Re: Genetics Book

Hey Susan,

I.

In your email you said: "If your book assumes Darwinian evolution does not need to be explained or proven, it may not be that useful to your argument.  We'll see.... :o)"

I just wanted to point out that I don't want us to read this book expecting that the book will sway us one way or the other. I expect only that we will learn the language necessary to discuss mutations intelligently. That is what I said I wanted to do the first time I brought up us reading a textbook on genetics, and I have not branched away from that goal.

Of course, I expect that a better understanding of genetics will only serve to strengthen my arguments and be a detriment to yours, but that's only because I think I'm right and you're wrong:)

II.

Also, I'm a little bummed that you're not reciprocating (or acknowledging;) my excitement over the chance to learn awesome stuff at the forefront of science! I nearly waxed poetic about it, and all I got from you was a ho-hum response. Very disappointing. I thought you were all about learning (more) about genetics with me? I mean, come on, the most advanced genetic argument we've brought to bear so far has been a fuzzy anecdote about Mendell's peas! This is gunna be an exciting new chapter in our evolution debate. Let's get pumped!

III.

As I've said before, I don't think there is any one test that will prove that evolution is true. It is a major scientific theory (like germ theory or the theory of gravity) that can only be shown to be correct with many small tests that confirm expectations. You have proposed that some (or all) of those tests are incorrect. You have also proposed that some of the basic assumptions of evolutionary biologists are incorrect. And hence we debate. I think that knowing more about genetics will help us to resolve some of these conflicts.

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. Also, this mutation is a very simple one for which there is no reason to believe it doesn't occur regularly. You can read the chapter for yourself to find the example, or if you'd like me to explain it, I'd be game. 

Now, once again, I'm not trying to prove all of evolution. I am focusing down on one very simple argument that you have: that neutral mutations do not occur. I feel that this argument is now defunct. Do you agree? 

Or maybe I misquoted you, and maybe your argument was more nuanced than that, but would you at least agree with the statement, "Neutral mutations do occur"? (I'm working really, really hard here to find some common ground between us, a place from which we can start moving forward.)

IV.

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. 

It's just a nice logical construct. The statement "a theory is true if and only if most scientists agree it is true" is clearly false. But! the statement "a theory is true implies most scientists agree it is true" is hopefully, for the most part, almost always true. This is especially true of theories that much, much work has been put into (and less true about theories that relatively no work has been put into). To claim that it is false is to claim that the scientific method doesn't work. 

My only point here is that you might be right, and almost all of the scientists in the world could be wrong, and evolution could be a sham. But you'd have to agree (I hope) that this would indeed be a rare occurrence. Do you agree?

V.

Tangential to that last part is me about to go out on a limb. In response to your repeated comments that this or that author is working from the premise that evolution is true, I say, of course they are! Almost every single scientific work in the entire world involving biology uses evolution as a fundamental tool! This does not throw out the impartiality of the biologists any more than astronomers assuming the theory of gravity is true does theirs!

Yes, you believe that evolution is wrong, but stop acting surprised when you see scientists using evolution! Is that so much to ask?

VI.

Well, this was a really long email. I hope your holiday season is going well. Mine has been laid back what with a lingering cold and no family to run around with. I'm going to try to get back into the swing of studying tomorrow. Wish me luck!

Thanks,

Brandon

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Susan wrote:

Hey Brandon,

I ordered the genetics book (but not the solutions manual) you suggested—will be interesting to compare what it says with the book I sent you (Signature in the Cell).  From what you've described, it sounds like your book is operating on the premise that Darwinian evolution is a fact which does not need to be explained or proven.  If so, it would seem to discourage critical thinking on the topic.  Hopefully, the book's approach to basic genetics will be more objective.  

Our primary discussion is on whether Darwinian evolution is the mechanism by which all life was formed and developed, from non-life to life to the huge variety of organisms present in today's world.  If your book assumes Darwinian evolution does not need to be explained or proven, it may not be that useful to your argument.  We'll see.... :o)

Hope you've had a wonderful Christmas weekend!

Susan