Re: parallels

Yes, Bill, I am interested, and very appreciative for the reference. As
always, my desire is to get the "big picture," of what is going on, without
bogging down in detail. But, at the same time, I want to get it as nearly
"right" as possible.

For the past four days and nights I've been on a sort of a manic kick, in
trying to get a grasp of the history of the concept of evolution from about
1800 to now. I went up to my cabin in the woods with books and lectures and
was fortunate in that it rained almost the whole time and was in the upper
30's (F). Also, I had plenty of firewood cut and split and stacked on the
front porch.

So many things I had read seemed to come together when approaching the
subject from a historical perspective.

Maybe the reason I resent the hell out of terminology which personifies
chemical and biological things is because I place so much importance on
avoidance of buzz and fuzz and what sometimes amounts to deliberate hyping.

I've never liked the expression "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology,"
because one of the most fundamental of all principles about science is dogma
is not science. Some time ago, I expressed this sentiment and caught hell
from some posters. Only later did I learn that Francis Frick HIMSELF, in
response to criticism from one of his peers, expresses regret for having
used that choice of words. (At least one poster argued the Frick would not
have used such a word without a good reason for doing so. But Frick stated
he WOULD NOT have used that word if he had realized how it could be
misleading. And the fact that an exception occurred is not what is at issue
for me. The issue for me is not whether biologists understand exactly what
the circumstances in science were but that non-biologists should not be
mislead on one of the most fundamental elements of science generally and
anti-science nuts, who love to twist the best of meanings, should not be
given any terminology that they can claim to justify their anti-science.

Every time I hear the term "selfish gene" it hits me like a slap in the
face. Studying the history of the controversy over biological evolution
helped me to appreciate the reasoning that lies BEHIND the term. But the
choice of the word "selfish" in describing a gene has been thrown up to me
by any number of religious fundamentalists who take it to indicate that
biologists are the nuts, and are incapable of understanding that genes are
"just chemicals."

I think it was a mistake to use that choice of words, NOT because biologists
do not understand it but because it plays right into the hands of those who
wish to make a mockery of biological sciences and the people who are
employed in them.

But... let there be no understanding that I do very much appreciate the
thought BEHIND the expression.

Some within the profession get angry at messengers like me, who are strongly
in favor of science and scientists and FOR THAT REASON hate to see them
even APPEARING to be the nerdy arrogant confused clowns those with
anti-science agendas would wish to portray them as.

But, again, thanks for the reference. I do intend to read Dawkins, and
soon.

Let me assure you that I DO NOT believe that genes, as the "mechanism"
sought by Lamarck, Darwin, and many others -- by which speciation occurs --
are yet understood. While there is much speculation on this issue, I do not
believe ANY theorist yet has enough detailed knowledge to answer some
pregnant questions left hanging in mid air, so far. Will be posing some of
those questions in other messages (not in this thread) and will value your
feedback on them. Too much to broach yet.

Thanks again,

g






If you are interested, Dawkins
went into some detail on the various definitions of fitness in the chapter
An Agony in Five Fits in "The Extended Phenotype".

Yours,

Bill Morse



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Minimization principal for evolution
    ... Many biologists seem to me to attribute the diversity of life on Earth to ... The causes of some gene copying errors ... Some of the "causes" of mutations are known. ... Electrons traveling down an insulated wire ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... This annoys those of us who are biologists, ... about that list of 18th century scientists. ... irrational paranoia, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of science ... on the subject of religion and science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Contract Java Software Engineer- Ingenuity Systems- Redwood City, CA
    ... Java Software Engineer (Contract or Full Time(req 505 ... helping life science researchers understand core biological ... biologists, quality assurance engineers, marketers, and product ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... complain about is people publishing on evolution even though they have ... This annoys those of us who are biologists, ... both reigion and science, necessity for cooperative relationships, ... understanding, complimentary truths, and the evidentary contributions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How old does the universe have to be for evolution to "work"?
    ... There are no practicing evolutionary biologists who believe in ID. ... science for the purpose of infiltrating religious though into the U.S. ... Behe is a fellow at the Discovery institute, ...
    (talk.origins)