| 
Transcript of chat
with Paul Nelson on August 8th, 2002
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:46:49 PM)
Hi everyone. I'm a novice with this means of communicating, so please
bear with me if something comes out fragmentary or unclear.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:47:10 PM)
My assigned topic is "Common Descent." Let me start, as Bill
Dembski often does in public lectures, with some personal history to
set the stage.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:47:34 PM)
When I first arrived at the University of Chicago, my main interests
were the theory of natural selection, and the use of theology in evolutionary
reasoning.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:48:01 PM)
But as I interacted with Bill Wimsatt (who later became my dissertation
director) and with other graduate students in the philosophy of biology
and evolutionary theory, I grew more interested in the theory of common
descent -- or, as I'll call it in its terrestrially universal form,
Common Descent.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:48:18 PM)
Bill Wimsatt gave me some of his draft manuscripts to read and critique.
These dealt mainly with his ideas about the causal structure of animal
development: a theory he called "generative entrenchment"
(GE).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:48:37 PM)
Here's a quick and easy way to grasp GE. Think about the functional
relationships within (or between the parts of) the computer you're using
right now.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:48:54 PM)
Is the color of the plastic case functionally important? -- that is,
in relation to the set of normal functions for the computer?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:49:10 PM)
Not really. You might be annoyed if the color were bright magenta, but
you could probably learn to live with that, or any other color, really.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:49:26 PM)
How about the central processing unit (CPU) -- or the power supply?
Clearly, these parts are deeply important (again, in relation to the
set of normal functions).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:49:42 PM)
If you were to draw the causal relationships within the computer as
a diagram with arrows, where (a)-->(b) indicates that (b) depends
for its function on the proper operation of (a), then both the power
supply and CPU would have many more arrows coming OUT of their nodes
than going in. In other words, they're more deeply entrenched that other
parts.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:50:00 PM)
Indeed, the power supply is more deeply entrenched than the CPU (for
obvious reasons).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:50:17 PM)
Anyway, Wimsatt had developed GE to understand metazoan development.
He wanted to explain why von Baer's Laws obtained in the animals. Von
Baer's Laws, recall, say that in embryogenesis:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:51:32 PM)
1. The more general features of a group appear before the specific features.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:51:50 PM)
2. Less general characters are developed from the most general, and
so forth, until finally the most specialized appear.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:52:08 PM)
3. Each embryo of a given species, instead of passing through the stages
of other animals, departs more and more from them.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:52:22 PM)
4. Fundamentally, therefore, the embryo of a higher animal is never
like [the adult of] a lower animal, but only like its embryo.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:52:39 PM)
(That's Stephen Gould's translation of von Baer, BTW.)
Bill Dembski (ID=19) (Aug
8, 2002 3:52:44 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 64.196.194.24)
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
3:52:51 PM)
feel free to ask questions if you want Paul to clarify anything.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:53:01 PM)
Well, Bill said to me, I can explain why these laws hold. Early development
in animals is generatively entrenched. Because all animals share a common
ancestor (the theory of the common descent of the metazoa), AND because
of GE functional necessity, early embryogenesis is conserved throughout
the animals: QED.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:53:21 PM)
Sounds good, right? Except early development isn't conserved.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:53:41 PM)
I discovered this when I trotted off to Crerar Library at the U of C
(the glorious science library there, my home away from home) and started
reading in comparative embryology.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:54:00 PM)
So, dutiful grad student that I was, I went back to Bill with my findings.
Something was wrong.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:54:16 PM)
Here's how I represented the problem schematically: CD + GE --> (predicts)
Conservation of early development.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:54:31 PM)
But ~ Conservation of early development (i.e., it’s not the case).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:54:48 PM)
Therefore: something is wrong with either CD or GE.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:55:05 PM)
Many of Bill's colleagues (e.g., the developmental biologist Rudy Raff,
at Indiana University) said, heck, ~GE. Early development must be able
to evolve in ways we don't yet understand.
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 3:55:12 PM)
By conserved, do you mean the developmental patterns in their apparent
sense, or in the genetic modules that underly them?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:55:21 PM)
Bill himself wanted to retain both CD and GE. In rare cases, he argued,
GE can be violated. Otherwise, it obtains.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:55:40 PM)
I found this deeply unsatisfying. All the experimental & observational
evidence I could find strongly supported GE. One can see the saturation
mutagenesis experiments in Drosophila, for instance, which won Christiane
Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus the Nobel as a clear demonstration
of the truth of GE.
Bill Dembski (ID=19) (Aug
8, 2002 3:55:53 PM)
(This user has left DigiChat) (IP = 64.196.194.24)
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:56:16 PM)
And to have a theory (GE) obtain except when it didn’t (i.e.,
GE **and** ~GE), was a miserable way to run the biology shop.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:56:33 PM)
But there's more. Using GE, one of Bill's grad students (Nick Rasmussen),
had predicted that genes (proteins) known to be deeply entrenched in
Drosophila development (e.g., bicoid) should be very widely distributed
in the Arthropoda. See Nick's paper, "A New Model of Developmental
Constraints as Applied to the Drosophila System," Journal of Theoretical
Biology 127 (1987):271-299.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:56:51 PM)
Nick wrote: "The most deeply entrenched system, the positional
information in the egg [in which bicoid plays a key role], consists
of prepackaged gene products which promote, and to some extent coordinate,
the partially independent processes whereby the blastoderm nuclei generate
a metamerized embryo and take on a particular segmental identity."
(p. 292).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:57:34 PM)
Given GE, it should be "nearly impossible," Nick argued, to
insert novel elements into the very beginning on ontogeny. Including
the ontogeny of Drosophila, the animal whose development we understand
better than any other.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
3:57:55 PM)
Strong prediction -- but bicoid is not found outside the higher Diptera
(Drosophila and its near relatives).
telic ontology (ID=14) (Aug
8, 2002 3:58:59 PM)
(This user has left DigiChat) (IP = 138.89.158.37)
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 3:59:14 PM)
Paul was Raff and Rasmussen using the "principle of continuity"
to adjudicate the plausibility of GE? Are other evo biologists getting
away from even using this principle?
Jeremy (ID=20) (Aug 8, 2002
3:59:55 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 24.27.45.31)
telic ontology (ID=21) (Aug
8, 2002 4:00:18 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 138.89.158.37)
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:00:39 PM)
No -- they were resting their case entirely on CD. Since we know that
the Arthropoda share a common ancestor, it must be possible for their
early development to evolve.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:01:09 PM)
At about this point (1990-91), I told Bill and others that I thought
CD was getting a free ride. Actually, not a free ride. Failed predictions
were being paid for by other theories (like GE). The account of CD was
being credited at the expense of independently-derived biological theories.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:01:16 PM)
Sounds axiomatic..........
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:01:37 PM)
Hey, you're stealing my tale!
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:01:46 PM)
sorry:)
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:01:47 PM)
Or, to use a courtly metaphor, CD was the Queen, safely seated within
her throne room. The courtiers, by contrast (the auxiliary theories
such as GE), were dying in the outer chambers, as failed predictions
came charging back into the castle, sword in hand.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:02:04 PM)
(Sorry for the purple prose!)
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:02:13 PM)
No, that was awesome, continue!
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:02:32 PM)
/So, in 1990, I cranked up the word processor and submitted a thesis
statement to Wimsatt. I wrote:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:02:52 PM)
"CD holds: a. That the common ancestor existed, and thus that
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:03:16 PM)
b. All discontinuities between organic forms and systems are merely
apparent. c. Sufficiency of some causal process to generate forms."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:03:56 PM)
"If this analysis of CD is correct, then it is a philosophical
(& scientific) error to suppose that any evidence might count **against**
CD."
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
4:04:03 PM)
Paul could you repost "a."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:04:22 PM)
Sure. a. That the common ancestor existed, and thus that
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:04:59 PM)
"One can't falsify the FORM of a tree [if one assumes that such
an historical structure exists, irrespective of the actual evidence]."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:05:19 PM)
"If one assumes the truth of CD, one may look for particular causal
models and relationships within the strictures established by CD."
But there is no possibility of testing the theory itself. One presupposes
its truth, and then looks at nature. The testimony of nature, however,
does not flow back to challenge the theory.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:05:37 PM)
Let's call this the axiom thesis (as I later did in a 1993 discussion
paper with Jonathan Wells, available at the ARN web page).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:05:54 PM)
In my thesis statement to Wimsatt, I claimed that the axiom thesis explains
why unsolved puzzles like the Cambrian Explosion, or multiple genetic
codes, do not falsify CD. They can't. You simply can't falsify the FORM
of a tree, if you have assumed a priori that one exists, i.e., a single
phylogenetic Tree, or Darwin's great Tree of Life.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:06:33 PM)
And I had a personal communication from Richard Lewontin at Harvard,
one of Wimsatt's own mentors (with whom Bill did Drosophila populations
genetics in the early 1970s, at the University of Chicago) to back me
up.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:06:48 PM)
Lewontin wrote to me: "Let me sum up the materialist position on
evolution. We take it as given that
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:07:06 PM)
"1. living material arose from non living only once in the very
distant past, and when that happened for purely thermodynamic and quantum
mechanical reasons those living organisms have to be what we now call
'simple.' That is to say, they could not have looked even remotely like
a metazoan or a vascular plant."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:07:23 PM)
"2. Since that time because of the nature of living organisms themselves
who tend to eat up everything in sight, no further arising of life from
non life could work and, therefore, since that time we have the law
of all life from life."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:07:39 PM)
"3. There are many kinds of organisms on earth today which were
not here a couple of billion years ago, and many of the kinds of organisms
that were around a couple of billion years ago are not here anymore."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:07:55 PM)
"If you take all of these three things as givens, then evolution
follows as the night the day, that is, the kinds of organisms that are
here now that did not used to be here had to be the result of a continuous
chain of life from the first early simple life. That is what we mean
by evolution. All the rest is commentary."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:08:21 PM)
"Note that it is essential that one assert that no living organism
has arisen from non living since the early most rudimentary form. Also,
overlying all three principles is a general uniformitarian principle,
namely, that the rules have not changed in midstream." [end of
quote from Lewontin, personal communication]
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:08:44 PM)
Lewontin is right, of course. A single event of abiogenesis will yield
Darwin's Tree of Life (the monophyly of terrestrial organisms) as a
logical necessity.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:09:00 PM)
And one could find this same axiomatic interpretation of CD defended
by (for instance) Keith Stewart Thomson (now at Oxford, then at Yale),
or, more recently, by Kenneth Weiss of Penn State (see his article,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," in a recent issue
of Evolutionary Anthropology). Weiss argues that evolutionary theory
assumes what he calls “a point source” for all of terrestrial
life, as a genuine a priori standpoint. This assumption is simply not
up for grabs (i.e., testing).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:09:44 PM)
So: CD is an untestable axiom of biology (or so I thought). Happy with
my prize, and pleased that I had discovered yet another shortcoming
of evolutionary reasoning, I plunked it down on Wimsatt's desk, and
said, "I'd like to write my dissertation developing this thesis."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:10:15 PM)
But Wimsatt, and, shortly thereafter, also Leigh Van Valen, another
member of my Ph.D. committee, surprised me with their responses.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:10:33 PM)
I don't think CD IS an axiom, Wimsatt said. Far from it: it's a theory
that could well be false. Van Valen agreed.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:10:47 PM)
But how would we know this? That gave me the opening question for my
project: IF THE THEORY OF COMMON DESCENT WERE FALSE, HOW WOULD WE KNOW
IT?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:11:04 PM)
Why don't I pause here to see if anyone has any questions......
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
4:11:58 PM)
none here.
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:12:03 PM)
Fine here.
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:12:16 PM)
I'm ok..
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:12:50 PM)
Great - when you mentioned the FORM of a tree earlier where you referring
to the proposition that there IS just a TREE of life. But what the actual
tree looks like doesn't matter?.........
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:14:19 PM)
A point source, to use Weiss's term, is an abstraction. We don't really
need to say much about it, except that it was an organism capable of
leaving offspring. That's all Darwin assumed, BTW.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:15:10 PM)
Shall I go on?
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:15:12 PM)
A single origin?..........and then a tree (of whatever kind)
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:15:25 PM)
yes please......
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:16:34 PM)
I was reading Darwin's letters, and ran across a letter he sent to Asa
Gray in 1861. Gray had asked Darwin what would persuade the latter of
the divine design of life. We can leav the theology out here, however.
Darwin's reply is very interesting as it relates to CD.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:17:41 PM)
Darwin said, "If man was made of brass or iron and in no way connected
with any other organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced."
Now, why is this significant (despite Darwin debunking his own answer
a line later, by calling it "childish writing").
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:18:40 PM)
Well, Darwin's answer comports with the sober claim he made in the Origin,
which should be familiar to all of you from Behe's book: "If it
could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibley have been formed..." (etc., etc.)
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:19:06 PM)
Behe interprets this as referring to a test of the mechanism of natural
selection, and of course it does. But Darwin's point is really more
general.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:20:05 PM)
The only globally necessary condition for any evolutionary transition
is that it be POSSIBLE. In the mid 1960s, Crick and Orgel called this
"the Principle of Continuity."
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:20:56 PM)
Darwin understood that Common Descent (both taxonomically locally --
common descent of some particular group -- and terrestrially universally)
was tested by the Principle of Continuity.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:21:18 PM)
If CD violates this principle, it's false. Full stop.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:21:39 PM)
But there's a problem. The Principle of Continuity appeared to me to
be a toothless wonder.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:22:37 PM)
Let's take metazoan development as an example. No one has a clue how
cleavage stages, for instance, vary heritably. Funny story about this.
I asked Leigh Van Valen if he knew of any examples (in animals) of heritable
modifications to cleavage patterns.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:23:23 PM)
He said No. The only example he could give me (reversal of shell coiling
in gastropods) is, if you will, the classic exception that proves the
rule.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:23:44 PM)
Nor, at the time I was looking into the matter, did anyone understand
how variant genetic codes evolved.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:24:19 PM)
So why didn't these cases (metazoan development for the animals, and
variant codes for life as a whole) quality as violations of the Principle
of Continuity?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:24:48 PM)
Back I trotted to Bill Wimsatt. What explains the tenacity of CD in
the face of anomalous data? I asked.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:25:07 PM)
Well, Paul, he said, you've overlooked the larger context in which CD
is embedded.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:25:49 PM)
Most biologists see the origin of life as something very hard to get
going. They're not about to posit multiple origins of life to explain
puzzles like variant genetic codes.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:26:44 PM)
Here I sensed I was onto something. As you well know, most evolutionary
biologists say that CD and theories about abiogenesis have little if
anything to do with each other. Logically or evidentially.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:27:36 PM)
But, as Bill Wimsatt explained it to me -- and as I've since become
fully persuaded -- the two theories (CD and whatever one assumes about
abiogenesis) are as intimately connected as anything in science.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:27:47 PM)
OK -- pause for questions.
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:28:57 PM)
But many do posit multiple origins of life...
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:29:49 PM)
Now, yes. But that wasn't the case 10 years ago, nor is it the case
canonically (i.e., in terms of how the majority of evolutionary theory
is done).
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:30:07 PM)
ok.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:30:27 PM)
Paul - can you tell me when the "Principle of Continuity"
became a reality? Does it appear to you that Evo biologists will say
that it applies (to use something you typed earlier) except when it
doesn't?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:31:36 PM)
I've found many instances of the Principle of Continuity (let's shorten
it to PrC) being applied in ev bio. Is that what you're asking?
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:32:01 PM)
I was just wondering when did it become common usage?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:33:04 PM)
The earliest usage I can find is Crick 1968 (his paper on the origin
of the genetic code). The term itself and cognates are widespread in
the literature. The idea, of course, goes back to the 19th century.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:33:59 PM)
thanks
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:34:47 PM)
I have a question.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:34:50 PM)
PrC applies WHENEVER one posits a common descent relationship. You can
think of this like a parallel plane, lying behind any phylogenetic hypothesis,
and mirroring it exactly. If Biologist Jones claims that taxa A, B,
and C are related by cd (or CD), then PrC applies. And must be satisfied.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:34:57 PM)
Go for it, Jon.
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:35:36 PM)
What about fossil Hominids? What would you say on those supposedly actualy
transitions?
oneiric (ID=22) (Aug 8, 2002
4:37:22 PM)
(This user has entered Workshops) (IP = 138.89.158.21)
telic ontology (ID=21) (Aug
8, 2002 4:37:46 PM)
(This user has left DigiChat) (IP = 138.89.158.37)
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:39:57 PM)
I'm skeptical of the whole notion of a "transitional fossil."
Can you say more?
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:41:36 PM)
Kenyanthropus platyops, is one, and their are many more that are claimed
to be transitions between apes and humans. Basically, I was just wondering
if you could touch on that, if not, it's all right.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:45:19 PM)
I don't mean to reject your question. Fossils are data to be explained
by any theory of origins. But fossils don't tell us how evolution occurs,
and that's a prior question that I need to have answered before the
notion of a "transition" will make any sense to me. Think
about it this way. We'e known about Archeopteryx since the mid 19th
century. Do we know, in any detail, how feathers evolved from scales
(if they did)? No. I see no reason to draw causal links between extinct
taxa when I don't know what process linked them. Questions would be
begged left and right. In my view, fossils get way more respect than
they deserve.
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 4:46:06 PM)
Ok, thanks.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:46:30 PM)
More questions?
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:46:38 PM)
None here.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:48:10 PM)
Paul - can you tell me some more about your experience with other evo
biologists and how they have applied the PrC? - I'm a biologist at U
of MS and it seems that the PrC is quite important when making a more
general case for the mere possibility of transistions and the PrC should
apply to these new data but I have never seen any of my colleagues try
and take it up and stick with PrC - instead they go back to talking
in generalities about the existence of CD.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:50:29 PM)
Biologists use PrC to debunk phylogenetic hypotheses they disbelieve.
See, for instance, Jon Ruben's paper in Science a few years ago (I can
supply the ref later), where he said that birds couldn't have evolved
from dinosaurs because the transition would necessitate a diaphragmatic
hernia.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:51:22 PM)
Goldschmidt's ideas about saltations failed for nearly all neo-Darwinians
because they seemed flagrantly to violate PrC.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:51:50 PM)
So it's used in particular phylogenies but NOT ultimately CD?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:52:01 PM)
Keep your eyes open as you read the literature, and you'll see either
explicit or implicit applications of PrC.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:52:52 PM)
No -- it's being applied to CD as well. Woese's recent papers on the
polyphyly of terrestrial life (three aboriginal domains) use PrC, implicitly.
One can extract it pretty easily from the logic of his arguments.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:54:29 PM)
Here's the challenge that PrC poses to ev bio. We don't really know
how ANY significant evolutionary transitions occur. CD is held together,
not by knowledge of how major transitions were effected, but rather
by the improbability (as ev bios see it) of any other historical topology.
And that improbability rests entirely on their assumptions about the
likelihood of abiogenesis.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:55:32 PM)
I see now - In one sense I see the biologists using PrC but when the
chips are down and the PrC is violated it's not CD that gets unraveled......
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:56:44 PM)
Paul, is there more to your lecture, or is this the final Q&A?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:57:03 PM)
Well, I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure. When I started working
on CD, about 10 years ago, ev bio friends would treat my questions with
the polite embarrassment one usually reserves for folks who think Bacon
wrote the plays of Shakespeare. Now, however, polyphyletic theories
of evolution are popping up everywhere.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:58:08 PM)
Sorry, Tristan -- I could go on all day. There's a lot more to say (about
genetic codes, probability relationships, how PrC is fleshed out in
biological reasoning), but we're fast running out of time, and I wanted
you all to have a chance to ask questions.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:58:09 PM)
So the questioning of universal CD is not as unpopular as it once was?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
4:58:47 PM)
Here's a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two
or three years, if not sooner.
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 4:59:17 PM)
Another couple decades before the textbooks wake up...
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 4:59:40 PM)
Can you tell us something about your book "On Common Descent"
and when it may come out?
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:00:10 PM)
you won't have to.
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:00:14 PM)
sorry.
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:00:15 PM)
mistake.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:02:22 PM)
On Common Descent has five chapters. The first states the problem (if
CD were false, how would we know it?), and spells out why the origin
of life bears on this. Chapter Two deals with Darwin's understanding
of CD. Chapter Three treats the problem of "historical contingency,"
which is a glue that many evolutionists (e.g., Gould) use to fill in
the space between theory and observation. Chapter Four explains how
we can get PrC to do theoretical work for us -- mainly, to keep CD honest.
Chapter Five talks about the assumptions that underlie naturalistic
theories of abiogenesis, and closes the loop of the discussion begun
in Ch One.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:04:08 PM)
I've stopped giving publications dates for the monograph, because extensive
revisions over the past couple of years have caused me to miss so many.
If you want to send the editor, Leigh Van Valen, a note, you can reach
him at leigh@uchicago.edu Tell him you're wondering when Paul Nelson's
monograph is coming out. ;-) He'll say, Soon, I hope! Or something like
that. He's a great guy (it was his idea to publish the thing).
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:04:45 PM)
Sure, I've got acouple of minutes.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:05:01 PM)
Oops
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:05:14 PM)
Thank you Paul - I really appreciate your insights into this.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:06:09 PM)
Now I'll have something talk about with my evo colleagues.......
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:06:39 PM)
Well, there's lots more to say. My advice? Treat CD with respect (it's
a beautiful theory in many ways), but also remember that it's got to
come to the bar of observation just like anything else in science. Whatever
you do, don't accord it the status of an axiom.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:07:58 PM)
Point well taken.
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:08:15 PM)
Paul, could you make a few comments on the ID movement in general, where
you see it going, etc.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:09:51 PM)
ID is struggling to grow up. We need to move from what I call the "bag
of intuitions" stage to a real, testable theory. We need to make
some discoveries of our own. All this is possible, but stubborn courage
is needed.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:12:11 PM)
I've got an unshakeable optimism that ID is going to do great things.
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:13:59 PM)
There's a research meeting in Southern California, scheduled for October,
where this "how do we grow up" problem will be on the agenda.
I'll be there, as will Bill Dembski, Jed Macosko, Scott Minnich, Rick
Sternberg from the Smithsonian, and several others.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:14:00 PM)
Did you like Gould's new book?
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:14:59 PM)
Words, words, words. Gems of insight here and there. David Depew at
Cal State Fullerton told me it was longer than War and Peace.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:15:34 PM)
Any new book on the modern synthesis that you would recommend?
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:16:20 PM)
well, Paul, thanks for being with us today.
Tristan Abbey (ID=11) (Aug
8, 2002 5:16:26 PM)
Thanks Paul!
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:16:32 PM)
You'
Bart Dunlap (ID=16) (Aug
8, 2002 5:16:38 PM)
Thanks a lot, Paul!
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:16:44 PM)
oops -- you're welcome!
micah (ID=10) (Aug 8, 2002
5:16:46 PM)
It was a lot of fun.
David L. Rice III (ID=15)
(Aug 8, 2002 5:16:49 PM)
Thanks again
Jon Runyan (ID=17) (Aug 8,
2002 5:16:52 PM)
Thanks! Yes it was!
oneiric (ID=22) (Aug 8, 2002
5:16:56 PM)
thank you, paul
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002
5:17:10 PM)
The pitchers of beer, when we meet in person, are on me. |
