Allen MacNeill: RM & NS: The Creationist and ID Strawman

| 67 Comments

Allen MacNeill has posted his long promised overview of evolutionary mechanisms of variation in RM & NS: The Creationist and ID Strawman

Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design Theory (“IDers”) are fond of erecting a strawman in place of evolutionary theory, one that they can then dismantle and point to as “proof” that their “theories” are superior. Perhaps the most egregious such strawman is encapsulated in the phrase “RM & NS”. Short for “random mutation and natural selection”, RM & NS is held up by creationists and IDers as the core of evolutionary biology, and are then attacked as insufficient to explain the diversity of life and (in the case of some IDers) its origin and evolution as well.

Evolutionary biologists know that this is a classical “strawman” argument, because we know that evolution is not simply reducible to “random mutation and natural selection” alone. Indeed, Darwin himself proposed that natural selection was the best explanation for the origin of adaptations, and that natural selection itself was an outcome that necessarily arises from three prerequisites:

• variation (between individuals in populations),
• inheritance (of traits from parents to offspring), and
• fecundity (reproduction resulting in more offspring than necessary for replacement).

Given these prerequisites, some individuals survive and reproduce more often than others, and hence their characteristics become more common in their populations over time.

Allen lists 43 sources of variation (as a minimum) and “at least three different processes that result from them: natural selection, sexual selection, and random genetic drift.”

67 Comments

Also enjoy the comments by Ron Cote a self proclaimed born again creationist.

I’m surprised that that lying twit hasn’t tried to bring up how Hitler was, allegedly, a Pagan Evolutionist in order to support his arguments.

As a physicist who follows this debate and is suitably sympathetic to the science side, I’ve got to say that this is a really stupid counter argument, or at least a really stupid presentation. It comes across as jargon gotcha - of crucifying the layman for misusing some terminology or oversimplifying some point without explaining why whatever subtle distinction is at issue actually matters, as a substitute or evasion for presenting a substantive argument. It’s argumentum ad put down.

The problem is that the usual focus on mutations in the narrowest sense, i.e., point mutations, is just a conveniently simple toy model that illustrates a much more general argument: that it’s difficult for many people to see how lots of small changes, many of which are destructive, could possibly add up gradually to something complicated and rich. It’s a conveniently simple toy model for both sides, biologists have spent a lot of time discussing it in the creation-evolution battle, and that’s not unreasonable, because it _does_ illustrate many of the important issues. What _is_ unreasonable is to suddenly revoke the tacit agreement to talk about the toy model without explaining why all the previously glossed-over complexity matters. And it’s _not_ obvious. At first sight, the same basic argument seems to apply equally to all these other areas of change: it’s hard to see how lots of small changes, many of which are destructive, could possibly add up gradually to something complicated and rich.

Now having done a fair bit of reading in the area, I’ve been exposed to explanations of how some of these extra mechanisms speed things up, and I think I can guess some others. But I’m not an expert and I can’t help reacting very negatively to the apparent suggestion that I’m stupid if it’s not obvious to me why all this extra bafflegab is important. How it comes across to someone less well-read and less charitably inclined can only be imagined.

Mark Barton: speaking as someone less qualified in science (Master’s in Mechanical Engineering), I have learned a lot from articles like the subject one. I also do not consider myself stupid, but see such articles not as an attack on stupidity, but on ignorance. My formal and informal education up to my mid 20’s somehow left me with the impression that mutations are mainly if not solely due to ionizing radiation, such as cosmic rays and the residue of nuclear tests. I now know that mutations often occur chemically during the process of forming gametes, and that a typical person has 200-400 mutations from the genetic material of his or her parents. It seems to me this can make a vast difference in one’s comprehension and appreciation of the ToE.

Another good point to bring up is second-order phenomena like the evolution of evolvability, optimization of genetic architecture, etc.

Calling evolutionary biology “Darwinism” is like calling physics “Newtonism.”

Please allow me to paraphrase Mike Barton’s argument: “As a biologist who follows the Big Bang debate and is suitably sympathetic to the science side, I’ve got to say that the typical physicist’s argument is a really stupid counter argument, or at least a really stupid presentation. It comes across as jargon gotcha - of crucifying the layman for misusing some terminology or oversimplifying some point without explaining why whatever subtle distinction is at issue actually matters, as a substitute or evasion for presenting a substantive argument. It’s argumentum ad put down.

The problem is that the usual focus on time in the narrowest sense, i.e., milliseconds, is just a conveniently simple toy model that illustrates a much more general argument: that it’s difficult for many people to see how lots of important things, many of which are destructive, could possibly add up gradually to something complicated and rich. It’s a conveniently simple toy model for both sides, physicists have spent a lot of time discussing it in the creation-evolution battle, and that’s not unreasonable, because it _does_ illustrate many of the important issues. What _is_ unreasonable is to suddenly revoke the tacit agreement to talk about the toy model without explaining why all the previously glossed-over detail matters. And it’s _not_ obvious. At first sight, the same basic argument seems to apply equally to all these other areas of change: it’s hard to see how lots of small changes occurring in less than a second, many of which are destructive, could possibly add up gradually to something complicated and rich.

Now having done a fair bit of reading in the area, I’ve been exposed to explanations of how some of the destructive things work, and I think I can guess some others. But I’m not an expert and I can’t help reacting very negatively to the apparent suggestion that I’m stupid if it’s not obvious to me why all this physical bafflegab is important. How it comes across to someone less well-read and less charitably inclined can only be imagined.”

I am a biologist, but I really don’t see how MacNeill’s list serves as a counter argument to anything. Almost everything on the list, with the very important exception of recombination events, is a consequence of random mutations. And on a gross scale, recombination is close enough to a random event for most evolutionary discussions.

For example, consider the combining of two formerly separate biochemical pathways. How could this occur without a random mutation that would let an enzyme in one pathway now use a product or intermediate from the other?

How could a transcription factor change its affinity for its target site without a random mutation somewhere? The mutation could be in the TF gene itself, or in its target site, or in a gene for a protein that modifies it, but there has to be a mutation somewhere. Even if you postulate epigenetic changes, something, most likely a random mutation, had to have happened to change this pattern.

Combining of two chromosomes, as apparently happened along the way from our ape-like ancestors is not a single point mutation, but it is still a random mutation event.

I agree with the point I think Mark Barton was trying to make. Saying that all random mutations are single point mutations is simply setting up another strawman.

I agree with the point I think Mark Barton was trying to make. Saying that all random mutations are single point mutations is simply setting up another strawman.

Perhaps, but few creationists realize the richness of the sources of variation in the genome. It’s maintenance of variation that facilitates evolution

Allen’s comments may sound like nitpicking but they go to the heart of the controversy. Evolution is not about mutations followed by selection, it is about maintaining variation in the population on which selection (or chance) can act. This is why near-neutral mutations can be of significant relevance as they can be a source of variation without much of a fitness cost.

Another example is gene duplication which helps understand how mutations can lead to new functions while maintaining the original function. It’s not just single point mutations that accumulate in a gene. Many of the misunderstandings from creationists about mutations I believe can be tracked back to an adherence to the simplistic models of mutation rather than a focus on variation.

Barton does make a good point. However there is at least one critical problem with it: The ID proponents claim to know what they are talking about. It is hard to give them the benefit of not “crucifying the layman” while at the same time expecting people to take their claim of knowledge seriously. They can’t have it both ways. Either they know what they are talking about and are constructing strawmen or they don’t know what they are talking about.

wikipedia:

In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of the genetic material of an organism.

Seems to me that most of Allen’s sources of variation are just various sorts of mutations. Mutation has never meant just point mutations. Even chromosomal fusions would fall under the definition of mutation.

His extension of natural selection to NS, sexual selection, drift is a little more understandable. I would add so called artificial selection to the list. We have domesticated animals and plants recently to our purposes but it is still evolution, change in life through time.

Mostly this is a matter of semantics, viewpoint, and the fine points. There are some higher order phenomena such as species selection that make macroevolution a little more complicated than microevolution but these are additions not contradictions. And sexual recombination is a critical factor which is probably why it even exists.

The basics are still RM + NS. I’m a real fan of KIS, Keep It Simple when explaining or considering evolution. Many people are intimidated by evolution, considering it some esoteric theory only understandable by effete intellectuals. The reality is that the basics are simple, intuitive and understandable by anyone of normal intelligence.

The basics are still RM + NS. I’m a real fan of KIS, Keep It Simple when explaining or considering evolution. Many people are intimidated by evolution, considering it some esoteric theory only understandable by effete intellectuals. The reality is that the basics are simple, intuitive and understandable by anyone of normal intelligence.

Why not variation and selection? Far simpler a concept

I think (as a biochemist) that the key points to get across to the lay audience are thus:

(1) that random mutations come in many different varieties (point mutation, frame shift, duplication, insertion, deletion etc.); and

(2) that mutations are occuring all the time at a modest rate, and thus any population of organisms will almost never contain two individuals that are genetically identical (assuming sexual reproduction, since it is quite easy to obtain a colony of bacteria, for example, that are essentially genetically identical).

I agree that needless use of technical jargon should be avoided, but I also firmly believe that those who set themselves up to criticise evolutionary theory should damn well learn all about it first (plus I believe they should criticise it openly and honestly, which is something we very rarely see).

OK, PvM, variation & selection are simpler still. I think we cross-posted, as ‘twere.

I think the point that I missed to emphasize is that it is not mutation but variation which is what drives evolution. Anything that increases the variation is relevant. Mutations in my opinion raise a spector of a response to a need rather than the source of variations. And evolution has a rich source of variations.

Pedagogy is an ongoing concern, and I think Barton’s point is among those to be considered. Another point often raised is that there may to much effort devoted to discuss why creationists viewpoint is wrong. (Who would discuss astronomy from an astrology viewpoint today?)

But it is also good to acknowledge that one learn by continually revisiting a subject beyond the minimal toy models available. I’m partial to the constraining guideline that Larry Moran has discussed, a minimal definition of evolution:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

The idea is that any toy model or larger definition has to capture this to some extent or it isn’t valid. For example, both “common descent” as describing the observed process and “hereditary variation with selection” as describing a general mechanism or set of specific mechanisms do so. (While we immediately can see that “variation & selection” is an implicit description, contingent on that we recognize that we are discussing evolution.)

Moran adds IMHO another good perspective on why “framing” or constraining definitions are valuable when considering a complicated and many-faceted process:

The amazing thing about the minimal definition of biological evolution is that it doesn’t carry any baggage concerning the history of life or its future. As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life.

I have a challenge for the members of the Panda’s Thumb community. Please find a single factual error in Conservapedia’s article on the theory of evolution which is very critical of the evolutionary position. The article is located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution

I don’t believe you will be able to find a single factual error in the Conservapedia theory of evolution article.

Ohh, that’s too easy. Here.

The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory forms

I take issue with “self-transformation”. What does that mean? Would a biologist use the term? Simple to complex? Sometimes, but not always. What do those terms mean? Certainly we see a difference in life from the past to the future, and the biosphere as a whole has become more complex (in terms of number of species, at least from 2 billion years ago). To top it off, the evolution/speciation/etc have been observed many, many, many times in a laboratory.

Come on, get real. “single factual error”? How about 3 in one sentence?

Yes, Braxton, that is a good catch. In fact, evolution does not posit a process from simple to complex life. And while many aspects of evolution have been observed in a laboratory, there are many more ways to study evolution.

More errors at Conservapedia (what a joke)

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme

He did state this however he revised his views. Why is this not reported?

See for instance this link

I am sure that Mark Barton Robert Miller will insist that Conservapedia revises their webpage. If not, we can always start a point by point rebuttal to showcase the ignorance of ‘conservapedia’

My impression is that the ‘lay’ view of a major evolutionary change goes like this : you have a bunch of organisms of one species going along their merry way - suddenly one of them has a mutant child with a thousandth of an eye, that child has another mutant with another milli-improvement and a many descendants later… full binocular vision! Stated like this of course it seems quite implausible that a thousand random mutations could string themselves together in a chain.

So maybe we should emphasize that a single mutation can have very subtle effects on a gene via its interactions with other genes and proteins. And plenty of these mutations are always present in a population, and can be acted on by selection.

What struck me about Conservapedia’s article on the theory of evolution is that there is no outline of the theory of evolution. How could they possibly have a web page about the TOE without describing what it is?

The article has no reference to the nested hierarchy of life, probably the strongest evidence and no mention of pseudogenes. In fact, the whole thing reads like a collection of talking points from AnswersinGenesis.

I agree that it is very carefully written to try to avoid actual lies. However, it is full of statements like “Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.”

It could well be true that Popper said that, however he was wrong to say it is not testable.

Another statement that caught my eye was “The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version.” Again, true. They also did not propose a process for transforming energy from uranium into electricity or a scheme for turning moving pictures of a cartoon mouse into money. So what?

I notice that the article is full of quotes and quotes of quotes, and even quotes of quotes of quotes (Stephen Caesar quoting SJ Gould quoting Michael Richardson who apparently said something off the top of his head). There seems to be a large segment of the population that does not realise that quotes, especially if second and third hand, are not evidence.

The whole piece just reinforces my view that Conservapedia is not to be taken seriously.

Vince: your retooling of my argument is pitch-perfect except for one thing - as far as I can see it doesn’t refer to any actual argument being made by physicists in the creation-evolution debate. Thus I don’t see the point. If we _are_ doing something comparable - entering into extended discussion of a toy model under an implied understanding that it’s sufficiently representative to make key points and then suddenly trashing it as the most ignorant straw man without explaining why the extra complexity is important, then please me know - we should stop.

JimV: I have no problem with the information that the linked article presented. On the contrary, it was very interesting. It’s just rather offensive as a counter-argument to a supposed straw man, because the view of evolution that it criticizes is simply not a straw man - biologists do actually talk like that, at least to lay-people. See for example, the #1 go-to site for explaining evolution to non-biologists:

“The theory of evolution includes a number of ideas that some people find difficult to accept intuitively. One of the most difficult seems to be the notion that the intricate and interdependent structures we observe in modern plants and animals arose through random genetic mutations selected over time.” ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ )

Now very possibly that wording is being offered in the spirit of a physicist’s toy model and all manner of fineprint is implied. But once biologists, collectively, have put it out there in those terms they can’t complain about straw men - it’s the biologists’ formulation. And they can’t even complain about ignorance unless they explain why the extra detail matters.

The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory forms.

Technically true but not really true. The intent is clear, to mislead. Not that conservapedia has ever done anything else or will ever do anything else. Much of the earth is covered with sedimentary rocks miles deep in places, some of which contain fossils and which stretch back 3.6 billion years. The exact number of fossils is anyone’s guess but must be in the billions or trillions. We have already dug up a large number, must be in the millions at least. There is an extensive history of life documented therein, extending from the age of prokaryoes, through single celled eukaryotes and ending up with us.

That we haven’t evolved a new phylum in the laboratory is irrelevant. When a process takes millions to hundreds of millions of years, we wouldn’t expect to see anything on the order of years or decades. We have yet to create a black hole, pulsar, or Big Bang in the lab either. That is a good thing, hard to write it up for Nature after the fact. No one doubts they exist except a few cultists who believe the universe is 6,000 years old.

PS No one has seen god is a lab, or anywhere else for a while either. Nor have they been able to create one. Does this mean he doesn’t exist.

The theory of god posits an omniscient being who creates worlds in 6 days. Who occasionally gets upset with his creations and murders almost all of them. Which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory forms.

Interesting, conservapedia has disproved the existence of god. I expect this entry above to appear any minute. And everyone can sleep in tomorrow morning.

agree that it is very carefully written to try to avoid actual lies. However, it is full of statements like “Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.”

Just more creo lies. Popper did say that. Later on he changed his mind and said evolution was falsifiable. Standard quote mining, the refuge of the dishonest.

Must be liar saturday. That creos can only lie shows how bankrupt they and their theory are.

Talkorigins.org. Claim CA211.1: According to philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Popper (1976, 151) said, “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.” Source: Kranz, Russell. n.d. Karl Popper’s challenge. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm Response: Popper’s statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount.

Moreover, he said that natural selection is a useful theory. A “metaphysical research programme” was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism, And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172) Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation “was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached” (Popper 1976, 172).

Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on “Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status” (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978): When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today’s theory - that is Darwin’s own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin’s own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as ‘industrial melanism’, we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology [see CA500]. A tautology like ‘All tables are tables’ is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that ‘Natural selection … turns out … to be a tautology’ ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an ‘enormous power. … of explanation’. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological’, and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection. Links:

Raven said:

The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory forms.

.…(good discussion of why this is false clipped out).…

PS No one has seen god is a lab, or anywhere else for a while either. Nor have they been able to create one. Does this mean he doesn’t exist.

The two really aren’t comparable. You are implying that because “no one has seen god is(sic) a lab” it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist. A creationist would reply to that, that you are saying that evolution, like creationism, is, after all, a matter of faith. But one (biological evolution) is a matter of observational facts and conclusions, the other (God) is a matter of faith.

You cannot use the tools of science (if NOMA is correct) to determine the presence or absence of a supernatural being, and you cannot (or should not) use faith to decide whether or not evolution exists.

You cannot use the tools of science (if NOMA is correct) to determine the presence or absence of a supernatural being, and you cannot (or should not) use faith to decide whether or not evolution exists.

I see your point. But since the spammer is playing fast and loose with the rules of logic and reason, I didn’t pay much attention to my own.

He is BTW, spamming the same message on other boards under different names. I didn’t read the conservapedia entry on the theory that my monitor (or head) might burst into flames but others are calling it one big quote mine. All I ever need to know.

Stanton Wrote:

Mike, the wrestling pig proverb is from the American South.

Stanton:

Yeah, I’m not surprised. My “friend” (office mate really) sometimes struck me as imitating the stereotype Chekhov on the original Star Trek series, but with a Chinese twist. He also used to run out of the office to get some paper towel and soap to scrub down his desk (with a disgusted look on his face) if someone leaned their butt against it. Strange. :-)

That’s what you get for trusting someone who got a Tau Ceti eel put into his ear.

That’s what you get for trusting someone who got a Tau Ceti eel put into his ear.

LOL! I thought his expression was strangely blank at times.

I suspect the strawman aspect of “RM+NS” is that creationists tacitly define a mutation as some kind of Hollywood-style ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ freak. (Did someone mention above that creationists are not honest people?)

Would it clarify this issue if, rather than listing all the different kinds of mutations, scientists made a few simple points?

1.) Most mutations make tiny changes that don’t have much effect one way or the other.

2.) Extremely damaging mutations almost always cause a creature to die without descendants, so they don’t affect the fitness of a species.

3.) Beneficial mutations are rare– but because the living things with these mutations often have lots and lots of descendants, rare mutations become common in a species in what geologists consider a very brief period of time.

So– extremely damaging mutations occur much more often than beneficial mutations. But because of natural selection, our genes carry many of our ancestor’s beneficial mutations, and none of their extremely damaging ones. That’s why RM+NS works. Does that attack the strawman without unnecessary detail?

Flint Wrote:

Perhaps MacNeill is deploying a suboptimal response to creationist dishonesty. Maybe he’s trying to anticipate the same sort of dishonesty to any mechanism he proposes, and is trying to at least get creationists to tell DIFFERENT lies.

Over on MacNeill’s web site, some of the comments from the ID/Creationists posting responses to his overview illustrate quite well their tactics. Waving their “credentials” is one. You can really see the pretentiousness in the ID responses as they try to pass themselves off as legitimate scientists, thereby giving themselves the “authority” to set the definitions used in the “debate”.

The sleaze continues, but at least it is on record as a sleazy tactic. We should display it for all to see.

HP: “I suspect the strawman aspect of “RM+NS” is that creationists tacitly define a mutation as some kind of Hollywood-style ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ freak.”

I agree that that’s much more the root of the problem, and unless it’s tackled head-on (much as you suggest) there’s no use mentioning all the other types of variation on the list because they’re all going to get the same treatment.

Mark Barton Wrote:

HP: “I suspect the strawman aspect of “RM+NS” is that creationists tacitly define a mutation as some kind of Hollywood-style ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ freak.”

I agree that that’s much more the root of the problem, and unless it’s tackled head-on (much as you suggest) there’s no use mentioning all the other types of variation on the list because they’re all going to get the same treatment.

Yes, we need to replace the Antennapedia meme with the Super-Bug meme such as MRSA.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 2, 2007 11:19 PM.

ID FLunked: Are all Darwin Skeptics Religious Fundamentalists? was the previous entry in this blog.

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter