Mass extinction as acceleration: Chapter 3 of From Extraterrestrials to Animal Minds

If you read about natural history, even just popular accounts, you know about the epic mass extinctions visited on the living world throughout life's tenure on Earth. Words like 'devastating' and 'catastrophic' barely capture their scale—the most thorough purge is called The Great Dying and extinguished at least 95% of the species on the planet. And this isn't just animals dying. It's whole lineages dying. As our host writes, these things are "extremely nasty and most definitely to be avoided."

It's tempting to picture these epochs as the erasure of worlds, with new worlds taking their place. Lots of death means lots of vacant niches means lots of opportunity, for animal lineages to expand and diversify, and for humans to weave gripping tales of fortune and fate. Or even myths. If, like me, you read this book to learn about myths of evolution, you had to slog through two chapters of chaos and blather to get to something that finally resembles one.

The third myth in From Extraterrestrials to Animal Minds: Six Myths of Evolution by Simon Conway Morris, the subject of Chapter 3, is "The Myth of Mass Extinctions." The chapter is long and detailed, clogged with taxonomic jargon in places, sparkling with typical mischief in others. (Page 76: "Not for a moment am I suggesting that the early Triassic is a preferred destination for the time traveler. Your tour group would be greeted by shocking scenes, but the cognoscenti would see which way the wind was blowing.") By now we know we have to ask: what exactly is the myth? Conway Morris isn't questioning the occurrence of mass extinctions, nor does he doubt their apocalyptic power. He's attacking a somewhat specific view of their effects on the biosphere.

Confusion and convergence, but no "myth of randomness." Chapter 2 of From Extraterrestrials to Animal Minds

The concept of randomness is caught up in evolution, in two broad ways. The first and most famous aspect is the oft-misunderstood randomness of mutation. The second aspect is the role of chance in the trajectory of evolution. It is this question—is evolution predictable, or is it a random "drunkard's walk"—that Conway Morris tackles in the second chapter of From Extraterrestrials to Animal Minds: Six Myths of Evolution. The chapter is called "The Myth of Randomness."

The chapter is a chaotic mess and ends without a clear argument, much less a convincing one. Conway Morris wants to tip the scales away from "randomness" and toward "cyclicity." From the second paragraph of the chapter (page 43):

Although through geological time increasing degrees of biological complexity and integration are undeniably the case, superimposed on this is an intriguing cyclicity: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It transpires that evolutionary history is very far from random.

Rincon Mountain Wilderness

Like he did in Chapter 1, Conway Morris takes a profoundly interesting, long-standing question in science, a question that currently inspires brilliant writing and experimentation by evolutionary biologists, and paints one of the possibilities as a "myth." Like he did in Chapter 1, he erects a strawperson. Unlike in Chapter 1, the strawperson is not a laughable nonexistent entity but instead a fuzzy caricature of a major factor in evolutionary history—the combination of chance and contingency. Fortunately, unlike in Chapter 1, Conway Morris provides a poorly integrated amalgam that few laypeople will understand. Thus, even those inclined to cheer the immolation of the strawperson will find little more than stuff like this (p. 56): "The clear implication is that beneath these entirely plausible factors there are deeper organizational principles at work and of which we know very little at present." That sentence is typical of the chapter, which reaches its nadir at an invocation of "particle physics or the periodic table" as evidence that physicists embrace the notion of "a deeper order of the world" while biologists struggle to do the same. In his ardor to preach on these "deeper" things, Conway Morris obscures the grandness of the question and at times distorts what working scientists know and do. It was on finishing this chapter, a few weeks ago, that I regretted buying and reading the book.

Weekly sampler 23

Okay, so not really weekly.

1. John Farrell has an interesting discussion of protein folding as a problem or challenge for evolutionary theory. His post includes quotes from experts with whom he has corresponded, and he cites the primary literature. (You know, peer-reviewed research articles written by people who are actually trying to understand the biochemistry of an early earth.) Here he's quoting Nick Matzke:

Even the very first polypeptides were pretty certainly not assembled all-at-once-from-scratch from a pool of 20+ kinds of amino acids in even proportions, in D- and L-form, as creationists and various beknighted physicists blithely assume. Probably the first time a proto-tRNA grabbed an amino acid and made a short chain, the chain was composed of glycine and few common hydrophobic amino acids and was quite short. Cavalier-Smith (2001) suggests that the original function may have just been a hydrophobic tail for association with a membrane. All of the improbability statistics are irrelevant in this sort of scenario, chirality isn't an issue, etc.

Let's go with 'benighted' lest anyone confuse an ignoramus in Glendora, California with, say, Sir John Polkinghorne.

2. I never really finished my junk DNA series, but there's still work to be done: falsehoods about non-coding DNA are beyond rampant. Recently at Adaptive Complexity, Michael White scored a direct hit on one of the major issues in this bogus controversy, and as usual it's a basic scientific principle (in this case, the concept of a null hypothesis). His post is required reading for those interested in any aspect of evolutionary genetics and especially those who have seen the standard genomic arguments of intelligent design creationists. Hat tip: Sandwalk.

3. Christians (and others) will find ThinkChristian.net interesting and provocative. I'll be writing there regularly starting this month. About science. And stuff.

4. Alister McGrath on Augustine on Darwin. His (very) basic point is a good one and he equivocates at the right times. But he seems to be allergic to randomness. After mentioning Augustine's emphasis on "divinely embedded causalities," he claims that "Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation." More specifically, McGrath explores notions in Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis that sound like ideas from a thoughtful design advocate. (Ideas, I'll add, that were articulated just as well by Howard Van Till in a slightly different context.) But, like most design proponents, he inveighs against randomness and then identifies it with Darwin:

Augustine would have rejected any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason, Augustine would have opposed the Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God's providence is deeply involved throughout. The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random.

I wonder if McGrath has thought hard about this. He may be right about Augustine, but I think it's a mistake to take such a hard line against "random variations." Why do so many people think that "embedded causality" is inconsistent with "random variation"? I don't get it.

5. And speaking of randomness, our reading group ("Random Readers") recently tackled some articles on determinism and evolutionary theory. We focused on a paper by Roberta Millstein titled "How Not to Argue for the Indeterminism of Evolution: A Look at Two Recent Attempts to Settle the Issue.” The "attempts to settle the issue" were responses to a paper that Millstein describes as a "full fledged defense of evolutionary indeterminism" that put the debate over evolutionary determinism "into high gear." That paper is "The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No 'No Hidden Variables' Proof But No Room for Determinism Either" by Robert N. Brandon and Scott Carson. Wait, Scott Carson? Yes, the same Scott Carson who writes one of the blogs I regularly follow: An Examined Life.

6. An answer to the famous question, "What is it like to be a bat?" Hat tip: Very Short List.

Weekly sampler 21

Well, it's the first sampler since June, but I won't try to make up for lost time.

1. Todd Wood has started a blog, and it's excellent. His slant is unique -- he's a young-earth creationist -- but his writing is superb and his expertise in genetics and genomics is world-class. My favorite entry so far: a commentary on a recent report describing genetic variation among humans. The most recent post deals with the principle of accommodation and one of its Enlightenment defenders, one John Wilkins. Todd hasn't activated comments, so expect a journal and not a conversation. But have a look, and consider the gigantic difference between Todd's work and Mike Behe's. There's just no comparison, and Todd is an example of why one should not grant respect based solely on someone's willingness to accept an ancient universe or universal common descent.

2. Okay, best segue ever. Speaking of John Wilkins, Evolving Thoughts (a blog at ScienceBlogs run by a philosopher of biology) has some very interesting recent posts defending "theistic evolutionists" like me. Back in September, he discussed "Darwin, God and chance" and concluded:

Why does this matter beyond a bit of mental gymnastics, especially since I am not a theist? Well it has one rather significant implication: it means that those who criticise theistic evolutionists (like Asa Gray) for being inconsistent or incoherent are wrong: it is entirely possible to hold that God is not interventionist, and yet hold that God desired the outcomes, or some outcomes, of the world as created. In simpler terms, there's nothing formally wrong with believing the two following things: 1, that God made the world according to a design or desired goal or set of goals; and 2, that everything that occurs, occurs according to the laws of nature (secondary causes). In other words, it suggests that natural selection is quite consistent with theism, solving a problem I discussed earlier.

Read the whole post to see how he arrived at this conclusion, and don't miss the work of his collaborator, one Phil Dowe. More recently, Wilkins has summarized the "theistic evolution" position as he sees it, and reiterated his contention that the position is not incoherent. (Well, duh, but there are plenty of axe-grinding nitwits who assert just that.) I'll discuss these ideas in a separate post soon; in the meantime, pay Wilkins a visit.

3. Steve Martin's blog An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution has become the blogospheric world headquarters for multilateral discussion of evangelical approaches to the theological understanding of evolution. The most recent series tackled questions of evolution and original sin, centered on an article by George Murphy and featuring responses by Terry Gray, Denis Lamoureux and David Congdon. Congdon's blog, The Fire and the Rose, is one of my favorites.

Left, the human eye as sketched by Descartes. Right, the eye of a fruit fly as revealed by scanning electron microscopy. Courtesy of Wellcome Images, Creative Commons license.

4. The most recent issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is devoted to the evolution of eyes. And it's all free. Includes an introduction by Ryan Gregory, who also points us to an issue of The Lancet that focuses on evolution. Sheesh, is there some kind of anniversary coming up? :-)

5. Illusions of various kinds are something of a hobby of mine. Hence my interest in an online collection of kinetic optical illusions at Scientific American (meaning that the images produce an illusion of movement). Something else that's cool about the collection: some of the illusions were created (or discovered) by Donald MacKay, a Christian neuroscientist who has influenced me and many of my colleagues through his vigorous and uncompromising approach to the relationship between science and Christian faith. (We read part of his Science, Chance and Providence in our randomness reading group.) Make sure you look at the third image -- it's the infamous Enigma illusion.

6. Here's another kind of illusion that is interesting and informative: synesthesia, in which a perception (such as smell or color) becomes associated with a seemingly unrelated experience (a number or a different sensation). V.S. Ramachandran devoted one of his Reith Lectures to this phenomenon, which he described as "mingling of the senses." A new report describes a new version: touch-emotion synesthesia, in which certain textures evoke particular emotions. The proposed explanation for how these peculiarities is worth a look, too.

7. Using bumps in the road to make music. It'll be a clue in National Treasure 3, you just wait. Note that this link comes courtesy of Very Short List, which is a delight.

8. Deb and Loran Haarsma's excellent book Origins got a nice review at the Reports of the NCSE. I'll write one of my own sometime this spring. When the next issue of RNCSE goes online, I hope it will include my review of Gordon Glover's Beyond the Firmament.

9. The most recent (January 2009) issue of Scientific American is all about evolution. Larry Moran has some typically excellent comments over at Sandwalk, addressing pop evolutionary psychology [gag], testing natural selection, and why everyone should learn evolution.

10. Now off to enjoy one of our family's holiday traditions, this time with a mix of Scotch and rum.

And we're back!

Okay, wow, that was a long hiatus. I can explain, really I can. Here's a report on my activities in the last six weeks.

1. I wandered into Telic Thoughts in search of intelligent intelligent design advocates. It went okay -- there was real discussion (because TT actually wants dialogue) but it was painfully difficult to get through some major misconceptions (created by Michael Behe). The painful part was in the thread called Behe's Test, Take 2, in which some of us tried to explain the relevance of some recent work on bacterial antibiotic resistance to "Darwinian" evolution. I'll repost one of my contributions here soon.

2. Some months ago, after hearing Richard Colling give a talk at Calvin (on his ideas set forth in his book Random Designer) my colleague and friend Randy Pruim (of the mathematics and statistics department) and I decided we should get some people together to get serious about this whole question of randomness and God's action. We got a grant from the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship to fund a yearlong reading group. We've met once already, and it was a blast. I'll separately post on our activities and ideas and my thoughts. Randy, by the way, is also the director of our new HHMI-funded Integrated Science Research Institute (ISRI), and he's devoted a page to our reading group, affectionately known as Random Readers.

3. My blogging buddy over at Clashing Culture, Mike Haubrich, had me as a guest on his cool radio show (Atheists Talk) in the Twin Cities. The subject was "Defending Theistic Evolution," broadcast October 5. It was fun, and I even took an email question from PZ Myers. (Well, it was more like the abstract of a dissertation than a radio show question, but maybe Mike will have me back and we can talk longer.) Some of the questions we discussed:

• How do you separate your science from your belief?
• What is your take on theistic evolution?
• Were humans the goal of creation?
• "All of the facets that shape evolution involve lots of cruelty and pain only partially tempered by the joy of sex. I have trouble reconciling a loving God with what we know about evolution. How do you defend this view of evolution?"

You can listen to the interview at the Atheists Talk page.

4. I'm not the only one who was dumb enough to think that Uncommon Descent is a place where people might be able to intelligently discuss evolution, design and faith; Ted Davis made the same mistake (and I do think we were mistaken to go there in the first place). Last month, Ted engaged in an interesting discussion there, for a time, with two other commenters, going by the names of Jack Krebs and Timaeus. They were soon all banned, because Uncommon Descent is not, and does not pretend to be, a place where thoughtful adults hold discussions. But Ted persuaded Timaeus to come to the ASA email list instead, for the purpose of examining and addressing the perceived animus held by "theistic evolutionists" toward ID proponents. (Note: if you follow any of the links to read Timaeus' posts, you'll see a lot of odd characters, which result from the unwise use of Microsoft Word (!) to compose email.)

The conversation began about 3 weeks ago, and peaked about a week and a half later. It's not over, but everyone seems to be taking a breather. I would say that it's going better now than it did at first, though it still seems that Timaeus (a defender of ID) is not able to understand the reasons why Christians like me can see no good reason to suppose that Darwin's theory is inherently or necessarily atheistic or a-teleological. Timaeus is (by his own admission) a non-scientist, and it shows when he mentions evolutionary theory or quotes the usual ID suspects. (He repeats the "Darwinists never studied non-coding DNA" myth, and is unjustifiably impressed by Denton, Behe and even Egnor.) He has a penchant for propagandistic rhetoric, exacerbated by his shallow understanding of the science that is misused by ID apologists. At first, I thought it was pretty clear that he had come to the ASA to argue for ID, and not to listen to the responses of people who have thought about all of this before. And it's still not apparent that Timaeus understands or respects the evolutionary creation position, or that he finds any significant value in listening to what knowledgeable scientists say about ID proposals. But the last few exchanges have been quite a bit better. When the subject is just plain design, and not science or religion, actual dialogue seems to happen, and we're currently discussing Del Ratzsch's work on the nature of design and the marks it might leave.

Talking to ID apologists about design itself is hard enough without all the pollution of anti-science propaganda and theological incompetence. But maybe there can be some progress, at least toward peaceful coexistence of Christians who do and don't prefer certain types of explanation. So watch for updates on the Random Readers, and I'll post any further discussion with Timaeus here.