Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
A topic that probably causes among the most heated discussions on this blog is the attempt to either displace evolution from Public School Curriculum, or to at least give “intelligent design” equal footing to evolution. My own opinion is that “intelligent design”, or “Creationism” as some call it, has no place in our public school system. Those who would force it on our schools would be destroying the Constitutional separation of Church and State. We saw a blog post by Professor Turley a week ago discussing some crazy State Legislator in Missouri introducing a bill to teach “Creationism” as a scientific theory and to teach “Evolution” as a philosophy, almost all who commented were not only outraged, but some disparaged Missouri as a backward state. A few of the comments belittled religion in general. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/15/missouri-legislator-introduces-bill-to-teach-creationism-as-a-scientific-theory-and-to-teach-evolution-as-a-philosophy/ . Another blog post by Professor Turley in October 2012, about Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin brought a firestorm of angry comments, also disparaging Missouri. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/15/akin-disproves-evolution/#comments Interestingly this Conservative State voted for Todd Akin’s opponent when Election Day came around.
Earlier on April 1st, 2012 David Drumm (Nal) did a guest blog titled “The Evolutionary Gorilla in the Room” http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/01/the-evolutionary-gorilla-in-the-room/ and received almost 240 comments. Now in truth this was an excellent guest blog and certainly drew a lot of discussion. But as I perused the comments, all 238 of them, I noticed something that I think is worth discussing. More than half of the comments were between Gene Howington and Dredd as a continuance of their ongoing argument about Dredd’s microbial theories. I must admit that when it comes to the scientific aspects of biology, I tune out as quickly as Lawrence Rafferty does when Calculus is raised. Another long time regular Bron did have more than a few comments as he tried to insinuate Ayn Rand into the discussion as usual. J Now here is the interesting part, on all three of those blogs there was nary a voice raised in defending “intelligent design.” While here at the blog many of the usual suspects are hostile to organized religion, we do have more than a few “religious” people who drop by and comment. Given the tradition of contentious, yet “civil” discussion here how can that be? I think I have a possible answer to that coming from a study done at MIT, by a renowned Physicist and I must admit I found his answer surprising.
In a Huffington Post article dated 2/12/13 (Darwin’s birthday), Mark Tegmark, MIT Physicist, wrote this to begin his article titled: “Celebrating Darwin: Religion and Science Are closer Than You Think”:
“He looked really uneasy. I’d just finished giving my first lecture of 8.282, MIT’s freshman astronomy course, but this one student stayed behind in my classroom. He nervously explained that although he liked the subject, he worried that my teaching conflicted with his religion. I asked him what his religion was, and when I told him that it had officially declared there to be no conflict with Big Bang cosmology, something amazing happened: his anxiety just melted away right in front of my eyes! Poof!
This gave me the idea to start the MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, which we’re officially publishing today in honor of Charles Darwin’s 204th birthday. We found that only 11 percent of Americans belong to religions openly rejecting evolution or our Big Bang. So if someone you know has the same stressful predicament as my student, chances are that they can relax as well. To find out for sure, check out the infographic below.”
I frankly don’t know how I could present the “infographic” chart from the article because the technology is beyond me so I suggest you follow this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html and see it for yourself because I think it is of great interest to those, who like myself are nonplussed by the resurgence of religious Fundamentalism, The “infographic” is done as a circular chart that lists all the religions practiced in this country, their percentage of the population and each religious belief’s official view of Evolution. Only about 11% percent of the religious population of this country belong to faiths that are opposed to Evolution, For instance:
Catholics are 23.9% of the population and their official teachings see no conflict with Doctrine.
Methodists represent 6.1% of the population and feel evolution is “not inconsistent with religious doctrine.
Lutherans represent 4.6% of the population and of them only 1.4% (The Missouri Synod) are opposed to the theory of Evolution.
People with no Church affiliation represent 16.4% of the population and see no conflict.
Jews represent merely 1.7% of the population and 1.3% see no conflict with Evolution, while the other .4% have no official position on it.
There are conflicts between the various Baptist and Presbyterian Denominations, with some accepting Evolution and some rejecting it. Again please look at the chart at the link because I guarantee you will find it as absorbing as I did.
What are we to make of this data which demonstrates that of the various religious beliefs that make up our country, 89% seemingly have no religious conflict with Evolution? Yet Evolution has become a major issue. Professor Tegmark comments:
“So why is this small fundamentalist minority so influential? How can some politicians and school-board members get reelected even after claiming that our 14 billion-year-old universe might be only about 6,000 years old? “That’s like claiming that my 90-year-old aunt is only 20 minutes old. It’s tantamount to claiming that if you watch this video of a supernova explosion in the Centaurus A Galaxy about 10 million light-years away, you’re seeing something that never happened, because light from the explosion needs 10 million years to reach Earth. Why isn’t making such claims political suicide?
Part of the explanation may be a striking gap between Americans’ personal beliefs and the official views of the faiths to which they belong. Whereas only 11 percent belong to religions openly rejecting evolution, Gallup reports that 46 percent believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Why is this “belief gap” so large? Interestingly, this isn’t the only belief gap surrounding a science-religion controversy: whereas 0 percent of Americans belong to religions arguing that the Sun revolves around Earth, Gallup reports that as many as 18 percent nonetheless believe in this theory that used to be popular during the Middle Ages. This suggests that the belief gaps may have less to do with intellectual disputes and more to do with an epic failure of science education.”
Professor Tegmark’s is of the opinion that scientific education in America has been a failure and thus we have the gap between religious belief and science. I think his explanation is a rather middle of the road one and to that extent I disagree with him. The science education I received in elementary and high school was excellent, even if I was too lazy a student to study much. How much I do know scientifically and how much those peers of my age know is quite adequate. There has been a two pronged attack on our educational system that began in the late 60’s. A conscious effort to “dumb down” the people of America has been in effect since then to make them more pliable and easier to fool. The first part has been cutting funding and the second part has been attacking the curriculum. If you add to it the evolving of the Internet and the changes that has wrought, we see that it is not that the scientific education has failed, but the political support for it.
Most of us assume when we are told by someone that they are deeply religious and know their “bible” front to back, that they are truthful. I believe that in their hearts most feel they are being truthful, but their truth falls far short of reality. Many people don’t read their entire holy documents, but instead rely on their religious leaders to guide them as to what is “true” and what is important. We know that some religious leaders focus on what THEY think is important like The Book of Revelations and they don’t “preach” the Jesus who gave The Sermon on the Mount” I think there are many, like Professor Tegmark’s first year student who didn’t know just what his denomination believed about the Cosmos. This is not just true for Christians, but I believe it is true for Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s and Buddhists.
Another problem is our mainstream media plays a role in religious ignorance. I addressed this in July 2011. I was writing about the many TV documentaries being produced on networks like The History Channel and even ABC’s Primetime-Nightline which ran a series titled “Battle With the Devil”, a show that “investigates the belief in satanic will or possession by a demon”. Because the Religious Right in this country is so well funded, they speak with a loud voice. Our media, corporate controlled, fears anything that might hurt the bottom line, so they cater to those with the loud voices and the money behind them. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/23/fundamentalist-religion-and-tv-documentaries-a-problem/ What we see then is that a population if 11% in our country, that is working to force their silly, medieval beliefs onto all of us.
Two days ago Professor Tegmark followed up with a second Huffington Post article relating his experiences after he posted his first article. Here are some snippets from it:
“I’d been warned. A friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, I’d get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old. We posted it anyway, and the vitriolic responses poured in as predicted. But to my amazement, most of them didn’t come from religious people, but from angry atheists! I found this particularly remarkable since I’m not religious myself. I have three criticisms of these angry atheists:
1)They help religious fundamentalists:
A key point I wanted to make with our survey is that there are two interesting science-religion controversies: a) Between religion & atheism b) Between religious groups who do & don’t attack science
2)They could use more modesty:
If I’ve learned anything as a physicist, it’s how little we know with certainty. In terms of the ultimate nature of reality, we scientists are ontologically ignorant. For example, many respected physicists believe in the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which a fundamentally random process called “wavefunction collapse” occurs whenever you observe something. This interpretation has been criticized both for being anthropocentric (quantum godfather Niels Bohr famously argued that there’s no reality without observation) and for being vague (there’s no equation specifying when the purported collapse is supposed to happen, and there’s arguably no experimental evidence for it).
3)They should practice what they preach:
Most atheists advocate for replacing fundamentalism, superstition and intolerance by careful and thoughtful scientific discourse. Yet after we posted our survey report, ad hominem attacks abounded, and most of the caustic comments I got (including one from a fellow physics professor) revealed that their authors hadn’t even bothered reading the report they were criticizing. Just as it would be unfair to blame all religious people for what some fundamentalists do, I’m obviously not implying that all anti-religious people are mean-spirited or intolerant. However, I can’t help being struck by how some people on both the religious and anti-religious extremes of the spectrum share disturbing similarities in debating style.
Having watched the religious debates that go on here continually, I do think that Professor Tegmark has a valid point. Although I am a Deist, I have no affection for either organized religion, or for the “holy books” that make up their various canons. However, I have in my life experienced what I would call the ineffable, so I personally won’t preclude the fact that there is a “Creative Force” of some kind that drives this Universe. Please understand me in this, because as Tegmark saw even his peers criticized him far too quickly: Because I don’t preclude doesn’t mean I think there is one, I just won’t rule it out. From what I know of modern physics in its current fashion there is the belief that the Universe is a lot “weirder” than science at the beginning of the 20th Century imagined it to be.
While I understand that most of us are angry and fed up with those 11% who believe in something like Genesis, perhaps we should aim our fire directly at that group of benighted fools and accept that others might be more approachable. What do you think? As I finish this I have a vision in my head of having to duck, where do you think that comes from?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_laws
Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25]
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26]
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[27][28]
@dredd
> Ask Gene H what a law is, he is a lawyer
I was talking about scientific law.
@Another authority since you provide no backup link
I provided definitions. Do you want a link for every word I use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_laws
“Since Mike had other plans for this thread, I’ll shut up, now.”
Bob,
As my father used to say to me time and again in a bad Scottish accent “The best laid plans of mice and men aft gae aglee”, or something like that. The truth is that anyone who comments here is free to make any comment they want, off topic, or on topic. However, as is my nature I never hesitate to express myself openly. Dredd, who is a prolific and valuable contributor here, on occasion moves into using whatever topic is presented to advance his own beliefs/agenda. He is intelligent enough to somehow appear to tie his comments into the blog that began the thread, but the intent is to go his own way. I called him on it this time and also referenced when he did that on Nal’s
excellent blog mentioned way above, in the hope he would refrain here, which he didn’t. Lest it be said that I’m leaving my friend Gene out of this critique I hold him blameless, not simply because he is my friend, but because Dredd knows damn well that Gene will respond to this line and I think enjoys the instigation because it still draws attention to him.
I would never prevent anyone who comments to do just that and in fact once I, or any other guest blogger writes, something we have no right to control the thread that follows. That is in the tradition of this blog’s Proprietor Jonathan Turley, save for the demand that the debate remains relatively civil. When I started commenting here years ago Jonathan was struck by my honesty in revealing myself in my comments. When he asked me to guest blog I think it was in recognition of this is who I am. I speak my mind, even with people I like and express my feelings when they occur.
Mike Spindell 1, February 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“Perhaps you would care to lead the way in explaining “I forlornly hoped the thread would stick to the topic” … by perhaps clarifying what Evolution, Religion and Science is about if it isn’t about what has been commented on heretofore in this thread.”
Dredd,
As I stated in the comment you took umbrage with:
“It is the basis of where I was trying to go with this guest blog. Religious fervor opposed to science was the issue I aimed at, with the thought that some of the ire from the non religious (including myself), was being wasted on religion in general when it was a specific subset of religion that was the real target.”
And Dredd, I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe you didn’t understand that.
==================================================
“Religious fervor opposed to science”
That is exactly what I have been showing.
Religiously wrong ideas about evolution from those who think they know science but clearly do not.
They inject various kiddie games about what is logic and what is not rather than keep up with wonderful scientific discoveries that are unpresidented in the history of science.
I suggest that you list the topical discussion you expect at the bottom of future posts and use succinct and limiting titles.
In the prior post of “238 comments” I was the only one to comment that those who believe in God need not cut themselves off from science.
I made that statement to RWL who had been given short shrift otherwise.
Bigotry is sicko.
Indigo Jones 1, February 24, 2013 at 11:50 am
@dredd
The difference between hypothesis, theory and law isn’t a linear hierarchy like you identify.
Hypothesis is an experimental tool. Theory explains. Law describes.
They’re epistemologically distinct, not individual rungs on some scala naturae.
==================================================
Another authority since you provide no backup link.
Like Bob Kauten up-thread, you need to get a memo out to these misinformed folk:
(What Is a Hypothesis?). And you need to get a copy of your memo to these guys too:
(What is a Theory). I won’t go on into a law because one can only place two links in any one comment.
Ask Gene H what a law is, he is a lawyer. Demand a link though.
Bob Kauten 1, February 24, 2013 at 11:48 am
Dredd,
Viruses do not make DNA. They are incapable of that.
Their DNA only very rarely would be inserted into the host’s genome. Almost never.
Since Mike had other plans for this thread, I’ll shut up, now.
==================================================
Says you without a link to authority, suggesting you are an authority.
My quote upthread says:
Wikipedia states:
(Retrovirus). You should get a memo out to them right away so they can inject your authority as a quote negating the hundreds of virologists and microbiologists you have contradicted.
I am sure they will send you a thank you card.
“I have never indicated, as Gene H wrote, that viruses control or dominate anything.”
Bullshit, Dredd. That is an outright lie. More than one person has called you on that issue in the past and you perpetually hemmed and hawed, but now you want to change your story after many months of it being demonstrated that you simply don’t know what you are talking about – including the basics of biology. The word is “equivocate”. You have previously not only claimed that viruses are responsible for such things as religion and science, but that they literally practice religion and science as well indicating not only higher intelligence but the ability to plan. You have previously said that microorganisms are the dominate driver of natural selection and human behavior, perpetually whining about how genetics and environment just weren’t as important to natural selection. You were wrong but that was your story, Midi-chlorian boy. If you want to change your story now?
Be my guest.
“If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured.”
A blanket denial of your previous position has nothing to do with my alleged lack of imagination and everything to do with you being simply intellectually dishonest and unwilling to own your own previous arguments.
“But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.”
************
Bob K,
What! There is no Santa? Blasphemer!
And I mean that in the best way possible. 😀
************
Mike S.,
Considering that one of Dredd’s pet theories past is that microbial life is religious? I raise a toast to your dashed but probably precluded hopes.
************
Oro,
Good post. Interesting take on the nature of belief, disbelief and certainty. You are definitely on to something there, but I want to chew on it a bit. There may be a slight but distinct difference to being a polar “opposite” as compared to simply being “in opposition”, but I think the core contention has some meat on the bone.
Tegmark is an interesting guy. His mathematical universe hypothesis is a provocative hypothesis on the path to the theory of everything. You should consider looking into that as parts of his contentions there hinge upon both uncertainty and completeness. That his finding here indicates religion is not the problem so much as specific subsets of religion comports with the anecdotal evidence seen here over the years with you being a perfect example of someone who is religious but doesn’t allow dogma to trample fact or hinder understanding as compared to some of our other more dogmatically minded posters who occasionally want to tell us we are all going to Hell for not believing as they want us to believe. Is the problem an excess of fanaticism or a lack of reason in the individual? I submit it could be both.
@dredd
The difference between hypothesis, theory and law isn’t a linear hierarchy like you identify.
Hypothesis is an experimental tool. Theory explains. Law describes.
They’re epistemologically distinct, not individual rungs on some scala naturae.
Dredd,
Viruses do not make DNA. They are incapable of that.
Their DNA only very rarely would be inserted into the host’s genome. Almost never.
Since Mike had other plans for this thread, I’ll shut up, now.
Oro Lee 1, February 24, 2013 at 12:14 am
I’ve just spent nearly two entertaining hours (the links slow things down) reading every word of this comment and responses, even those of folks I usually skip over. Kudos to all.
Getting back to the original infographic, my denomination happens to have the longest red strip on the chart. Oh, well, my denomination is also known for folks not agreeing with each other.
There seems to be minor semantic games going on in some of the responses, the same sort of word games that are used by my denomination.
The most serious word game is equating a scientific “theory” to the common use of the word as meaning “hypothesis.” Sloppy wordsmanship makes for a sloppy argument.
=========================================================
Yes, the method in “science” is hypothesis, theory, then law.
For a hypothesis to move up to theory, there is often the requirement of a prediction based on the substance of the hypothesis itself.
Should that happen, a theory results, and the more it happens the stronger the theory.
When it is developed into general consensus it is called a law.
An example is Dollo’s Law, which basically says evolution cannot go “backwards,” it only goes “forward.”
The process is not a scientific as it should be, because there are times when politics moves a hypothesis or theory along in the absence of the requirements.
But why can’t religion follow suit?
Why can’t a believer in your denomination advance a hypothesis about this or that scripture?
Then make predictions based upon that hypothesis, and if it pans out, then call it a theory. With sufficient success, call it a law?
As an example, the mention of The Hittites were used by Bible skeptics to prove it was historically false.
Then The Hittite ruins were found.
A hypothesis by a person in your denomination could have been “the Hittite empire will be found”, perhaps even giving a general location.
If found, it would become a theory.
And so forth.
Mike S,
Evolution, Religion and Science is the post.
The discussion of methods of evolution does not preclude either creationists or evolutionists from describing “how it happened.”
Talking about why God did it this way, or why it just happened this way.
I have pointed out that neither side has explained the transmutation from the far greater episode of abiotic evolution that was dynamic for ~9.21 billion years prior to biotic evolution showing up, which has been a dynamic for only about ~3.54 billion years.
I can’t see ranting against “that group of benighted fools” unless we can coherently describe what it is we know or believe in that makes fools of them.
Perhaps you would care to lead the way in explaining “I forlornly hoped the thread would stick to the topic” … by perhaps clarifying what Evolution, Religion and Science is about if it isn’t about what has been commented on heretofore in this thread.
“Perhaps you would care to lead the way in explaining “I forlornly hoped the thread would stick to the topic” … by perhaps clarifying what Evolution, Religion and Science is about if it isn’t about what has been commented on heretofore in this thread.”
Dredd,
As I stated in the comment you took umbrage with:
“It is the basis of where I was trying to go with this guest blog. Religious fervor opposed to science was the issue I aimed at, with the thought that some of the ire from the non religious (including myself), was being wasted on religion in general when it was a specific subset of religion that was the real target.”
And Dredd, I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe you didn’t understand that.
“More than half of the comments were between Gene Howington and Dredd as a continuance of their ongoing argument about Dredd’s microbial theories.”
I had written this hoping to preclude another debate here because it seems I forlornly hoped the thread would stick to the topic. hope springs eternal, but ego trumps hope.
I apologize for the dropped “N’s” above, I was typing on my laptops deficient keyboard, when I should have used the excellent one Darren gave me.
I have never indicated, as Gene H wrote, that viruses control or dominate anything.
That is his imagination, or the lack thereof.
What I have done is quote scientists and papers where it is pointed out that “human genes” are only about 2% of the “human genome”, and that the other 98% is microbial.
Viruses are microbes that make up a smaller part of the human genome, but prokaryotic microbes make up the most of “the human” genome.
See Idealist707’s video of Dr. Bonnie Bassler up-thread explaining that fact, and also note:
(Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human DNA). Viruses are microbes that can make DNA, so one naturally wonders why it is not possible for them to have evolved prior to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, then they took part in the development of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells through genetic acid fabrication which became RNA then later DNA.
Since the early Earth was radically different, perhaps Dr. Löwdin was on to something with his proton tunneling, because he also pointed out:
(ibid, link up-thread). Domination and control are irrelevant.
“Getting back to the original infographic, my denomination happens to have the longest red strip on the chart. Oh, well, my denomination is also known for folks not agreeing with each other.
There seems to be minor semantic games going on in some of the responses, the same sort of word games that are used by my denomination.
The most serious word game is equating a scientific “theory” to the common use of the word as meaning “hypothesis.” Sloppy wordsmanship makes for a sloppy argument.”
Oro Lee,
I want to thank you for your last two comments. Long ago in my then incarnation of being a Union Leader “Wunderkind” I was known for my fiery, extemporaneous speeches which almost always garnered standing ovations and applause. I was 25 and for the first time in my life I had a large following. After the speeches though, aglow in my feeling of being so charismatic, people would congratulate me agreeing with points I hadn’t made and positions I hadn’t taken. In the miasmic glow of my own self-congratulation the seed of doubt began to spread. Was it the logic and truth of my argument, or was it just a knack for speakig in a way that people could project their own pre-judgments onto my points and feel comforted in the fact that we “agreed”. I came to realize that my forensic skill was that of beautiful voice, a comfort being on stage that projected ease, a large vocabulary that tended to obfuscate what I was trying to say, and pleasing good looks. Finally seeing the truth of the matter marked my end of political aspirations, because the issues were always more important to me than my ego. I am nothing if not passionate in my convictions and my ethics..
My thanks to you go for being the first to reference the excellent “infographic” which I had hoped people would study. It is the basis of where I was trying to go with this guest blog. Religious fervor opposed to science was the issue I aimed at, with the thought that some of the ire from the non religious (including myself), was being wasted on religion in general when it was a specific subset of religion that was the real target. This debate, which has plagued history has already been won, with the victory going to open minded people on both sides of the coin. This was Professor Tegmark’s point, as he showed in his “infographic” and in his original study which is also linked above. The enemies of reason are very specific ones that should be attacked specifically, lest they overturn the gains of the “Elightenment” which is their goal. In this struggle there are allies to be made from both non-religious and from religions themselves.
“I’m also pretty certain that without violating separation of church and state I could draw up a high school curriculum that incorporates the Bible (and all the other books of faith and the world’s great mythologies) with the result that every graduate would probably be a secular humanist — and by using current teaching practices.”
I’m sure you could ad were such a curriculum actually stad a chance of being implemented it would turn public education on end. The essence of education should be to teach logic and reasoning skill, with the courage to believe that most students who have learned those skills well would free themselves from dogma and “isms” of every kind. My efforts on this blog have one major focus and that is to try to show people how mythologies of various natures actually hinder the social evolution of humanity. By looking beyod the myths of common wisdom, some distant day we might actually establish a world worth living in. To paraphrase a more insightful musical philosopher than Keith Richards: “People may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”.
I believe, for I have seen the light, Charge on Dredd.
I saw on TV a beautiful (in eye and mind) intro to a botanical program.
It was part of a big circle, the cell? And streaming out from it were small particles. Was it intercellular “hormonal” signaling? Were they invitations to “predators” to come feed on a cell which will soon undergo apotopsis.
Tit for tat in terms of gene modification services or bacterial services.
The only problem compared with standard theory, is the frequency of modification, and the low success rate of mutated cells. and the danger of producing a life threatening mutation (cancer).
Tunneling, for those who don’t know, is a way of crossing an energy barrier without paying the price, simply said. A product of quantum physics.. Very useful in solid state devices. That it was important in biology was outside my field of study.
The Swedish scientist Löwdin (mentioned up-thread) talks about genetic material, e.g. DNA as if it is not alive.
It is a molecular structure that can be altered by abiotic quantum mechanical behavior, not just biotic behavior:
(“Proton Tunneling in DNA and its Biological Implications”, by Per-Olov Löwdin; Journal: Review of Modern Physics, Vol 35, No. 3, July 1963, , p. 732). This would be an interesting phenomenon in the virus first theory as applied to RNA diversity and horizontal genetic acid proliferation.
Gene H. 1, February 23, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Interesting quote considering you’re the one who keeps insisting that microbes, viruses and prions are the dominant force in evolution instead of recognizing that any form of symbiosis is simply another input into the matrix of probability that makes up natural selection. You bemoan control and yet seek to explain away parts of human nature by stating microbes, et al., are the most important influence on adaptive evolution.
================================================
There is some controversy about whether DNA is alive or not, as there is with various viruses, but there is growing evidence for a virus first evolutionary narrative:
(We Are Viral From the Beginning, emphasis added). Wanted dead or alive.
The Doors.
“Now is the end, my friend….” Music comes to mind unbidden.
Thanks to Bob Kaufen, Oro Lee and naturally all other commenters here who did a magnificent job. If I sound like an echo, then I am. Echo, a lovely classical Grecian tale.
Hope this blog’s comments come alive again. Like the sun rising. I have no beliefs, but hopes.