Let us start with Ann. Nearly all her critique is addressed already here: Cancer and Evolutionary Theory - #19 by Swamidass. Until that “response” is answered, it really makes no sense to engage again. If that is what she wants, she can either respond directly to all those points, or retracts the clear errors she has made. I would honestly welcome and respect a retraction. To that I would add @benkirk’s post,
Of course, she is not obligated to respond, and I do not expect continued engagement right now. But until there is a semblance of actually engaging the scientific details, it is hard to take her articles as a legitimate scientific critique. Of course, the comic book critique of cancer biology is pretty funny, but also embarrassing for DI (and anyone else who might make it). I am not taking that is a legitimate scientific point.
==============
About Wells, I quoted him accurately with a link:
TOPS then explicitly rejects several implications of Darwinian evolution.
These include: (1a) The implication that living things are best understood from
the bottom up, in terms of their molecular constituents. (1b) The implications
that DNA mutations are the raw materials of macroevolution, that embryo
development is controlled by a genetic program, that cancer is a genetic disease,
etc. (1c) The implication that many features of living things are useless vestiges
of random processes, so it is a waste of time to inquire into their functions.
Finally, TOPS assumes as a working hypothesis that various implications
of ID are true. These include: (2a) The implication that living things are best
understood from the top down, as irreducibly complex organic wholes. (2b) The
implications that DNA mutations do not lead to macroevolution, that the
developmental program of an embryo is not reducible to its DNA, that cancer
originates in higher structural features of the cell rather than in its DNA, etc. (2c)
The implication that all features of living things should be presumed to have a
function until proven otherwise, and that reverse engineering is the best way to
understand them.
Then added this addendum…
[Note: apparently,Wells complains that this quote is taken out of context. Rather than getting into a protracted debate about what he has and has not said about this (see for example http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html) I’ll take him at his word that some how what he wrote here is not what he meant. I thought I was representing him accurately, but apparently I was not. Sorry.]
I can take Wells at his word that he thinks that mutations cause cancer. Though he has a great deal of explaining to do for this all to make sense. He writes in From Joshua Swamidass, a Gratuitous Drive-by Hit | Evolution News
My view (then as now) is that cancer cells contain hundreds or thousands of genetic mutations, which contribute substantially to the progression of the disease, but that cancer does not begin (as DNA reductionists claim) with an accumulation of single mutations
I would point out that this is not what the vast majority of the field believes. If that is his position fine. But that also flies in the face of what we know of cancer biology.
My best guess as to what is going on here is that we think that cancer develops like: mutational cause → mutations → cancer. I think Wells is saying that “centrosome turbine malfunction → chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Now, it is possible that in some cancers “chromosomal instability (a mutational cause) → mutations → cancer.” Though I know of no case where centrosome turbine malfunction (Wells’s pet ID theory) is remotely taken seriously. Please show me links to people that agree. Moreover, it is very clear that many cancers do not have chromosomal instability (so that is not a universal mechanism).
So while I am happy to take Wells’s at his word that he thinks mutations are important in cancer, the fact remains:
His written work (including the most recent article) seems to argue that ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology. Moreover, I am not the first to notice this; Well’s understanding of ID and cancer is well known: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/thats_another_f.html. If he does not think this is a correct representation of his work, I would love to hear either (1) which parts of his published work he will retract, or (2) how exactly his understanding of cancer is just a non-consequential restatement of the dominant paradigm: that cancer is driven by mutational changes (that can be caused by a whole host of different mutational forces). If he cannot do this, I’m not sure at all what is objection is to me stating that he argues: “ID requires a totally different understanding of cancer than we currently have in biology.”
Now, if Dr. Wells does read this, I hope he is not offended. This is my best attempt to explain his position. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am, I am not the only one confused by his position. I would love for him to explain himself.
In this particular exchange, I do not think ENV’s goal was careful dialogue about science. So it is not surprising if he does not engage. No hard feelings, and I wish him the best.