This article from www.evolutionnews.org talks about a book review in an upcoming issue of American Scientist that challenges Darwinian reductionism. I think it is interesting to see how Darwin's framework, while widely accepted in the academic community, is still not infallible and leaves much room for debate.
Alex Rosenberg's "Darwinian Reductionism" Under Fire
Logan Gage
The May-June 2007 issue of American Scientist contains John Dupré’s review of Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology by Alex Rosenberg.
Dupré fears that Rosenberg’s adherence to strict physicalist reductionism (“Darwinian Reductionism”), where “everything is ultimately determined by what happens at the physical level—and that this entails that the mind is ‘nothing but’ the brain,” is based upon a failure to understand why most philosophers of biology have abandoned such reductionism rather than a new revelation. As Dupré points out, most philosophers have abandoned this view because, among other reasons, genes have a “many/many” relationship with phenotype.
More specifically, his [Rosenberg’s] portrayal of the genome as a program directing development, which is the centerpiece of his reductionist account of biology, discloses a failure to appreciate the complex two-way interactions between the genome and its molecular environment that molecular biologists have been elaborating for the past several decades.
Dupré excoriates Rosenberg for thinking of natural selection as an actual physical law rather than mere differential death. (Natural selection is, of course, the latter and much more akin to the "Stuff Happens" bumper sticker on the TV version of Forrest Gump.) Finally, Dupré also goes after Rosenberg for thinking “genes literally embody a program that produces development,” for seemingly adhering to the notion that 95% of DNA is “mere junk,” and for not keeping very current on molecular biology. For more, see the rest of Dupré’s excellent but tough review “Is Biology Reducible to the Laws of Physics?”
Also here is the link for my review of Darwin's autobiography on Amazon: here
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Julie’s New & Hot – “The diaries of Darwin's wife debut online”
(Above) First page of Emma Darwin’s 1824 diary. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070312/full/446243a.html
According to Nature’s March 14, 2007 “News In Brief,” just last month the diaries of Charles Darwin’s wife Emma were released online. The diary includes details about daily life in the Darwin family, such as about grocery costs, visitors, and illnesses.
This new source of information is interesting on a few different levels. First, it would definitely be an interesting exercise to compare Charles’ and Emily’s daily accounts. What would Charles include and Emma leave out and vice versa? What more can we learn about who Darwin was from these firsthand accounts? Second, it is interesting to note how Darwin’s fame is contagious. I imagine that now that these records are available to the public, historians and others interested in Darwin will analyze these diaries for more clues on to the personal life and thoughts of the famous scientist. Could Emma have ever imagined that her daily diaries would one day be under such scrutiny? Third, just as Darwin intended for his audience to be his children and grandchildren, what audience did Emma write for? If Emma had intended for her diaries to be personal accounts of events not to be read by others, she may have been frank about the daily ongoings, thoughts, and feelings.
With yet another source of information about Darwin’s life, another dimension has been added to the complicated yet intriguing challenge of pulling together the facts to reconstruct his life and thoughts.
Click here to directly acces Emma’s diaries.
Click here to read my Amazon book review on The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
--Julie Kim
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Eugenics and Peanut Butter: Robbie's Week 2 "New and Hot"
I was really interested in Darwin's endorsement of what we would call pseudoscience in his autobiography; I wrote a little about this in my book review on amazon.
Darwin didn't really know any better, did he? After all, he lived in the 1800s – ideas about cranial localization probably seemed intuitive. That was my reaction, at least, but Darwin's relationship with his half-cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, apparently has a history of being used against him.
While this article, from Salon, titled “Louisiana calls Darwin a racist” is not that new, it shows the Louisiana legislature taking this tack in 2001, arguing that Darwin “'teaches that some humans have evolved further than others,” providing “the main rationale for modern racism.”
The debate about this measure (which was passed, forcing the teaching of evolution come with a disclaimer) is interesting. Proponent pin the blame for racism squarely on Darwinian evolution. Critics argued that instead of drawing attention to “weaknesses” in Darwinian evolution, the measure was intended to weaken the teaching of evolution in Louisiana public schools.
I think that these critics are right; it's important to take into consideration the same historical context that led Darwin to not discount phrenology outright when examining his ideas about non-European peoples. This is certainly not a defense of those views, but is an apology for them.
What I find interesting, though, is that this is another example of a debate about Darwin's character being used against the theory of evolution. Should it make us uncomfortable that a long dead scientist made some comments implicitly suggestive of eugenics? Probably. But why do me, and many others, feel the need to defend Darwin's character? Why does Darwin's shadow still fall on the evolution debate? It's an interesting question; I'll let you know after I think about it some more.
In lighter news, creationists believe in pseudoscience too, explaining that peanut butter disproves evolution. I don't know where this clip comes from, but it's another interesting argument against evolution. Via boingboing.
Robbie Torney
Darwin didn't really know any better, did he? After all, he lived in the 1800s – ideas about cranial localization probably seemed intuitive. That was my reaction, at least, but Darwin's relationship with his half-cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, apparently has a history of being used against him.
While this article, from Salon, titled “Louisiana calls Darwin a racist” is not that new, it shows the Louisiana legislature taking this tack in 2001, arguing that Darwin “'teaches that some humans have evolved further than others,” providing “the main rationale for modern racism.”
The debate about this measure (which was passed, forcing the teaching of evolution come with a disclaimer) is interesting. Proponent pin the blame for racism squarely on Darwinian evolution. Critics argued that instead of drawing attention to “weaknesses” in Darwinian evolution, the measure was intended to weaken the teaching of evolution in Louisiana public schools.
I think that these critics are right; it's important to take into consideration the same historical context that led Darwin to not discount phrenology outright when examining his ideas about non-European peoples. This is certainly not a defense of those views, but is an apology for them.
What I find interesting, though, is that this is another example of a debate about Darwin's character being used against the theory of evolution. Should it make us uncomfortable that a long dead scientist made some comments implicitly suggestive of eugenics? Probably. But why do me, and many others, feel the need to defend Darwin's character? Why does Darwin's shadow still fall on the evolution debate? It's an interesting question; I'll let you know after I think about it some more.
In lighter news, creationists believe in pseudoscience too, explaining that peanut butter disproves evolution. I don't know where this clip comes from, but it's another interesting argument against evolution. Via boingboing.
Robbie Torney
Alex's New and Hot, week 2
Let's go take a look at www.pandora.com. Basically this is sort of like an online radio station created by the Music Genome Project. Here is a brief explanation by its creators:
From this, the radio station sort of evolves according to your tastes. With each additional song, the station gathers more information and better adapts to your particular music tastes. It's an interesting idea.
Bam. Next:
Check out my Amazon review for the Autobiography. Hope it's posted now.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product//1595479279/ref=cm_rv_thx_view/102-9108468-6257721
Cheers,
Alex S.
Together we set out to capture the essence of music at the most fundamental level. We ended up assembling literally hundreds of musical attributes or "genes" into a very large Music Genome. Taken together these genes capture the unique and magical musical identity of a song - everything from melody, harmony and rhythm, to instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, lyrics, and of course the rich world of singing and vocal harmony. It's not about what a band looks like, or what genre they supposedly belong to, or about who buys their records - it's about what each individual song sounds like.So I think it's kinda cool, and I've personally been using it a lot over the last few months. Basically you create your own radio station and then tell pandora what sort of music you like to listen to. From there, the radio station automatically gives you suggestions for future songs based on songs that you've rated highly before. But it's not just a simple matter of "everyone who likes Tupac also likes 50 Cent". The website supposedly breaks down each song into extremely primitive components and analyzes the salient qualities of each song and decides what it is about the song makes you want to listen to it.
From this, the radio station sort of evolves according to your tastes. With each additional song, the station gathers more information and better adapts to your particular music tastes. It's an interesting idea.
Bam. Next:
Check out my Amazon review for the Autobiography. Hope it's posted now.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product//1595479279/ref=cm_rv_thx_view/102-9108468-6257721
Cheers,
Alex S.
Chad's 'New and Hot' Week 2
My ‘New and Hot’ for this week is loosely related, but I found it very interesting. The article discussed the issue of creationism in the Muslim world through the writing of physicist Taner Edis. Dr. Edis claims that in modernized Muslim countries such as Turkey, while technological advancements are praised because they improve living conditions, “creationism in Turkey is a response to modernity, and to the influx of scientific expertise and ideas from abroad” (par. 8) and its influence is “more penetrating.” Dr. Edis also related creationism to other Muslim communities using this pretext:
“Muslim immigrants in Europe tend to be from the poorer, less educated strata of society – analogous I suppose to Mexicans in America. Creationist literature is a way to fight the secularizing or Christianizing influence of those societies, while letting people feel like they are engaging with the technical and technological advancements around them.
When I asked about the influence of Harun Yahya (a group that publishes creationist literature) and other forms of Muslim creationism in America, Edis pointed out that Muslim immigrants to America tend to come from the wealthier, more educated, and often more secular strata of society. They tend to be more comfortable integrating religious interpretation to their scientific knowledge, and attempts to force science to conform to the Quran tend to be less appealing to them.”
The full article can be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/04/taner_edis_on_muslim_creationi.php
A few of the ideas it presents seem to contradict one another, but overall I found it really intriguing.
and finally, my review is up with everyone else's at: http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Charles-Darwin-1809-1882/dp/0393310698/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0086157-8191363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176333522&sr=1-1
See you guys later!
“Muslim immigrants in Europe tend to be from the poorer, less educated strata of society – analogous I suppose to Mexicans in America. Creationist literature is a way to fight the secularizing or Christianizing influence of those societies, while letting people feel like they are engaging with the technical and technological advancements around them.
When I asked about the influence of Harun Yahya (a group that publishes creationist literature) and other forms of Muslim creationism in America, Edis pointed out that Muslim immigrants to America tend to come from the wealthier, more educated, and often more secular strata of society. They tend to be more comfortable integrating religious interpretation to their scientific knowledge, and attempts to force science to conform to the Quran tend to be less appealing to them.”
The full article can be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/04/taner_edis_on_muslim_creationi.php
A few of the ideas it presents seem to contradict one another, but overall I found it really intriguing.
and finally, my review is up with everyone else's at: http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Charles-Darwin-1809-1882/dp/0393310698/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0086157-8191363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176333522&sr=1-1
See you guys later!
Roarke's New and Hot (week 2)
Though it's often difficult for us to envision how natural selection actually affects modern human populations, I've found some hard evidence that human populations are indeed still evolving.
A study recently published in Nature Genetics reports findings of recent human evolution which "reveal one of the most striking genetic footprints of natural selection ever observed in humans."
Sara Tishkoff, a researcher from the University of Maryland, found that human populations in Africa developed the ability to digest milk through a mutation which occurred sometime in the past few thousand years. Not all human ethnic populations are able to digest milk through adulthood - only Northern Europeans, whose ancestors domesticated catte, and East African populations that herd cattle. However, until Tishkoff's study, it was unclear how African populations developed this ability, since their genomes do not contain the same mutation that allows Europeans to digest lactose.
By resequencing DNA samples from a number of ethnic groups in Africa, Tishkoff found a mutation in cattle-herding populations that allowed those populations to digest milk that was distinct from the European mutation.
In both European and African populations, the mutation for lactose tolerance appeared at roughly the same time that cattle domestication became prevalent in those populations. Tishkoff's study thus provides an interesting example of how genes and cultures co-evolve.
You can read the article here to learn more about this study:
http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/12/study-detects-recent-instance-of-human.html
The actual Nature Genetics paper should be accessible from this website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
I wrote an Amazon review, though it's not showing up quite yet. When it does, it will be with all the other Amazon reviews for the first book that comes up when you search for "autobiography of charles darwin" on Amazon.com
-Roarke
A study recently published in Nature Genetics reports findings of recent human evolution which "reveal one of the most striking genetic footprints of natural selection ever observed in humans."
Sara Tishkoff, a researcher from the University of Maryland, found that human populations in Africa developed the ability to digest milk through a mutation which occurred sometime in the past few thousand years. Not all human ethnic populations are able to digest milk through adulthood - only Northern Europeans, whose ancestors domesticated catte, and East African populations that herd cattle. However, until Tishkoff's study, it was unclear how African populations developed this ability, since their genomes do not contain the same mutation that allows Europeans to digest lactose.
By resequencing DNA samples from a number of ethnic groups in Africa, Tishkoff found a mutation in cattle-herding populations that allowed those populations to digest milk that was distinct from the European mutation.
In both European and African populations, the mutation for lactose tolerance appeared at roughly the same time that cattle domestication became prevalent in those populations. Tishkoff's study thus provides an interesting example of how genes and cultures co-evolve.
You can read the article here to learn more about this study:
http://evomech1.blogspot.com/2006/12/study-detects-recent-instance-of-human.html
The actual Nature Genetics paper should be accessible from this website:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
I wrote an Amazon review, though it's not showing up quite yet. When it does, it will be with all the other Amazon reviews for the first book that comes up when you search for "autobiography of charles darwin" on Amazon.com
-Roarke
Nishma's New and Hot (Week 2)
I was messing around on Google and came across a TV series about Darwin and evolution called Evolution. The show airs on PBS and covers key events in Darwin's life, key tenants of evolution, and many of evolution's practical applications. These applications are really interesting and dramatic: the complexity of life forms, extinction and the human role in extinction, survival of the fittest and the arms race, sex and if it's "more imporant than life itself," the "mind's big bang" and where the power of the mind will utimately lead us--I have no idea where they're going with that one--, and the debate between science and religion.
The link for the show is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html. The website has previews for each episode. The show kind of seems like a commercialized version of what we're doing for the quarter--i.e. evolving.
The link for the show is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/about/overview_series.html. The website has previews for each episode. The show kind of seems like a commercialized version of what we're doing for the quarter--i.e. evolving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)