Evolution Icon Evolution
Intelligent Design Icon Intelligent Design

More Reports from Confidential Informants at the Royal Society

Confidential.jpg

I continue to receive reports from inside the Royal Society building where the potentially explosive “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology” conference is ongoing. My apologies for vagueness about the identities of our informants. This precaution is due to requests for anonymity as well as what we know, unfortunately all too well, about the threat of career retaliation for those who speak their minds. When it comes to evolution, enlightened opinion can’t tolerate multiple viewpoints unless they stay safely within what we’ve called the city “walls of naturalism or materialism.”

A scientist and ID sympathizer summarizes his takeaway from Day 1:

Living up to its name, the meeting has had an apropos emphasis on synthesis — of knowledge across the social and natural sciences, as mentioned by Denis Noble in his introduction, as well as across disparate views of evolution. Along these lines, Russ Lande made an impassioned case that phenomena such as phenotypic plasticity addressed by the “extended synthesis” folks can be explained and accounted for entirety by the mathematical machinery of population genetics, modeling only the evolutionary mechanisms of mutation, selection, and drift.

In a lively discussion, Sonia Sultan explained why she did not feel this step was adequate: namely, that genetic variation alone is not a “useful currency” for explaining what gave rise to organisms (including their genomes) in the present. Why? Because non-permanent (i.e., non-genetic) factors can influence the present status of organisms and populations; genotypes are not the sole determinants. For example, the actual phenotypes expressed for a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., the “reaction norm”) can depend on the environment of the organism and on the environment of its forebears; without modeling this influence, the present cannot be understood, since genes do not map unambiguously to phenotypes.

Doug Futuyma cited in his own talk the well-established “pervasiveness” of natural selection. However, he failed to make the distinction, emphasized by the neutral theory of evolution, between positive and purifying selection. Purifying selection, which Futuyma implicitly stressed by speaking of the widespread existence of deleterious mutations, eliminates harmful alleles and thus explains only stasis. It is positive (Darwinian) selection that favors new advantageous genotypes and can explain directional change in the evolutionary process. One glaring question he left unaddressed was, if the neutral theory is right that the majority of genetic evolution is neutral (i.e., not influenced by selection), why should other mechanisms for adaptive change not be considered? The field is wide open. Moreover, to the extent that phenomena such as developmental canalization occur (i.e., the constrained development of similar phenotypic outcomes despite genetic change), natural selection will not be able to “see” the genetic variation that arises, rendering selection useless as a mechanism.

The major conflict here thus seems to be between a point of view which constantly keeps in mind the metaphysical necessity of explaining all biological complexity (the neo-Darwinians) and one which instead emphasizes empirical adequacy (the extended synthesis folk). Since, as explained in a talk by Tobias Muller, the extended synthesis can accept a state such as phenotypic plasticity as a “starting point for analysis,” it leaves open the question of how the plastic system arose in the first place. This usually implies that extant structures have been derived from as- or more-complex ancestral states, which drives the neo-Darwinians wild. However, what the extended synthesis is showing is that its paradigm — despite leaving unanswered the historical question of initial origin — is the most useful and complete explanation of observations in the present. Thus, the conflict is between a need to explain the ultimate question of origin and the proximate question of mechanism. How interesting that they’re at odds.

Yes, that is telling, isn’t it.

From a British physician on the scene:

I just wanted to fully concur with your reports on Evolution News so far. I am a non-specialist and an ID supporter. I came to the event largely to see what some of the best minds in evolutionary biology could do to address the many gaping holes in the Modern Synthesis. I have to say I was very disappointed, but not surprised. There was zero discussion of the real issues — how can chance mutations produce biological innovation; how do we explain discontinuity and the observation of fixed species when we have a model that necessitates gradual, seamless change?; etc.

You could tell that there were going to be problems from literally the first session.

1) In a meeting to discuss whether the modern synthesis is an adequate model to address evolutionary biology’s needs, there was no primer on what are the overall questions that any evolutionary model needs to answer.

2) There was a whole slide on micro- vs. macroevolution, telling attendees explicitly to move away from focusing on this distinction. This felt like a pre-emptive move to deflect unwanted attention away from the fact that most of what was discussed was only really relevant to microevolution.

On a cheerier note, it was great to meet some ID people there. After speaking to another delegate for a while, we both eventually got to the fact that we don’t support neo-Darwinism at all, and think ID is the way forward. We wondered whether we should all have some kind of signal…rub the left nostril twice perhaps?

It’s not that big a crowd, mind you. Apart from the speakers, I wonder what percentage of participants are in the closet for intelligent design? More to come shortly from London.

I’m on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

David Klinghoffer

Senior Fellow and Editor, Evolution News
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and the editor of Evolution News & Science Today, the daily voice of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, reporting on intelligent design, evolution, and the intersection of science and culture. Klinghoffer is also the author of six books, a former senior editor and literary editor at National Review magazine, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. Born in Santa Monica, California, he graduated from Brown University in 1987 with an A.B. magna cum laude in comparative literature and religious studies. David lives near Seattle, Washington, with his wife and children.

Share

Tags

scienceViews