-----Original Message-----
From: bivalve [mailto:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:18 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Applied evolution
DC: Actually, it might be easier to get funding for the ag
school than for evolutionary research. If research on
evolution were superabundantly funded, I would have spent
a lot less of my own money doing my dissertation research
and would now have a job. However, people who think that
evolutionary biology is all established fact, questioned only
by religious cranks, and no longer an area of active
research, or that it is the heart of the great left wing atheistic
conspiracy, or that it is some irrelevant academic pursuit,
are not likely to think that it needs funding.
>>"1. In the quote..."These examples present opportunities
for education of the public and for nontraditional career
paths in evolutionary biology..." what is the alternative to
"evolutionary biology?" "Creationist biology?" Do the
Fundies really have a gripe against the basic tenets of
immunology? Of hybridization? Of computer
viruses? (That last one was a stretch, but it was inferred in
the authors' previous sentence.)"<<
DC: Probably the alternatives that the authors had in mind
would be things like molecular biology, medicine, ecology,
environmental science, physiology, or genetics. By
evolutionary biology they mean the study of evolution itself.
Although the point of the article is that evolution is quite
relevant to these other fields, it is not the main focus for
them. In fact, workers in one field of biology may be quite
ignorant about other fields. I have spent several days this
semester trying to straighten out the taxonomy of mollusks
and related invertebrates from the mangling given to them
by molecular biologists in the NIH database of genetic data
(GenBank). However, you certainly do not want me as your
physician.
NW: Nor, perhaps, as a government-funded contractor.
Evolutionary biologists have an uphill PR battle as does any "pure
scientist." Will a straightened-out mollusk taxonomy at the NIH get the
Chesapeake Bay cleaned up? Those of us who like fried clams just don't get
concerned by their pedigree.
I agree that evolutionary biologists are stigmatized, but it is
self-imposed. I, too, would get an image of a near-fossilized PhD poring
over old books and even older bones, probably by the light of a candle stuck
in a former critic's skull. (OK, OK, I was getting a little melodramatic
there...)
If you want to develop another interdisciplinary program, give it a real
nondescript name, like "Cladistic Mechanics." In fact, to get Freshmen
interested, call the introductory course, "Scantily Cladtistics 101." Of
course, be sure you don't give them a clue as to its overall subject matter
until it is too late to switch, or get a refund on their tuition/textbooks.
Just trying to help. 8^)
DC: Creationist is a problematic term. Belief in a creation event
certainly does not require belief in a young earth nor
rejection of evolution, despite the efforts of many
young-earth advocates to label all old-earthers as
evolutionists even if they do not accept evolution.
Antievolutionary biology has often made claims opposing
the basic tenents of immunology and other fields. A
notable example is Phil Johnson claiming that HIV does
not cause AIDS. However, this seems to reflect a personal
inclination to conspiracy theorizing rather than a usual view
of antievolutionary advocates.
NW: I tried to pick up on the basis of his claim of non-viral causes of
AIDS, but none sprung up on my search engine. I did see his "conspiracy
theorizing," with which I tended to agree. I also have another pet theory,
which is only backed by certain anecdotal evidence, that many deaths due to
AIDS could have been prevented if those who were tested "HIV positive" for
the related antibody were not told that they would inevitably develop
full-blown AIDS. The fact that so many HIV positive individuals have
survived much longer than expected, without developing any AIDS related
symptoms, would indicate to me that their personal immune system had
successfully defended against their initial exposure. However, if the
individual was told that further "risky behavior" would have no effect on
their prognosis, their subsequent exposure to other, perhaps more resistant,
strains could lead to a fatal infection.
I know, theories are like noses...everyone has one, and they all smell.
Or something like that...8^)
DC: One very widespread false antievolutionary claim that
attacks the basic tenants of immunology and computer
viruses (among other fields) is the claim that mutations are
almost always or always harmful. If this were true, new
diseases and variant computer viruses would be practically
non-existant. In fact, mutations usually have little effect. In
the case of the HIV virus, high levels of mutations are vital
and beneficial (from its point of view) in order to keep a
jump ahead of the immune system. Likewise, mutational
ability has made some computer viruses particularly
successful.
Viruses, "biotic" or otherwise, are strange little creatures, and while
their mutations are a fascinating and important subject, I would find their
use as a model for the microevolution of bacteria, let alone the
macroevolution of vertebrates, highly suspect. I mean, how "handicapped"
could a mutant virus BE?
>>"2. The authors (I assume) chose "artificial selection" as
the first group of key words to this proposal. If find this
ironic, since the remainder of the paper would indicate that
there isn't any such process."<<
DC: Artificial selection is when deliberate choice by
humans causes change in organisms over time. The
"improvement of agricultural crops and animals" by
selective breeding, mentioned in the article, is the classic
example of artificial selection. This is why Darwin used so
many pages of Origin of Species talking about pigeon
breeding. The developments of pesticide-resistant insects
or antibiotic-resistant bacteria are other examples.
NW: What you say is true and logical, but I have heard many of today's
evolutionists claim that the division between artificial selection and
natural selection is, well, artificial. If the individual has certain
traits, if lives (and multiplies); if it doesn't it dies. That is what good
ol' Sagan called his "proof" of the "fact" of evolution in his Cosmos
series, and it's one of the thorn's in the side of many of us concerning the
typical presentation of evolution.
Thanks for your reply.
Norm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 11:22:03 EST