question with
the example of, say, cladistics replacing the older Linnaean
organizations and groupings --and hard, fast distinctions between
species becoming necessarily blurred and hard to define. But regarding
the practical pursuits of science; I like Cameron's examples as a
contrast to the nonsensical charges so often made that
anti-evolutionists cannot become good medical doctors, etc.

Perhaps, Cameron, another parallel, but non-biological example that
could be a reply to your challenge is this scenario. What if Copernicus
never lived, and furthermore, astronomy managed to stay committed to a
geocentric universe all this time. But our telescopes and computers were
so precise in observing and number crunching that we could still take
all the bizarre motions of the heavens and predict just as well as any
real astronomy today where everything was going to be ---never
understanding gravity or elliptical orbits, mind you --- just looking at
the patterns of where things are without understanding why and then
making successful predictions. But then, I suppose our space program
would be in big trouble; unable to get off the ground -- literally.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, & Newton could perhaps have been written
off as "merely academic" at one time; but certainly not with where we
have applied their discoveries now. I wonder if the evolutionary
backbone of biology will be (or has already proven) the same? And along
with Cameron, I'm interested in specifically how, though. I know it is
researched for its own sake ---we are interested in origins, after all.
But just as it isn't counted fair for the teacher to answer a skeptical
math student that the reason she has to understand something is because
it will be on tests and in later courses, so also, how is evolution
useful in the pursuit of knowledge other than itself?

--Merv
P.S. To me one of the practical pursuits of science is the pure, simple
quest for understanding just because we want to know. It seems I've
heard that mathematicians revel in the challenging possibility of
founding a process or discovering a pattern that will defy anybody's
attempt to make use of it. Apparently they almost always fail.

Dennis Venema wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> It’s too bad that you won’t be at Baylor. I would be pleased to have
> you hear my talk on human / chimp common ancestry first hand.
>
> It seems to me that you’re asking biologists to dispense with the
> overarching explanatory framework and concentrate on the “mechanics”
> of biology. In doing so one would reduce biology to a collection of
> facts with no cohesive pattern (well, the pattern would persist,
> denial or no, but you see my point).
>
> Would you make a similar request of a theistic atomicist? As far as I
> know there is plenty to doubt in atomic theory as well (perhaps a
> chemist or physicist could comment). Or is biology singled out for
> special treatment because the implications are disturbing?
>
> Best,
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 29/07/09 3:34 PM, "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Dennis:
>
> I am not a biologist, but I am capable of understanding the
> implications of biological discoveries. That's what philosophy
> enables one to do -- understand the implications of the
> discoveries of various disciplines.
>
> If the theory of evolution were disproved tomorrow, by whatever
> means it would take to do that -- Cambrian rabbits or whatever you
> specify -- you could still do exactly the same work on insulin
> signalling in fruit flies and human beings. If the sequence data
> (I presume you are talking about the base sequence in the DNA) in
> a fruit fly and a man is similar, it's similar -- a fact of nature
> which, in itself, has no necessary connection with evolution. The
> prediction of the characteristics of proteins would follow from
> the sequence data, and from that the medical applications could be
> derived. The evolutionary explanation for *why* the sequence data
> is similar (i.e., these two organisms have similar sequence data
> because they had a common ancestor) is non-essential from the
> point of view of practical applications.
>
> If I'm wrong, you should be able to show me how a Darwinian
> biologist, say Coyne, would predict a different protein structure
> than Michael Behe would, based on the same fruit fly DNA sequence.
> If they would predict different protein structures, then I would
> concede the relevance of evolutionary theory to the application
> you are suggesting. But if they would predict the same protein
> structure, then obviously they believe that the protein structure
> is governed by the DNA sequence itself, not by the evolutionary
> pathway which allegedly generated the DNA sequence. In that case,
> evolutionary origins are utterly irrelevant to the medical
> applications.
>
> I am not denying that many biologists *do* conceive their research
> on DNA sequences and proteins and insulin and other things in
> evolutionary terms. I am saying that I see no reason why they
> *need* to do so. My mechanic doesn't need to know the history of
> the development of the internal combustion engine from 1875 to the
> present in order to fix my particular engine. He just needs to
> know how my particular engine works. If he chooses to think about
> the history of automobile engines as he fixes my car, and if he
> enjoys thinking about the ancestral versions of current
> components, that's his privilege; but from my point of view, he
> understands my car if he can fix it every time without fail. And
> if it turns out that he has read bad sources on the history of the
> internal combustion engine and has completely misconceived the
> engineering modifications made by Daimler and Ford, that does not
> mean he does not understand my car. His historical learning is
> gratuitous from a practical point of view, so it doesn't matter if
> it's completely erroneous.
>
> Of course, I don't begrudge David Campbell his historical
> investigations. I don't even deny that his historical inferences
> about limpets and lungfish may be entirely correct. I just don't
> think that the average cell biologist or freshwater ecologist or
> cancer researcher needs David Campbell or Jerry Coyne or any other
> evolutionary biologist in order to validate or even to interpret
> the results of his or her research. Nature works how nature works,
> whether evolutionary biologists can explain how nature got to be
> that way or not.
>
> I'm very impressed with biologists who come up with new
> explanations for how nature works. I'm less impressed when they
> try to "slip in" Darwinian historical explanations as part of a
> "package deal". And just as I wouldn't enjoy my mechanic dragging
> me into the shop and forcing me to listen to a two-hour
> dissertation on the history of the internal combustion engine as
> he fixes my car, so I wish the Darwinians who claim to be able to
> generate important medical applications from fruit fly genes would
> just give me the biochemical facts and spare me the hypothetical
> historical narratives about where the sequences came from.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dennis Venema <mailto:Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
>
> *To:* Cameron Wybrow <mailto:wybrowc@sympatico.ca> ; asa
> <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:15 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences
>
>
> Cameron,
>
> Evolutionary biology is essential for many aspects of modern
> biology: for example developmental biology / medical research
> on model organisms. The reason that model organisms (such as
> fruit flies and nematodes, and even bacteria) are useful for
> medical biology is because they use many of the same proteins
> inherited through common descent for the same tasks. For
> example, insulin signaling in fruit flies is very similar to
> the same process in humans. Using sequence data from flies
> (and closer relatives such as mice) allows one to predict
> structural properties of the various proteins and test those
> hypotheses on the model organism in question. Evolutionary
> biology is essential for this type of work. Please stop
> misrepresenting modern biology – it is clear that you do not
> understand what you are criticizing. That’s not intended to be
> harsh, just forthright.
>
> Best,
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 29/07/09 11:56 AM, "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> David, I have strong reasons for sympathizing with
> out-of-work academics.
> But I did not realize there were any on the Darwinian
> side. I thought they
> were all on the ID side. :-)
>
> I continue to maintain that if it could suddenly be proved
> that there were
> no such things as atoms -- not just that we cannot fully
> comprehend the
> nature of the atom, or that atoms have some as yet
> unaccounted-for property,
> but that there are literally no such entities as atoms
> (composed of protons,
> neutrons, electrons, having mass, etc.) -- almost all
> theoretical work in
> modern science would be brought to a standstill.
> Industrial machines could
> still
> be operated by routine and habit, and would still keep
> generating
> electricity and widgets and peanut butter if fed the same
> mathematical
> formulas, but no new science (as opposed to mere
> technique) would be
> possible until some conception were found that could fill
> the place of
> "atoms" in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. It would be
> as if someone were
> to appear in the 13th century and prove to physicians that
> there was no such
> thing as the four humours. All the medical books would
> have to be thrown
> out, and the physicians would not know where to begin to
> look for a
> replacement for their foundational doctrine. They might
> still be able to
> carry on with bleeding and purging their patients, and
> hacking off
> gangrenous limbs, as usual; but medical schools would have
> to cancel all
> theory courses and offer only practicums.
>
> On the other hand, if the Darwinian mechanism were
> entirely falsified, most
> of embryology, genetics, etc. would remain intact, not
> just in practice but
> even in theory. We don't have to know where chimp DNA came
> from in order to
> understand how it codes for proteins. We don't have to
> know whether or not
> ontology recapitulates phylogeny to investigate the
> detailed stages of the
> embryological process in a chicken, its biochemical
> triggers, etc. We don't
> have to be able to reconstruct the ecology of the
> Precambrian oceans in
> order to generate elaborate mathematical models of the
> food chains affecting
> the Atlantic cod fishery.
>
> I am not saying that Darwinian theory should cease to be
> studied merely
> because it is (mostly) useless. I think it is good for
> scientists to study
> nature purely for the love of knowledge. It does me no
> good to know that
> the elements on earth were formed in the hearts of extinct
> stars, but I find
> it fascinating and worth knowing nonetheless. But it is
> important for
> everyone to know that, despite the bluster of Darwinists,
> Darwinian theory
> is not the backbone of biology *in the same sense* that
> atomic theory is the
> backbone of much of modern science. Darwinian theory,
> rather, is the main
> interpretive gloss put on the results of the various
> indepdendent
> subsciences of modern biology. Most of those subsciences
> (paleontology and
> evolutionary biology obviously being the two main
> exceptions) could live
> without it.
>
> This is especially true in an age where biology is
> increasingly becoming
> interpreted in terms of biochemistry. Biochemistry is an
> intrinsically
> a-historical science. It deals with eternal geometrical
> and physical truths
> about the structure and function of molecules, not with
> historical
> reconstructions. There is of course nothing wrong with
> scientists trying to
> make historical reconstructions, but there is no reason
> whatever why some
> scientists should be able to impose their historical
> reconstructions upon
> others, who do not need them to do their work.
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences
>
>
> > Regarding the general acceptance of historical science,
> YEC and ID
> > advocates are generally quite ready to accept historical
> science
> > assertions from YEC or ID sources, respectively; the
> problem is more
> > one of not applying the same standards for accepting
> historical
> > science that doesn't match up with what they want to
> hear. ID has not
> > produced any 500 page books detailing exactly when and
> how God has
> > intervened in the course of evolution, but that does not
> invalidate ID
> > in my opinion.
> >
> >> The point is that in science what is "boss" is not the
> historical
> >> reconstruction but the empirical data, and that all
> historical
> >> reconstructions must fall in line with the (verified)
> empirical data.
> >> "Cooking" the data, or even just ignoring it, to sustain
> a favoured
> >> historical reconstruction, is out of line. This applies
> equally to
> >> sacrosanct theories like the Big Bang -- which at one
> time was sneered at
> >> by the majority of advanced theoretical physicists -- and
> >> macroevolutionary theory. <
> >
> > Very true. However, there's a huge loophole in that we
> must decide
> > the difference between data and noise. One odd result is
> not enough
> > reason to reject a generally very well-supported model,
> though it may
> > be worth checking out the odd result to see what's up.
> For example,
> > there were the reports of seasonal variation in
> radiometric decay
> > getting a bit of publicity within the past year or so (I
> think Science
> > News had it.) Given how much work has been done on
> nuclear decay, and
> > the number of ways in which seasonal changes in weather
> and in human
> > behavior might subtly affect the sensors (cf. high water
> use at class
> > change affecting some lab equipment in the same
> building), not to
> > mention the failure to report the obvious control
> experiment of
> > simultaneously monitoring apparent background
> radioactivity with no
> > sample, I'm not going to take the claims too seriously.
> > Unfortunately, there's a lot of cooking or ignoring data
> in YEC and ID
> > arguments about the past, and a lot of work cleaning that
> up is needed
> > on the part of serious ID advocates.
> >
> >> The point Dr. Skell -- one of America's elite scientists
> -- is making, is
> >> not that Darwinian theorizing cannot serve as an
> overarching theory, or
> >> even
> >> that Darwinian theory is false. Rather, it is that
> Darwinian theorizing
> >> has
> >> been of little practical use in the major biological
> breakthroughs, that
> >> it
> >> is largely an 'after the fact' gloss on empirical
> discoveries.
> >
> > Rather, it provides a framework for making sense of the
> empirical
> > discoveries. Evolutionary models help us know where to
> look for
> > something and how to understand it, but they generally
> give more than
> > one possibility for a specific situation.
> >
> >> This is very odd for a scientific theory. In atomic
> theory, nuclear
> >> theory,
> >> electromagnetic theory, wave theory, etc. the
> theoretical perspective has
> >> generated massive amounts of new data, countless
> confirmed or at least
> >> viable explanations for what actually happens in nature,
> countless
> >> technological applications, etc.
> >
> > Check on the volume of data generated by evolutionary
> studies. It's
> > not small. Evolution provides a viable explanation for
> what actually
> > happens in nature. Historically, the applications tended
> to be more
> > agricultural than technological, but the advent of
> biotech has changed
> > that.
> >
> >> The task of sequencing the vast majority of genomes
> still lies before us,
> >> and can be
> >> accomplished by well-trained technicians who believe the
> earth was
> >> created in six days.
> >
> > But they won't be able to make sense of the data, nor
> will they be
> > able to predict which genomes will be most informative,
> without
> > evolutionary considerations. (E.g., we need better
> sampling of
> > invertebrate genomes, especially lophotrochozoans, to
> understand
> > animals generally, not to mention the usefulness of this
> for my work
> > on mollusks.)
> >
> >> The mysteries of embryology will continue to be probed
> via microscopes,
> >> inter-uterine cameras, biochemistry, etc., and will
> continue to be
> >> uncovered, no matter what the fate of Darwin's theory.<
> >
> > Again, evolution lets us make sense of the patterns
> observed in
> > embryology.
> >
> >> If Darwinism were to fall, only Coyne and Dawkins and
> Orr and Eugenie
> >> Scott and their ilk -- the small number of biologists
> and anthropologists
> >> whose scientific activity depends entirely on the truth
> of Darwinian
> >> theory -- would be out of work. <
> >
> > This would be true of any theory. In reality even those
> folks when
> > they're doing science are trying to generate data on
> empirical
> > reality, which would be relevant even if some significant
> modification
> > of current evolutionary models seemed necessary.
> >
> >> The same could *not* be said of atomic theory,
> electromagnetic theory,
> >> the theory of stresses in materials, aerodynamic theory,
> etc. A
> >> refutation of any of these would bring vast areas of
> physics, chemistry
> >> and engineering to a complete standstill.<
> >
> > No. Whether for evolution or any of these, a new model
> would have to
> > explain the successes as well as the failures of the
> previous model.
> > If a major flaw were found in aerodynamic theory,
> airplanes would not
> > immediately fall out of the sky. The existing work would
> be gone
> > through to integrate it with the new results.
> >
> >> Biology is unique among the natural sciences in that the
> theory it
> >> claims as its most vital and overarching conception is
> virtually
> >> irrelevant for further advances in most branches of the
> science.<
> >
> > Biology and geology have a much larger component of
> empirical data
> > generation relative to physics or chemistry-not that all
> four do not
> > have a lot of both empirical data and theoretical
> modeling, but that
> > the relative proportions differ. Anyone dealing primarily
> with
> > empirical work is not going to be as directly affected by
> changes in
> > the overall theory.
> >
> > Just as electroweak theory is probably not what I need in
> trying to
> > build a simple circuit, you don't need evolution to
> answer "how does
> > the human body work", which probably constitutes the
> majority of
> > biological investigation. However, you do need evolution
> to address
> > "why does it work this way and not that way?" or "why is
> it similar to
> > other organisms to varying degrees?" or "where did this
> function come
> > from and what might be unexpected side effects from
> messing with it?"
> >
> > (NB-Given that a) my research interest is pretty much in
> the field of
> > evolution and b) jobs and funding for basic research in
> the field are
> > scarce, I am somewhat disgruntled with regard to this topic.)
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.35/2270 - Release Date: 07/29/09 06:12:00
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 29 21:34:45 2009