[Taxacom] ID and evo-devo

[Tim Dickinson]

In addition to the points Fred made (below), it is my impression from 
having similarly googled 'evo-devo and intelligent design' that the ID 
folks are insisting on mutations as the means by which ontogenies drift, 
and their incredulity that any given mutation could possibly result in a 
seriously different outcome without being fatal. What they don't seem to 
address is that what may change is the interaction of genes via their 
products, so that any given gene's expression occurs under different 
circumstances and so leads to different outcomes.  They focus on 
molecules, rather than interactions between and involving molecules.

Suppose you have gene complexes responsible for producing a diesel 
engine. Easy to imagine subtle shifts in ontogeny leading to a gasoline- 
or LNG-fueled engine (or to a 2-stroke engine). But the way the genes 
control the development of pistons and cylinders could equally lead to 
the flowering of a new lineage in which pistons and cylinders operate in 
a different functional realm, manipulating limbs or tools. Changes in 
the expression of genes affecting the distal ends of spinning shafts 
could produce divergences between wheeled (e.g. quadrupeds, arthropods) 
and propeller-driven 'organisms' like birds and bats, or fish and 
cetaceans. Just a matter of how you program the machine shop. And those 
are just examples from a single domain, arthropods apart.

And Fred is especially right in referring to patterns of biological 
diversity, and the wonders of homology, whether in animals or in plants 
(Hofmeister! all the work on what can be done controlling the patterns 
of cell division and differentiation in apical meristems! positional 
effects!).

John Grehan and many others have pointed out repeatedly that telling 
others (e.g. religious fundamentalists, ID folks, climate change 
denialists, Trumpies) that their point of view is just dumb and contrary 
to science is not an effective way to change their mindset. It takes way 
more patience than many of us have to find common ground from which to 
reach an understanding of why people believe as they do, and to find 
meaningful points of departure from which to challenge their beliefs 
without being demeaning.

---tad.


Fred Schueler wrote:

> Subject:
> Re: [Taxacom] "intelligent" design
> From:
> "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> Date:
> 2021-01-04, 9:22 p.m.
>
> To:
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
> On 04-Jan.-21 1:09 p.m., Peter Uetz via Taxacom wrote:
>
>>  Apart from that, we don’t have to explain here why ID is nonsense: 
>> there is no evidence for it.
>
> * well, that's the problem. A refutation like that isn't going to 
> influence someone who is naive about population genetics, and has read 
> these Cambrian denialists burbling that there just wasn't enough time 
> for phyla to emerge without some divine nudge.
>
> My friend who writes "Behe is a firm supporter of intelligent design 
> and his book provides strong evidence from the recent experimental 
> results that our conventional Darwinian assumptions do not work" is a 
> chemical/environmental scientist.
>
> I googled on some of the words in his e-mail and came up with
> this from 2010 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721655/
> - which takes out the blood-clotting 'irreducible complexity' of Behe's
> first book while chastising the slapdashedness of many of the 
> defenders of conventional evolutionary theory.
>
> I think the problem is that Behe's apparent lack of any concept of 
> either patterns of biological diversity or of geological time makes 
> his ideas absurd to biologists, who then have a hard time explaining 
> the absurdity to nonbiologists.
>
> I will continue to look around for thoughtful reviews of Behe's recent 
> book, and will eventually need to read it before engaging with the 
> local group...
>
> fred. 

  
<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<Tim Dickinson
<Senior Curator Emeritus
<ROM Green Plant Herbarium (TRT)
<
<Department of Natural History
<Royal Ontario Museum
<100 Queen's Park
<Toronto  ON
<CANADA  M5S 2C6
<
<Phone:  (416) 782 1607     FAX:  (416) 586 7921
<E-mail:  tim.dickinson at utoronto.ca  -  ORCID ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1366-145X
<URL: http://www.rom.on.ca/en/collections-research/rom-staff/tim-dickinson
<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++