Posts Tagged ‘natural laws’

In 1943, published in a paper entitled “Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance,” microbiologist Salvador Luria, biophysicist Max Delbrück, and bacteriologist and geneticist Alfred Hershey discovered that mutations occur at a constant rate. In 1969, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine “for their discoveries concerning the replication mechanism and genetic structure of virus.”

The Luria-Delbrück Experiment opened the question, are mutations inherent to microbes for the purpose of adaption to rapidly changinging environments and not for evolution? While microbe resistance through mutation is a logical mechanism for evolution, the reality is the bacteria have remained a bacteria and the virus has remained a virus. Preexistent genetic variants determine the range of mutations. Pierre-Paul Grassé, president of the French Academy of Sciences, observed, “bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology … stabilized a billion years ago.”

The question is whether the mutations are the “raw material for evolution” or nature’s means for the microbes to adapt to the environment. In a 2009 review article by entitled “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, published in Nucleic Acid Research, Eugene V Koonin concluded, “There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity” through mutation as expected with current evolutionary theories. Mechanisms of evolution remain beyond any known natural law.

Reflecting on the role of mutations, Grassé questioned, “What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change?” Grassé concludes, “the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.” Microbes undergo constant mutations, but do not evolve – mutation stasis.

*Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 March; 37(4): 1011–1034 

In this series, we will explore the difference between philosophy and science and specifically how the Scientific Revolution developed from use of the scientific method and how Darwin was eventually aligned between these opposing approaches to discovering the laws of nature – starting with Copernicus.

 Copernicus, by taking careful measurements to gather evidence, demonstrated that the Earth was not the center of the universe – rather, the Earth revolves around the sun. What made the key elemental difference was - the evidence. The evidence contradicted Aristotelian logic that had even crept into the Roman Catholic Church. The Scientific Revolution developed in concert along with a larger movement known as the Age of Enlightenment. In part, the movement was seeking to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church, which by the sixteenth century had even embraced Aristotle’s geocentric worldview.

 Driven to understand the universe as an act of the Creator, Copernicus wrote -  

 “The mechanisms of the universe, wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator… the system best and most orderly artist of all framed for our sake.”

 Copernicus died in 1543 almost immediately after publishing his findings in the epochal book entitled On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.

 While Copernicus’ escaped Roman Catholic Church rule, Galileo after confirming Copernicus’ findings was found guilty of “heresy” by the Inquisition in 1632. Thereafter, Galileo spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest.

 Isaac Newton, after studying the evidence later in the eighteenth century, verified Copernicus’ and Galileo’s findings by using the scientific method. Newton is also known for discovering the laws of motion and gravity. When scientists at Britain’s Royal Society were asked in 2005 about who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein – the vote went to Newton.

 The question is – what made the Scientific Revolution a revolution? The answer is – the system of reasoning. Aristotle logic was based on deductive reasoning. The Scientific Revolution was based on inductive reasoning.

 We will be exploring these differences in this series of blogs. What do you think is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Is the difference important?