From the magazine that proclaimed that "Infinite Earths in parallel universes really exist" we now learn the evolutionary biology is one of the "findings of science." [1] Scientific American is now sounding more like Scientific Rationalism, given the deep metaphysics entailed in these claims. What we need is a correction back to empiricism. Let's follow the data rather than force fit them into our preconceived axioms.
The problem that Francis Bacon had with Aristotelianism was that it was, in the minds of the Aristotelians, the preconceived truth into which all evidence must fit. The sixteenth century science Bacon learned was force-fit, no matter how awkwardly, into the Aristotelian paradigm of the day. Sound familiar?
When high-performance engineering designs are discovered in organisms, they are said to be a consequence of selection pressure. When a preprogrammed adaptation machine is discovered in the cell, that is said to be microevolution in action. When a code is discovered within the cell, that is said to have resulted from a frozen accident. When it is found that the modern cell must have arisen rapidly, that is said to be a result of chemical evolution. When common designs are found in distant species they are said to have arisen via convergent evolution. When new designs arise abruptly in the fossil record that is said to be a saltation event. When species remain unchanged for eons it is said to be a demonstration of punctuated equilibrium.
These and other explanatory devices allow for just about any finding to be wedged somewhere into the evolutionary story. With gene duplication, deletion, the so-called gene death-and-birth process, genetic exchange, concerted evolution, parallel evolution, gene conversion, convergence, divergence, neutral evolution, selection and so many other devices there is seemingly no end to the possibilities.
What genetic pattern cannot be explained? Consider the following pattern. Genes are found across a wide spectrum of species, but the gene sequences are too different to have an evolutionary relationship except in a few groupings within the spectrum of species. [2] It sure isn't what evolutionists had in mind but, then again, with enough repeated, independent, gene duplication events anything can happen. Seems unlikely, but then again maybe this is just a parallel universe.
1. "Perspectives," Scientific American, October 2006.
2 MHC class I genes, see: M. Yeager, S. Kumar, A. Hughes, "Sequence Convergence in the Peptide-Binding Region of Primate and Rodent MHC Class Ib Molecules," Mol Biol Evol, 14:1035-1041, 1997.
