I love the way you write about biology and science. I suspect you would be a wonderful teacher of both adults and children. You combine your obvious technical knowledge with wonder and reverence for everything around us, in an uncontrived and extremely sensitive manner. This is not easy to do! Thank you for your writing. I look forward to your posts and so await the next. 🙏🏽
Enjoyed your commentary on how you are able to calculate the mutation rate of viruses, specifically SARS-cov-2. You are a great teacher on many complex topics!
I did share your belief at one time that evolution was not a theory but a fact. As a person of faith and a double major in biology and chemistry, I would often say “God could have created the earth however he wanted including using evolution.” I was a theistic evolutionist. Then I attended a conference that opened my eyes to the ridiculous science you have to accept in order to believe we evolved from a prebiotic soup. I know you didn’t want this discussion so I’ll keep my comments brief:
There is a huge difference between microevolution Ie natural selection and macroevolution (ape to man). Every example in your article as examples of evolution were natural selection (microevolution - Darwin’s finches, bacterial resistance, dog breeding) or homology. Homology could be attributed to a common ancestor or creator. All of these examples take from genes that are already present and they require an already reproducing organism.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, requires an infusion of information . Mutations are held up as that information infusion but this is difficult to prove given that vast majority of mutations are harmful and result in a non functional mutation.
2. Where can we see if there’s proof of macroevolution? The fossil record. Darwin knew this too. Read his Origin of Species. To go from one species to another / let’s just say a cat to a dog- you need at minimum 50,000 changes or intermediates. What does the fossil record show us? No intermediates but only a cat and a dog so only 2 fossils and is missing 49,998 intermediates. Darwin knew this as well and fretted over this in his book. He felt with time that he would be vindicated as more fossils were discovered. But here we are 150 years later and all of the intermediates can fit into a small box. Prominent evolutionist Jay Gould was aware of the lack of intermediates when he came up with his theory called Punctuated Equilibrium which works backwards from the conclusion (evolution) to what’s seen in reality. Not unlike the Covid brigade and their lack of proof. He said evolution just “skipped steps” and voila, a new species. The Cambrian explosion is a bummer for evolutionary biology.
3. There’s also irreducible complexity. Like the importance of the function of a protein is related not only to its sequence but how it’s folded. The odds of even a functioning protein happening by chance are beyond the the realm of reality.
I do respect your belief system. But understand, it is also to the point of being a faith as well. The discoveries we are making only adds to the amazing workings of the universe. Why apply an 1800 theory when the steam engine was the main mode of travel and it was the era of the Civil War to the 21st century?
Excellent article. Tying together theory with your personal experiences makes the story of evolution much more interesting. Many people when discussing evolution ignore the depth and complexity of the evolution of life. You don't.
My concern about Charles Darwin's theory remains. Work by people like the Grants with the Galapagos finches shows how evolution works, where environmental pressures change the frequency of alleles in a population. But that is just a shift in frequency of pre-existing genetic traits, not the emergence of a new trait.
Charles Darwin's hypothesis (or theory) was that the origin of species happens through natural selection in a gradual, incremental process as enough favorable variations accumulate and become fixed over long periods of time. But over 150 years later there is still no evidence that any new species arose in that way. None.
Instead we see new traits pop up out of nowhere and become fixed in a population much faster than natural selection would allow. Mechanisms like symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, and recombination proposed by mavericks like Lynn Margolis, Carl Woese and Barbara McClintock have much more support. In all of these mechanisms the new trait appears in just one leap in a single generation, defying Charles Darwin's theory of gradualism.
That coincides with advances in statistical mechanics, system theory, information theory, and complexity studies. All support the idea that new traits are all or nothing, rather than built in small steps over time. All support the idea that neo-Darwinian evolution with its random variations would degrade rather than improve.
Most importantly, all support the idea that design or structure in biology is as important as material, and that design has to come from somewhere. Charles Darwin's hypothesis does not allow for design. Intelligent design theorists say that the design has to come from a designer, but that's not true. It could come from nature. But if it does, we do not know how it does.
The gene sequencing we were able to do as we tracked the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 over the past three years added more questions than answers. The Omicron variant, for example, came not from the accumulation of random mutations naturally selected over time, but in a short amount of time. There are theories as to how that happened, such as in a single immunocompromised patient, but nothing proven.
Charles Darwin's theory has had a good run, but we need some new thinking on this most interesting of all scientific topics. Where do new traits come from in biology? A Nobel Prize awaits anyone who can provide even an inkling of an answer. And a place in history if they can replace Charles Darwin's theory with one that reflects the knowledge that we have that he didn't.
I just ADORE your articles.
Thanks Jessica! The admiration is mutual :-)
Oh wow! Awesome! I am working on a new article and I need a geneticist.
I love the way you write about biology and science. I suspect you would be a wonderful teacher of both adults and children. You combine your obvious technical knowledge with wonder and reverence for everything around us, in an uncontrived and extremely sensitive manner. This is not easy to do! Thank you for your writing. I look forward to your posts and so await the next. 🙏🏽
“heck even if we’re cousins” lol. This cuz is Ok with your ideas.
Enjoyed your commentary on how you are able to calculate the mutation rate of viruses, specifically SARS-cov-2. You are a great teacher on many complex topics!
I did share your belief at one time that evolution was not a theory but a fact. As a person of faith and a double major in biology and chemistry, I would often say “God could have created the earth however he wanted including using evolution.” I was a theistic evolutionist. Then I attended a conference that opened my eyes to the ridiculous science you have to accept in order to believe we evolved from a prebiotic soup. I know you didn’t want this discussion so I’ll keep my comments brief:
There is a huge difference between microevolution Ie natural selection and macroevolution (ape to man). Every example in your article as examples of evolution were natural selection (microevolution - Darwin’s finches, bacterial resistance, dog breeding) or homology. Homology could be attributed to a common ancestor or creator. All of these examples take from genes that are already present and they require an already reproducing organism.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, requires an infusion of information . Mutations are held up as that information infusion but this is difficult to prove given that vast majority of mutations are harmful and result in a non functional mutation.
2. Where can we see if there’s proof of macroevolution? The fossil record. Darwin knew this too. Read his Origin of Species. To go from one species to another / let’s just say a cat to a dog- you need at minimum 50,000 changes or intermediates. What does the fossil record show us? No intermediates but only a cat and a dog so only 2 fossils and is missing 49,998 intermediates. Darwin knew this as well and fretted over this in his book. He felt with time that he would be vindicated as more fossils were discovered. But here we are 150 years later and all of the intermediates can fit into a small box. Prominent evolutionist Jay Gould was aware of the lack of intermediates when he came up with his theory called Punctuated Equilibrium which works backwards from the conclusion (evolution) to what’s seen in reality. Not unlike the Covid brigade and their lack of proof. He said evolution just “skipped steps” and voila, a new species. The Cambrian explosion is a bummer for evolutionary biology.
3. There’s also irreducible complexity. Like the importance of the function of a protein is related not only to its sequence but how it’s folded. The odds of even a functioning protein happening by chance are beyond the the realm of reality.
I do respect your belief system. But understand, it is also to the point of being a faith as well. The discoveries we are making only adds to the amazing workings of the universe. Why apply an 1800 theory when the steam engine was the main mode of travel and it was the era of the Civil War to the 21st century?
https://youtu.be/E501YvJgNdA?si=d5NNV1O-LoqZ7fBT
This video shows the disinformation shared on popular sciencey shows.
Nick Lane is a great writer and scientist studying the evolution of life.
Excellent article. Tying together theory with your personal experiences makes the story of evolution much more interesting. Many people when discussing evolution ignore the depth and complexity of the evolution of life. You don't.
My concern about Charles Darwin's theory remains. Work by people like the Grants with the Galapagos finches shows how evolution works, where environmental pressures change the frequency of alleles in a population. But that is just a shift in frequency of pre-existing genetic traits, not the emergence of a new trait.
Charles Darwin's hypothesis (or theory) was that the origin of species happens through natural selection in a gradual, incremental process as enough favorable variations accumulate and become fixed over long periods of time. But over 150 years later there is still no evidence that any new species arose in that way. None.
Instead we see new traits pop up out of nowhere and become fixed in a population much faster than natural selection would allow. Mechanisms like symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, and recombination proposed by mavericks like Lynn Margolis, Carl Woese and Barbara McClintock have much more support. In all of these mechanisms the new trait appears in just one leap in a single generation, defying Charles Darwin's theory of gradualism.
That coincides with advances in statistical mechanics, system theory, information theory, and complexity studies. All support the idea that new traits are all or nothing, rather than built in small steps over time. All support the idea that neo-Darwinian evolution with its random variations would degrade rather than improve.
Most importantly, all support the idea that design or structure in biology is as important as material, and that design has to come from somewhere. Charles Darwin's hypothesis does not allow for design. Intelligent design theorists say that the design has to come from a designer, but that's not true. It could come from nature. But if it does, we do not know how it does.
The gene sequencing we were able to do as we tracked the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 over the past three years added more questions than answers. The Omicron variant, for example, came not from the accumulation of random mutations naturally selected over time, but in a short amount of time. There are theories as to how that happened, such as in a single immunocompromised patient, but nothing proven.
Charles Darwin's theory has had a good run, but we need some new thinking on this most interesting of all scientific topics. Where do new traits come from in biology? A Nobel Prize awaits anyone who can provide even an inkling of an answer. And a place in history if they can replace Charles Darwin's theory with one that reflects the knowledge that we have that he didn't.