Evolgen links to a Michael Lynch letter to Nature where he tackles the “issue” of Intelligent Design. RPM echoes Lynch, noting:
it should be made clear that evolutionary biology (specifically evolutionary genetics) is one of the most quantitative fields in biology, and evolutionary biology is not a “soft science.”
Of course, math doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is a bon afide “hard science” (see economics),1 but evolutionary biologists rely both on ecological observation and experimental breeding to test and explore their theoretical models (not to mention the genomic revolution, etc.). Where molecular biology is a “hard science” because of its relentless empirical reductionism, evolutionary biology is a duet of theory and data in the best tradition of science. I have asserted before that emphasizing natural history2 (morphological change) over the underlying processes (selection, drift, mutation, etc.) tends to skew public perceptions about evolutionary theory, and leaves it as a “just-so” hypothesis in the minds of many. My suggestion was that a more thorough, or at least transparent, grounding in microevolution to compliment macroevolution would reminds the public of the real processes that drive evolution as opposed to the flashy outcomes (flashy when evaluated over geological time scales). Perhaps there would be fewer demands to see “speciations involving gross body plan alternations in a few generations.” The fact is that microevolution and macroevolution are on a continuous spectrum and the separation of one from the other is an artificial human construct. Even “pluralists” who argue for multi-level selection would probably concede the artificiality of any attempt to erect a high wall between the two levels of study. Macroevolution and microevolution kiss each other at the level of the species, and it can be argued that species are the only “real” taxonomic category in the Linnean system, yet even its bounds and definitions are subject to dispute. Though most Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents admit the reality of microevolution, it is too often an afterthought, and concepts like speciation get decoupled from the genetical dynamics which undergird differentiation (for example, the genetic divergence that occurs after geographical isolation, and the possible incompabilities that emerge out of disparate genetic backgrounds).
RPM offers that even the Hardy-Weinberg equation is hard going for many undergraduate biology majors. This is fair enough, but life is often easier when you don’t derive anything and simply offer a few basic formulae to illustrate general concepts. So I am thinking the Hardy-Weinberg equation, the breeder’s equation or one of the equations that gives one a sense of the power of random genetic drift. Students today are primed to memorize rather than understand equations, but even the minimal consciousness of the quantitative structure holding up the squishy semantically amorphous concepts would likely be beneficial.
1 – Fisher and Haldane received their bachelor’s in mathematics. J.M. Smith was trained as an engineer. Richard Lewontin has a master’s degree in mathematical statistics. Also, on the point about economics, I do not mean to imply that it is not difficult, rather, I mean to imply that there are difficulties with testing economic theories. In many ways microeconomics and microevolution are sister disciplines, but natural scientists can test their models on worms and bacteria.
2 – I do not mean to minimize Natural History. Many evolutionary biologists would not be evolutionary biologists if it were not for Natural History, just as many physicists would not be physicists were it not for Astronomy. The key is that the grand questions and panoramic vistas offered by these historical and sensorally rich disciplines must often be explored via more reductionistic methods. Since I have stated that science ~ method, it makes good sense that the public should be more aware of the existence and importance of the methodological (technical) disciplines.
Posted by razib at 12:30 PM