Search This Blog

Tuesday 13 October 2015

Democracy with Chinese characteristics?:Pros and Cons

Ukraine upholds religious liberty.

High Court of Ukraine Upholds Right to Conscientious Objection During Military Mobilization


Ukraine’s high court has affirmed that conscientious objectors have the right to alternative service even in times of civil unrest and war. This decision has broad implications for human rights, both in Ukraine and abroad.
Vitaliy Shalaiko, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was accused of evading military service during mobilization because he requested alternative service when summoned for conscription. Both the trial court and the appeal court had acquitted him, but the prosecutor appealed to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases. On June 23, 2015, the high court dismissed the appeal, thereby finalizing the lower courts’ decisions.
The high court affirmed that “the trial court was fully justified in referring to the corresponding provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.” The high court also agreed with the trial court that the case of Bayatyan v. Armenia applied. This case was decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on July 7, 2011. That landmark judgment held that conscientious objection to military service based on sincerely held religious beliefs falls under the protection of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of Vitaliy Shalaiko, Ukraine’s high court made clear that the rights of conscientious objectors are protected even if a country mobilizes for armed conflict and not just when there are routine call-ups for military service. The high court’s decision is final, with no further appeal available.
This final ruling relieves Mr. Shalaiko of much anxiety. He states: “I understand my country’s interest in safeguarding its citizens by military mobilization. While my conscience does not permit me to perform military service, I am nevertheless willing to do my part in performing alternative civilian service. I am grateful that the courts have recognized that my refusal of military service is based on my sincere religious beliefs.”

A Decision That Benefits Many

Thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Ukraine have faced the issue of neutrality during mobilization. Those who face criminal charges of evading military service can now rely on the legal precedent established in Vitaliy Shalaiko’s case.
Mr. Shalaiko’s attorney, Mr. Vadim Karpov, noted: “In simple terms, the high court explains that as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mr. Shalaiko could not be prosecuted for refusing military service. Even in a country such as Ukraine, which is divided by war and instability, it is significant that norms of international law on freedom of religion and on freedom of conscience have been applied.”

Ukraine Sets an Example in Respecting Human Rights

The courts of Ukraine have recognized that conscientious objection to military service is a fundamental human right that merits protection even during military mobilization. It is neither a selfish evasion of duty nor a threat to national interests and security. In affirming the rulings of the lower courts, the high court has upheld human rights for all Ukrainians. Ukraine has set an example for countries that punish conscientious objectors who refuse military service for reasons of conscience.

Darwinism fails even with all the time in the world.

Debunking a popular myth: ”There’s plenty of time for evolution”

At this point, I imagine Matzke will want to cite a 2010 paper in Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled “There’s plenty of time for evolution” by Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens, a biologist and a mathematician at the University of Pennsylvania. Although it does not refer to them by name, there’s little doubt that Wilf and Ewens intended their work to respond to the arguments put forward by intelligent-design proponents, since it declares in its first paragraph:
…One of the main objections that have been raised holds that there has not been enough time for all of the species complexity that we see to have evolved by random mutations. Our purpose here is to analyze this process, and our conclusion is that when one takes account of the role of natural selection in a reasonable way, there has been ample time for the evolution that we observe to have taken place.
Evolutionary biologist Professor Jerry Coyne praised the paper, saying that it provides “one step towards dispelling the idea that Darwinian evolution works too slowly to account for the diversity of life on Earth today.” Famous last words.
A 2012 paper, Time and Information in Evolution, by Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski and Robert Marks II, contains a crushing refutation of Wilf and Ewens’ claim that there’s plenty of time for evolution to occur. The authors of the new paper offer a long list of reasons why Wilf and Ewens’ model of evolution isn’t biologically realistic:
Wilf and Ewens argue in a recent paper that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. They base this claim on a mathematical model in which beneficial mutations accumulate simultaneously and independently, thus allowing changes that require a large number of mutations to evolve over comparatively short time periods. Because changes evolve independently and in parallel rather than sequentially, their model scales logarithmically rather than exponentially. This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however, for two main reasons. First, within their model are implicit information sources, including the equivalent of a highly informed oracle that prophesies when a mutation is “correct,” thus accelerating the search by the evolutionary process. Natural selection, in contrast, does not have access to information about future benefits of a particular mutation, or where in the global fitness landscape a particular mutation is relative to a particular target. It can only assess mutations based on their current effect on fitness in the local fitness landscape. Thus the presence of this oracle makes their model radically different from a real biological search through fitness space. Wilf and Ewens also makeunrealistic biological assumptions that, in effect, simplify the search. They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unrealistic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched. They neglect the effects of genetic drift on the probability of fixation and the negative effects of simultaneously accumulating deleterious mutations. Finally, in their model they represent each genetic locus as a single letter. By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants. In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary “advance” requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model’s evolutionary process.
After reading this devastating refutation of Wilf and Ewens’ 2012 paper, I think it would be fair to conclude that we don’t currently have an adequate mathematical model explaining how macroevolution can occur at all, let alone one showing that it can take place within the time available. Four billion years might sound like a long time, but if your model requires not billions, but quintillions of years for it to work, then obviously, your model of macroevolution isn’t mathematically up to scratch.

Debunking another popular myth: “The eye could have evolved in a relatively short period.”

Parts of the eye: 1. vitreous body 2. ora serrata 3. ciliary muscle 4. ciliary zonules 5. canal of Schlemm 6. pupil 7. anterior chamber 8. cornea 9. iris 10. lens cortex 11. lens nucleus 12. ciliary process 13. conjunctiva 14. inferior oblique muscle 15. inferior rectus muscle 16. medial rectus muscle 17. retinal arteries and veins 18. optic disc 19. dura mater 20. central retinal artery 21. central retinal vein 22. optic nerve 23. vorticose vein 24. bulbar sheath 25. macula 26. fovea 27. sclera 28. choroid 29. superior rectus muscle 30. retina. Image courtesy of Chabacano and Wikipedia.
In 1994, Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden wrote a paper entitled, A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve(Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 256, No. 1345, April 22 1994, pp. 53-58) in which they cautiously estimated the time required for a fully-developed lens eye to develop from a light-sensitive spot to be no more than 360,000 years or so.
In 2003, the mathematician David Berlinski wrote an incisive critique of this outlandish claim. (See here for Nilsson’s response.) Some of Berlinski’s contentions turned out to be based on a misunderstanding of Nilsson and Pelger’s data, but Berlinski scored significantly when he pointed out that Nilsson and Pelger’s paper was lacking in the mathematical details one might expect in support of their claim that the eye took only 360,000 years to evolve:
Nilsson and Pelger’s paper contains no computer simulation, and no computer simulation has been forthcoming from them in all the years since its initial publication…
There are two equations in Nilsson and Pelger’s paper, and neither requires a computer for its solution; and there are no others.
Indeed, Nilsson had even admitted as much, in correspondence with Berlinski:
You are right that my article with Pelger is not based on computer simulation of eye evolution. I do not know of anyone else who [has] successfully tried to make such a simulation either. But we are currently working on it.”
That was in 2001. As far as I am aware, no simulation has since been forthcoming from Nilsson and Pelger, although as we’ll see below, a genetic algorithm developed by an Israeli researcher in 2007 demonstrated that their model was based on wildly optimistic assumptions about evolutionary pathways.
In the meantime, Nilsson and Pelger’s 1994 paper has been gleefully cited by evolutionary biologists as proof that the origin of complex structures is mathematically modelable. Here is how Professor Jerry Coyne describes Nilsson and Pelger’s work in his book, Why Evolution Is True:
We can, starting with a simple precursor, actually model the evolution of the eye and see whether selection can turn that precursor into a more complex eye within a reasonable amount of time. Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden made such a mathematical model, starting with a patch of light-sensitive cells backed by a pigment layer (a retina). They then allowed the tissues around this structure to deform themselves randomly, limiting the amount of change to only 1% of size or thickness at each step. To mimic natural selection, the model accepted only mutations that improved the visual acuity, and rejected those that degraded it.
Within an amazingly short time, the model yielded a complex eye, going through stages similar to the real-animal series described above. The eyes folded inward to form a cup, the cup became capped with a transparent surface, and the interior of the cup gelled to form not only a lens, but a lens with dimensions that produced the best possible image.
Beginning with a flatworm-like eyespot, then, the model produced something like the complex eye of vertebrates, all through a series of tiny adaptive steps – 1,829 of them, to be exact. But Nilsson and Pelget could also calculate how long this process would take. To do this, they made some assumptions about how much genetic variation for eye shape existed in the population that began experiencing selection, and how strongly selection would favor each useful step in eye size. These assumptions were deliberately conservative, assuming that there were reasonable but not large amounts of genetic variation and that natural selection was very weak. Nevertheless, the eye evolved very quickly: the entire process from rudimentary light-patch to camera eye took fewer than 400,000 years.
– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, p. 155.
I’d like to point out here that Coyne’s starry-eyed description of Nilsson and Pelger’s research overlooks a vital point raised by Professor Michael Behe in his article,Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. Readers will recall that Behe declared:
The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant.”
Nilsson and Pelger’s mathematical calculations addressed the evolution of the eye’s anatomy, but they said nothing about the underlying biochemistry. Using Behe’s criteria, we can see at once that their macroevolutionary model of the evolution of the eye is a failure. Professor James Tour would dismiss it on similar grounds. He would doubtless ask, rhetorically: “Does anyone understand the chemical details behind the macroevolution of the eye?” I hope that Nick Matzke will now concede that this is a reasonable question.
A more skeptical assessment of Nilsson and Pelger’s 1994 paper can be found in an online applied physics thesis by Dov Rhodes, entitled, Approximating the Evolution Time of the Eye: A Genetic Algorithms Approach. The thesis makes for fascinating reading. I shall quote a few brief excerpts:
“A paper published in 1994 by the Swedish scientists Nilsson and Pelger [6] gained immediate worldwide fame for describing the evolution process for an eye, and approximating the time required for an eye to evolve from a simple patch that sense electromagnetic radiation. Nilsson and Pelger (NP) outlined an evolutionary path, where by minute improvements on each step a cameratype eye can evolve in approximately 360,000 years, which is extremely fast on an evolutionary time scale… (p. 1)
The main problem with the NP model is that although the evolutionary path that it describes might be a legitimate one, it neglects consideration for divergent paths. It is easy to construct a situation in which the best temporary option for the improvement of an eye does not lead towards the development of the globally optimal solution. This idea motivates our alternative approach, the method of genetic algorithms. In this paper we use the genetic algorithm with a simplified (2-dimensional) version of NP’s setup and show the error in their approach. We argue that if their approach is mistaken in the simplified model, it is even farther from reality in the full evolutionary setting. (p. 2)
“Although the paraboloid landscape guarantees convergence, the GA is still a probabilistic algorithm and thus will not always converge quickly. As in evolution, the most efficient path is not necessarily the one taken. This fact suggests that our already conservative value of lambda = 5.41 would be even larger if compared with a real deterministic algorithm such as the NP (Nilsson-Pelger) model. Even though their computation accounts to some extent for the average probability of evolutionary development over time, it fails to consider the countless different evolutionary paths, and instead chooses just one.
“Rather than 360 thousand generations, a reasonable lower bound should be at least 5*360,000 = 1.8*10^6 generations, and if our previous speculations have merit, an order of magnitude higher would ramp up the estimate to around 18 million generations. Future experiments that would be useful for improving the accuracy of our results might involve varying the mutation parameter, and most importantly letting algorithms run for longer, allowing the lower bound for convergence to be pushed even higher.” (p. 15)
What Rhodes’ paper demonstrates is that the 1994 estimate by Nilsson and Pelger of how long it took the eye to evolve is more like a case of intelligently guided evolution than Darwinian evolution. As Rhodes puts it: “Even though their computation accounts to some extent for the average probability of evolutionary development over time, it fails to consider the countless different evolutionary paths, and instead chooses just one.”

Monday 12 October 2015

"The stones will cry out" II

File under 'Well said' XI

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
Mahatma Gandhi

Psalms22-28 JPS Tanakh.

22)1.(For the Leader; upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar. A Psalm of David.)
2My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me,
And art far from my help at the words of my cry?
3O my God, I call by day, but Thou answerest not;
And at night, and there is no surcease for me.
4Yet Thou art holy,
O Thou that art enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
5In Thee did our fathers trust;
They trusted, and Thou didst deliver them.
6Unto Thee they cried, and escaped;
In Thee did they trust, and were not ashamed.
7But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised of the people.
8All they that see me laugh me to scorn;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head:
9‘Let him commit himself unto the LORD! let Him rescue him;
Let Him deliver him, seeing He delighteth in him.’
10For Thou art He that took me out of the womb;
Thou madest me trust when I was upon my mother’s breasts.
11Upon Thee I have been cast from my birth;
Thou art my God from my mother’s womb.
12Be not far from me; for trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
13Many bulls have encompassed me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
14They open wide their mouth against me,
As a ravening and a roaring lion.
15I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are out of joint;
My heart is become like wax;
It is melted in mine inmost parts.
16My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
And my tongue cleaveth to my throat;
And Thou layest me in the dust of death.
17For dogs have encompassed me;
A company of evil-doers have inclosed me;
Like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
18I may count all my bones;
They look and gloat over me.
19They part my garments among them,
And for my vesture do they cast lots.
20But Thou, O LORD, be not far off;
O Thou my strength, hasten to help me.
21Deliver my soul from the sword;
Mine only one from the power of the dog.
22Save me from the lion’s mouth;
Yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen do Thou answer me.
23I will declare Thy name unto my brethren;
In the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee.
24‘Ye that fear the LORD, praise Him;
All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify Him;
And stand in awe of Him, all ye the seed of Israel.
25For He hath not despised nor abhorred the lowliness of the poor;
Neither hath He hid His face from him;
But when he cried unto Him, He heard.’
26From Thee cometh my praise in the great congregation;
I will pay my vows before them that fear Him.
27Let the humble eat and be satisfied;
Let them praise the LORD that seek after Him; May your heart be quickened for ever!
28All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the LORD;
And all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee.
29For the kingdom is the LORD’S;
And He is the ruler over the nations.
30All the fat ones of the earth shall eat and worship;
All they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him,
Even he that cannot keep his soul alive.
31A seed shall serve him;
It shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.
32They shall come and shall declare His righteousness
Unto a people that shall be born, that He hath done it.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
Jewish Publication Society
1917
23)1.The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
3He restoreth my soul;
He guideth me in straight paths for His name’s sake.
4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me;
Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.
5Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou hast anointed my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life;
And I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
24)1.The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof;
The world, and they that dwell therein.
2For He hath founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the floods.
3Who shall ascend into the mountain of the LORD?
And who shall stand in His holy place?
4He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart;
Who hath not taken My name in vain,
And hath not sworn deceitfully.
5He shall receive a blessing from the LORD,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6Such is the generation of them that seek after Him,
That seek Thy face, even Jacob.
Selah
7Lift up your heads, O ye gates,
And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; That the King of glory may come in.
8‘Who is the King of glory?’
‘The LORD strong and mighty,
The LORD mighty in battle.’
9Lift up your heads, O ye gates,
Yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors;
That the King of glory may come in.
10‘Who then is the King of glory?’
‘The LORD of hosts;
He is the King of glory.’
(Selah)
25)1.א

Unto Thee, O LORD, do I lift up my soul.
ב

2O my God, in Thee have I trusted, let me not be ashamed;
Let not mine enemies triumph over me.
ג

3Yea, none that wait for Thee shall be ashamed;
They shall be ashamed that deal treacherously without cause.
ד

4Show me Thy ways, O LORD;
teach me Thy paths.
הו

5Guide me in Thy truth, and teach me;
For Thou art the God of my salvation; For Thee do I wait all the day.
ז

6Remember, O LORD, Thy compassions and Thy mercies;
For they have been from of old.
ח

7Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions;
According to Thy mercy remember Thou me, For Thy goodness’ sake, O LORD.
ט

8Good and upright is the LORD;
Therefore doth He instruct sinners in the way.
י

9He guideth The humble in justice;
And He teacheth the humble His way.
כ

10All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth
Unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies.
ל

11For Thy name’s sake, O LORD,
Pardon mine iniquity, for it is great.
מ

12What man is he that feareth the LORD?
Him will He instruct in the way that He should choose.
נ

13His soul shall abide in prosperity;
And his seed shall inherit the land.
ס

14The counsel of the LORD is with them that fear Him;
And His covenant, to make them know it.
ע

15Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD;
For He will bring forth my feet out of the net.
פ

16Turn Thee unto me, and be gracious unto me;
For I am solitary and afflicted.
צ

17The troubles of my heart are enlarged;
O bring Thou me out of my distresses.
ר

18See mine affliction and my travail;
And forgive all my sins.
19Consider how many are mine enemies,
And the cruel hatred wherewith they hate me.
ש

20O keep my soul, and deliver me;
Let me not be ashamed, for I have taken refuge in Thee.
ת

21Let integrity and uprightness preserve me,
Because I wait for Thee.
22Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
Jewish Publication Society
1917
26)1.Judge me, O LORD, for I have walked in mine integrity,
And I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.
2Examine me, O LORD, and try me;
Test my reins and my heart.
3For Thy mercy is before mine eyes;
And I have walked in Thy truth.
4I have not sat with men of falsehood;
Neither will I go in with dissemblers.
5I hate the gathering of evil doers,
And will not sit with the wicked.
6I will wash my hands in innocency;
So will I compass Thine altar, O LORD,
7That I may make the voice of thanksgiving to be heard,
And tell of all Thy wondrous works.
8LORD, I love the habitation of Thy house,
And the place where Thy glory dwelleth.
9Gather not my soul with sinners,
Nor my life with men of blood;
10In whose hands is craftiness,
And their right hand is full of bribes.
11But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity;
Redeem me, and be gracious unto me.
12My foot standeth in an even place;
In the congregations will I bless the LORD.
27)1.The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
2When evil-doers came upon me to eat up my flesh,
Even mine adversaries and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3Though a host should encamp against me,
My heart shall not fear;
Though war should rise up against me,
Even then will I be confident.
4One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after:
That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life,
To behold the graciousness of the LORD, and to visit early in His temple.
5For He concealeth me in His pavilion in the day of evil;
He hideth me in the covert of His tent;
He lifteth me up upon a rock.
6And now shall my head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me;
And I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices with trumpet-sound;
I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD.
7Hear, O LORD, when I call with my voice,
And be gracious unto me, and answer me.
8In Thy behalf my heart hath said: ‘Seek ye My face’;
Thy face, LORD, will I seek.
9Hide not Thy face far from me;
Put not Thy servant away in anger;
Thou hast been my help;
Cast me not off, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.
10For though my father and my mother have forsaken me,
The LORD will take me up.
11Teach me Thy way, O LORD;
And lead me in an even path,
Because of them that lie in wait for me.
12Deliver me not over unto the will of mine adversaries;
For false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out violence.
13If I had not believed to look upon the goodness of the LORD
In the land of the living!—
14Wait on the LORD;
Be strong, and let thy heart take courage;
Yea, wait thou for the LORD.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
Jewish Publication Society
1917
28)1.Unto thee, O LORD, do I call;
My Rock, be not Thou deaf unto me;
Lest, if Thou be silent unto me,
I become like them that go down into the pit.
2Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto Thee,
When I lift up my hands toward Thy holy Sanctuary.
3Draw me not away with the wicked,
And with the workers of iniquity;
Who speak peace with their neighbours,
But evil is in their hearts.
4Give them according to their deeds, and according to the evil of their endeavours;
Give them after the work of their hands;
Render to them their desert.
5Because they give no heed to the works of the LORD,
Nor to the operation of His hands;
He will break them down and not build them up.
6Blessed be the LORD,
Because He hath heard the voice of my supplications.
7The LORD is my strength and my shield,
In Him hath my heart trusted, And I am helped;
Therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth,
And with my song will I praise Him.
8The LORD is a strength unto them;
And He is a stronghold of salvation to His anointed.
9Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance;
And tend them, and carry them for ever.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
ACCORDING TO THE MASORETIC TEXT
A NEW TRANSLATION
Jewish Publication Society

1917

Sunday 11 October 2015

Why Darwinism remains an ill-fitted Cornerstone

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
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.
 By Philip Skell | August 29, 2005


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 BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

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.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

When I recently suggested this disconnect publicly, I was vigorously challenged. One person recalled my use of Wilkins and charged me with quote mining. The proof, supposedly, was in Wilkins's subsequent paragraph:

"Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them."

In reality, however, this passage illustrates my point. The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.


Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

Philip S. Skell tvk@psu.edu is Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His research has included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions.


He can be contacted at tvk@psu.edu.

Friday 9 October 2015

A Darwinian apparatchik rallies the faithful.

Latest Cambrian Explosion "Explanation" Qualifies as Propaganda