Sorry I came across in such a negative manner—I certainly didn’t intend to. I was in a hurry when I wrote my last email, so perhaps that’s why the tone was a little off.
I’m thinking that reading this genetics book will help us find some common ground, at least as far as terminology, which should be very helpful.
Though I don’t always appear enthusiastic, I do always enjoy learning. :) And I do want to make sure that what I’m learning is true.
In particular, you claim that there is no such thing as a neutral or nearly neutral mutation. Well, the chapter on gene mutations shows exactly the mechanism by which a mutation can occur with absolutely no effect on the phenotype of the organism.Of course a mutation can appear to have no effect on the phenotype of the organism. Mutations can affect body processes which aren’t outwardly apparent. If the mutation concerns something that will only be activated under certain conditions, that mutation may just sit there with no apparent effects on phenotype—until those certain conditions occur. Remember, genotype and phenotype aren’t the same. Another thing, organisms have built in corrective mechanisms which are able to ‘fix’ many mutations before they have a chance to cause harm. Both the books I sent you—Signature in the Cell and Genetic Entropy—address this issue of neutral or near neutral mutations. (The second is a little more direct, while the first one talks more about ‘junk’ DNA, which is supposed to be a conglomeration of mutations which have collected over time.) I’m looking forward to seeing how they compare with the book you recommended. Our discussion will go much better if you study the books I sent you while I study the one you recommended to me.
Since I'm on a roll, there's something that's been bugging me for a while. It's your argument that runs along the lines of "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you?" I point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists across the globe point agree that evolution is correct, and you say "well, they could all be wrong." Of course you could be right, and all those scientists could have been wrong for 150 years, but would you at least admit that a vast scientific consensus on a hotly debated topic probably means something? To say that a scientific consensus doesn't convey any information at all in nonsensical.I’ll concede that if most scientists agree on something, it is more likely to be correct. HOWEVER, the fact that most scientists agree on something has nothing to do with whether or not that idea is correct, and scientific consensus is not a proof. I can think of lots of ideas about which earlier scientific consensus was later proven to be wrong—the usefulness of the appendix and thymus, the need to wash hands and instruments between patients, the usefulness of leeches/bleeding to treat various illnesses, the perceived causes and best treatments for various illnesses, and so on. Today, some people claim that there is a scientific consensus, even when there isn’t one. For example, there is no real consensus about ‘global warming’ (there may be more of a consensus that it isn’t happening than that it is). And there are probably more scientists with a creationist perspective than you might expect. It’s just that you might not hear about them because they don’t follow the scientific PC thinking. And another thing—if the majority of educational institutions are teaching evolution only, they are naturally going to produce people who think from an evolutionary perspective. Some will be brave enough to think outside the box, but most will just absorb and reflect back what they have been taught. And if they want to become research scientists, they know that they’ll be more likely to get funding if they couch their research in the framework of Darwinian evolution.
But! the statement "a theory is true implies most scientists agree it is true" is hopefully, for the most part, almost always true.I think what you’re saying here is, “If a theory is true, then most scientists will agree that it is true.” Is that correct? If so, I would have to disagree. For example, there was a time when most scientists agreed that the appendix was a useless appendage—those scientists believed something to be true which was, in fact, false. In this case, the consensus opinion was in error. The theory that the appendix is useful was true, but most scientists disagreed with that theory and chose to stick with the consensus theory. Somewhere along the line, some scientists began to question the consensus opinion, did further research, and discovered the usefulness of the appendix. Your statement would be in error every time a consensus idea was shown to be wrong.
Yes, you believe that evolution is wrong, but stop acting surprised when you see scientists using evolution!I’m never surprised when I see scientists explaining things from an evolutionary perspective—after all, that’s the way most of them have been taught. What I take issue with is the idea that one must interpret everything from an evolutionary perspective in order to do good science. Belief in Darwinian evolution isn’t necessary in order to do empirical science. One doesn’t need to know exactly how we got here in order to study how things currently function in the present. Creationists and Darwinian evolutionists use forensic science, which is a whole nother ball game. I also take issue with educational institutions and scientists treating the theory of Darwinian evolution as if it were a fact which must never be questioned and need never be explained—it seems to me that such an attitude would tend to discourage critical thinking.
I like long emails. :o) The more you write, the better idea I have of how you’re thinking. It also makes me feel more connected. Wish you didn’t have a cold and were closer to family—I like being around family for Christmas. It actually snowed here on Christmas day—five inches—not much compared to Boston, but more than we’ve had since moving here over a decade ago. I read online that this is the first time Georgia and S. Carolina have had snow on Christmas since the 1880’s.
Take care,
Susan
