robert karl stonjek

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
By Philip S. Skell

Darwin's theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of
life, from the earliest microscopic organisms billions of years ago to all
the plants and animals around us today. Much of the evidence that might have
established the theory on an unshakable empirical foundation, however,
remains lost in the distant past. For instance, Darwin hoped we would
discover transitional precursors to the animal forms that appear abruptly in
the Cambrian strata. Since then we have found many ancient fossils - even
exquisitely preserved soft-bodied creatures - but none are credible
ancestors to the Cambrian animals.

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has
been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the
cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the
great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius
Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light
of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular
reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during
World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian
evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by
penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would
have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was
wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

Full Text at the TheScientist
http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/29/10/1

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

anon.

It makes me want to write an article asking what biochemistry, or cell
biology, or physiology, contributes to my biological research. I'm sure
with the judicious choice of expert, I could get a similar conclusion.
I could even ask the "experimental biologists" I work with.

Incidentally, when I googled "Philip S. Skell", my top hit was for a
page from the Discovery Institute. So, if nothing else, expect warnings
from Josh "not to go down there".

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf H„llstr”min katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 51400
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org

perplexed in peoria

Hmmm. Well, I can see some validity to this position. Skell's own recent
research deals with "reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions,
and reactions of free carbonium ions." That is pretty low level stuff. And
at the other extreme, I can see how one can do ecology without believing in
the mutability of species.

Certainly, the perspective of readers of this group will be biased in the
opposite direction. What about typical practicing biologists who are neither
high-level, low-level, nor evolution enthusiasts?

Well, I can see how a physiologist or an ethologist might not give much thought
to evolution on a daily basis. Same goes for a biochemist trying to nail down
a signaling pathway. But it seems to me that the key paper which set the
stage for the last 50 years of research was Zuckerkandl and Pauling. And
without Darwin's common descent, Z&P would never have written that paper.

anthony cerrato

<snippage>


Hmmm, perhaps he is right--actually I never really thought
about it before, but what in hell _is_ "experimental"
biology? Work done by people like Dr. Frankenstein? OK,
genomic research seems to apply, but was there such a thing
as "experimental bio"
say, before Watson and Crick?

One has to wonder why this guy wrote this though...of course
it's highly unlikely but, is it even faintly possible that
he could have some sort of political or theological agenda??
...tonyC

glen m. sizemore

There has always been a tendency in modern times to view "physiology" as
synonymous with "biology." I was always somewhat amused when colleagues
would mention evolution in the context of their physiological research.
Here, on this forum, I tangled with some members when I said that evolution
via natural selection would still be true, and there would still be much to
debate and study, even if the idea that DNA comprised the "units of
inheritance" was false. By the same token, genetics may be studied by even
the most devout creationist. In an odd way, physiology and biochemistry is
an effort to study "life" in a manner consistent with sciences whose primary
goal is the study of phenomena not necessarily "biological." The view that
physiology=biology seems consistent with "our" reductionistic bent.

Cordially,

Glen

perplexed in peoria

Yes, it does appear that Skell is quite thoroughly in bed with the Discovery
Institute - not merely being exploited by them.

Too bad really. I thought that he had raised some interesting questions.
Skell seems to distinguish experimental biology (answering the
question of how life works) from evolutionary biology (answering the
question of how life got to be that way). He asks, how much does one's
opinion on how it got to be that way influence one's research on how
it works. His answer, a debatable one, is "not much".

In my own area of primary interest - the origin and nature of early life,
I am of the opinion that many researchers are working under very incorrect
theories (heterotrophic) as to how early life got to be that way. But
I have to admit that this has not seriously interfered with progress in
understanding how early life presumably worked.

Personally, I would like to see some discussion of Skell's topic, if we
can get past the distraction of Skell's motivation.

william morse

This statement is simply and clearly false. I can elaborate if anyone
wants me to.

And if he had asked them if they would have done their work differently
if they had thought Newton's theory was wrong, the response would have
been the same: No. Das macht nicht. The key point is that "nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". 'Nuff said.

Yours,

Bill Morse

anon.

It's not clear what Skell means by "experimental biology", but I assume
he means areas like biochemistry and cell biology. I think he's right
that evolutionary biology hasn't helped in piecing together biochemical
pathways, for example, but I think he's selling biology short if he
thinks that's all it's for: the "how" questions are important, but so (I
think, although I'm biased) are the "why" questions, which do require
evolution to provide answers.

I've just been looking at a review in Trends in Genetics where they
discuss a couple of papers which look at non-coding DNA, trying to find
trnscription factor binding sites. They way they did it was to look for
conserved regions on both sides of a gene: the argument for doing this
is that they have been conserved by selection. So, the whole approach
relies on evolutionary biology. One influence of genomics is to make
more biologists aware of, and use, genetics, and this can bring in
evolutionary aspects.

I guess one can't t expect a retired chemist to follow modern biology
that closely.

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 51400
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org

perplexed in peoria

An excellent counter-example! Thx, Bob.

Another in the same vein related to my interests. A lot of people are
investigating the evolutionary history of the amino-acid tRNA synthetases
in the hope that it will reveal something about the origin of the code
or about the early branchings of the tree of life. That is a 'how it
got that way' question. When the full genomes of the methanogens were
published, people were surprised to find that they could only find
genes for 16 of the 20 aaRSs. Investigation of one of the missing ones (Cys)
led to several 'how it works' discoveries, which seem to apply to other
kinds of organisms besides methanogens. And which may possibly tell
us something about the origin of the code - the original 'how it got
that way' question.

wirt atmar

Bob writes:

To reinforce Bob's points, I know a great many biochemists who consider
understanding the "evolutionary design" of their studied enzyme kinetics
to be fundamental to understanding their biochemistries. Of these, I
hold Daniel Atkinson in highest regard.

In that regard, I've enclosed a piece of a posting of mine to
sci.bio.evolution from Jan 2, 1996, if for no other reason than to
demonstrate that the conversation on this list has a strong tendency to
be repetitive :-), but it is also precisely apropos to the Bob's argument:

==============================================

If you examine any complex process from its most atomistic point of
view, the tendency exists to "miss the point," and biological science is
no different. But, as Dobzhansky is often quoted, "Nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution." Daniel Atkinson, a


Regulation", although in much longer form:

"To some readers, especially biologists, this chapter will seem to
belabor the obvious. But many graduate students enter biochemistry or
molecular biology after taking an undergraduate degree in chemistry or
physics with little exposure to biology and, consciously or
unconsciously, retain an anti-functional orientation. It seems necessary
to emphasize at the outset that everything that follows is based on the
concept that evolution is a process of functional design, and that the
characteristics of an organism, whether morphological or molecular, have
been selected becasue of functional advantage to the organism's
ancestors. If that concept is not accepted, this book will seem totally
irrelevant. When it is accepted, it follows that enzyme molecules are
important only in terms of the reactions they catalyze, that reactions
are important only in terms of the sequences in which they participate,
and the sequences only in terms of their interrelations with other
sequences in the overall ecomomy of the organism. Study of an enzyme, a
reaction, or a sequence can be biologically relevant only if its
position in the hierarchy of function is kept in mind" (p. 11).

If you have the opportunity, read all of Atkinson's Chapter 1; I use it
in virtually every advanced evolutionary biology class I teach. Atkinson
understands the twin philosphies of engineering and evolutionary design
in the manner that I have seen few others understand -- and the
paragraph above is worth rereading, if not committing to memory.

I have enclosed (in a private mailing to you) four of my earlier
postings to this thread (I, II, and V, VI), which you are free to read
if you wish (you have already read posting VII). In posting II, Mayr
makes distinct the differences between "functional" biology and
"evolutionary" biology. Functional biology, as you advocate, can be
conducted completely in the absence of any philosophy. Because
functional biology is an ****ytical subject, it is to a great degree
self-correcting and can therefore be successful in the absence of any
higher philosophy. Blind trial and error will eventually succeed, but to
adopt such a vacuous approach is to abandon the opportunity of a
profound understanding -- and that is very much part of the reason why I
have continued to respond to this thread.

Secondly, Mayr also makes distinct (in VI) a distinguishing
characteristic of life that is althogether absent in the inanimate
world: teleonomy, the processes that incorporate an evolved,
end-directing "program" into the evolving germline. You mentioned
Dawkins' emphasis on complexity. I too would not emphasize the attribute
of complexity too much. Complexity evolves in living forms only as a
secondary quality, a consequence of life, not a causation; of the four
qualities of life that are self-evident (matter, energy, time, and
information), information is the only quality unique to life itself. It
simply doesn't exist in the inaminate world.

And that is ultimately the point; so long as these programs exist in DNA
and contain accrued knowledge, garnered over the course of evolutionary
history, then the questions, "Why are birch trees white?", or "Why are
hammerhead sharks' heads formed the way they are?", or "Why do we act
the way we do?" are not simple, simplistic questions. Rather, they form
the core of evolutionary biology -- and their asking is an obligatory
part of the understanding the process of evolution that can be obtained
in no other manner.

=============================================

Wirt Atmar