Re: Peer review [ was: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's books....]

Iain,

"So in conclusion, I am left wondering if many of the ideas presented
in Richard Dawkins's much-admired books would pass muster under peer
review.

Perhaps folks who are more knowledgeable in this area of study can
comment on this?"

It has long been known that natural selection is just one of several
mechanisms of evolutionary change, but the myth that all of evolution can be
explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage
to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins'
(7-9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection
has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to
any other mechanisms, a view that is in some ways profoundly misleading.
There is, of course, a substantial difference between the popular literature
and the knowledge base that has grown from a century of evolutionary
research, but this distinction is often missed by nonevolutionary
biologists - Michael Lynch, The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the
origins of organismal complexity. PNAS, May 15, 2007, vol. 104: 8597

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Peer review [ was: Re: [asa] Atheist finds God thru Behe's
books....]

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>> Mr. Blinne:
>>
>
>>
>> What exactly are the Darwinists arguing when they allege that Behe's
>> books
>> are not peer-reviewed? That Behe's arguments must therefore be wrong?
>> That
>> is a logical *non sequitur* which would flunk one out of Philosophy 100.
>> Or
>> are they arguing, not that Behe's arguments must necessarily be wrong,
>> but
>> that, on inspection, they turn out to be wrong? If the latter is the
>> case,
>> then the thing to do is show why they are wrong; the question whether
>> they
>> were peer-reviewed is irrelevant.
>>
>
>
> I think there is an additional point to be made here concerning
> peer-review. Just as it is true that Behe's books are not
> peer-reviewed (and one can debate on whether that means they are wrong
> or not), but the argument cuts both ways; because Richard Dawkins's
> major popular science books (Selfish Gene, Extended Phenotype, The
> Blind Watchmaker etc) are not peer-reviewed either.
>
> I've seen it stated (I think on this list?) that Dawkins's last
> peer-reviewed academic paper was published in the early 1970's.
>
> Dawkins is widely perceived as a brilliant scientist, but I think his
> reputation is built largely on his popular science writing. One might
> reasonably ask the question are they of scientific merit themselves?
> It seems the answer from many of his colleagues is not resoundingly
> affirmative. When I was doing my part-time PhD in computer science, I
> held an industrial fellowship at an Oxford college. One of the
> "perks" of the Fellowship was to get to dine at college once or twice
> a term. At one of these dinners, I was sitting next to a Professor of
> Evolutionary Biology. Out of curiosity I asked him what he thought of
> Dawkins. He was extremely dismissive of him stating that he hadn't
> done anything worthwhile academically for 25 years, but had "just
> mucked about with computers".
>
> At the time I wondered if the man was jealous of Dawkins's success (he
> certainly has made a lot of money out of his books). However,
> recently I found a very negative commentary on "The Extended
> Phenotype" which Dawkins regards as the best thing he eve wrote. This
> blogger (whose scientific credentials I don't really know) thinks
> otherwise:
>
> http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/extended_phenotype_how_richard_dawkins_got_it_wrong_twice
>
> It would appear that Dawkins's "gene-centred" view of biology, that
> started with "The Selfish Gene" is highly questionable - some might
> say pseudo-scientific.
>
> In my own field I came across something like this only the other day.
> I developed a software product that performs signal analysis on
> Electrocardiograms for measuring something called the QT interval in
> the cardiac cycle (associated with the time taken for ventricular
> repolarisation). This is of interest in assessing the cardiac safety
> of drugs. However, there is also an important condition known as Long
> QT Syndrome (LQTS) which is a genetic defect. It can lead to sudden
> cardiac death among young people. The cardiologist we collaborate
> with had done some work on the genetics of LQTS. It appears that
> there are at least nine, and perhaps as many as fourteen genes, and
> over a hundred different mutations that are implicated in LQTS. It
> seems natural to argue (would I be right?) that most positive traits
> are probably also connected with multiple genes.
>
> I also found that the idea of the Gene as the Unit of Selection (the
> subtitle of "The Extended Phenotype") apparently had been questioned
> as early as 1970 (well before Dawkins's books were published) by a
> paper by Franklin and Lewontin "Is the Gene the Unit of Selection"
> which can be found here: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/65/4/707
>
> I don't have the necessary expertise to take in the whole of this
> paper, but the conclusions seem the to draw the negative conclusion.
>
> They write:
>
> (4) Higher-order interaction among loci in multilocus
> systems increase in importance as the number of loci increases-(5) For a
> fixed
> map length and a fixed amount of inbreeding depression per unit map
> length, the
> equilibrium correlation among genes along the chromosome is independent of
>
> the number of genes or their individual effects.-
> This last point makes it possible
> to frame a theory of population genetics which does not contain individual
> loci
> explicitly, but deals only with whole chromosomes, their recombination
> properties,
> and the effect of homozygosity of segments of various length. Such a
> theory
> is more consonant with the observations possible in population genetics
> than a
> theory framed in terms of gene frequencies.
>
> So in conclusion, I am left wondering if many of the ideas presented
> in Richard Dawkins's much-admired books would pass muster under peer
> review.
>
> Perhaps folks who are more knowledgeable in this area of study can
> comment on this?
>
> Iain
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.5/2419 - Release Date: 10/07/09
05:18:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 18 22:16:55 2009