This is topic Comment on Card's ID article: Evidence for evolution of new species? in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003975

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
I just read Card's article on Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Rhino Times http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142. I found it to be insightful and his approach of "science as story" to be a marvelous way of framing the issue at hand. However, I do question one thing. He says that evolution is obviously taking place.

I can certainly see natural selection occurring in all sorts of situations. We can see it all over in the ranching and agriculture industry. The natural input from the environment is simply human consumption and the breeding programs (one predator selecting for various traits). We see it when new foreign species are introduced into habitats. I know there are many fruit fly experiments where we've reproduced it. So I don't question the phenomenon of natural selection. We can observe it.

However, it seems all our observations are limited to selection within a species. Have we ever observed natural selection leading to a new species? I'm using the Mayr definition that species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

It seems to me that it's important to divide a theory into the phenomena and the story. The phenomena in this case are (a) natural selection, (b) variation within a species, (c) many species with similar characteristics, (d) fossil records of organisms that are similar to but not a fit for current species. (Are there others I'm missing?)

But have we observed the creation of new species?

If not, then it seems to me that the idea of "common ancestors" and "evolution of new species" is part of the theory (the story) but not the phenomena it tries to explain.

Can anyone point me to this evidence or confirm it doesn't exist?

[ January 17, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: johnbrown ]
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Just an add on. I know there are fossils of creatures with characteristics similar to current species. But we have that same situation today. There are many primates, for example. They can't breed. Many go extinct. But they're not of the same species and did not evolve in current history from one to the other. If someone in the future were to find the bones of today's gorilla all they've found is a snapshot. The couldn't tell where it came from or if it came from the same ancestor as a human. Although we certainly can postulate a theory that seems to account for it. I'm asking for the observation of the creation of a new species. A phenomenon we can observe.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Ooooh, that last article is a good one. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to take some time to digest.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
You may find this article illuminating as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 

---

Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
name-calling, credentialism, expertism, sniping, politics, prestidigitation, true: I'm sure anyone could have a conversation using only these words (only one person could do it though), and how fun would it be? Plus, the first 6 are all substitutes for my favourite word; copout, and the seventh is my second favourite word. I love this list!
 

---

Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
 
I thought OSC wrote an excellent essay on ID/evolution. A few points that I thought were particularly good: he referenced the fact that the Darwinists/Evolutionists have faith in what they believe - people are often afraid of the word "faith," thinking that it implies that they are religious people; he referenced the fact that there is, in fact, a lot of biological evidence of evolution - something Christians are afraid to admit; he notes that evolution is an example of a theory based off what we know now - science could be drastically wrong about something, but from what we know, we get the model of evolution; the big one... God created the laws of nature and created life in accordance with those laws as they are, not just what we know now - he created it perfectly in truly infinite knowledge and power, which is impossible to comprehend or completely understand with finite minds.

Here's my slam-dunk point about Creation/Evolution: it doesn't matter. There is so much more important stuff in the Bible than that. Yes, science is fun and it's important to know how things work, but there is so, SO much more important stuff than that.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Noemon, wonderful article. Thanks.

Here's the next question. Do we have observation of the evolution of a species into new genus? Is this something observed as well? Or would this be where the story/theory begins?
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
Disclaimer: I'm a college student about to complete a degree in biology, and have studied both molecular-level biology as well as evolutionary biology. Take from that what you will.

While I think OSC makes some good points regarding the near-religious fervor of many adherents of Darwinian theory, he resorts to many of the same strategies as those he denigrates. I have very rarely encountered a biochemist or molecular biologist who, while engaged in a debate about evolutionism, attempted to bypass a serious explanation with "it's too complex for you to understand" or "I have a PhD, so shut up"- and those who do are viewed with distaste by their own colleagues. To say that the automatic Darwinist response to a serious inquiry is obfuscation and credentialism is a straw man that ignores the many arguments made on websites such as Talk.Origins based on real science, including cutting-edge research in genetics and biochemistry.

The scientific community is not attempting to enthrone Darwin. Go to any college-level evolution course, and you'll see the instructors point out errors in "The Origin of Species" as often as physicists state that Newtonian mechanics is obsolete. Biologists are perfectly aware that pure Darwinism was only the first step towards the modern theory of evolution, just as Mendelian genetics only accounts for the phenotypes resulting from the simplest of genetic systems. Based on my own experiences, the reasons that Darwin has more name recognition than Mendel, Watson, or Crick have more to do with the continued outcry from anti-evolutionists than any unified deification of Darwin by biologists. The people who with whom I study don't talk about Darwin as anything more than a very smart scientist who came up with a good theory 150 years ago.

As OSC states, the evidence collected over that time period demonstrates that evolution has occurred. The focus of modern evolutionary biology is to determine HOW it occurred, and in order to study that, we do make the initial assumption that evolutionary theory is correct. Or rather, we make the prediction that the variations that we observe within and between species were generated by natural selection, and then collect data to determine whether this prediction is correct. In that sense, the theory of evolution is constantly being tested with every paper published. The fact that it has not yet been falsified, and that indeed much of modern molecular biology, which Darwin could not have possibly even imagined, make sense only in light of natural selection (genetic and structural homologies, transposons, ribozymes, etc.), provide strong grounding for the continued use of evolution as the theory that best fits the facts.

Edit
Johnbrown: I doubt there's any direct observational evidence of natural selection creating a new genus, for the simple reason that such a change would require millions of years more than the human conception of scientific research has even existed. That said, there is plenty of fossil evidence demonstrating a continuity of species morphology over time. This link describes just a few:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

While one could argue that this isn't observation in the strictest sense of the term, that ignores the place for indirect evidence in science, as well as the sheer mass of said evidence. Sure, we cannot state with certainty that birds evolved from reptiles, but if they didn't, then how does one explain all those transitional fossils showing a smooth progression from dromaeosaur forms to avian forms, each located in rock of the expected age? Any explanation other than "they demonstrate the evolution of dromaeosaurids to birds" would completely invalidate the field of paleontology- and if we're going to do that, why not argue that the length of time between a photon bouncing off a cell and hitting an eyeball invalidates the use of microscopes as tools, because it's not "direct" observation (thus invalidating all of "small" biology)?

[ January 17, 2006, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
My hands down, absolutely favorite line of OSC's article (which I agreed with about 75% overall):

quote:

---

Yes, there are problems with the Darwinian model. But those problems are questions. “Intelligent design” is an answer, and you have no evidence at all for that.

---

quote:

---

1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Judge Jones

The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year
Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific
materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID.

---

quote:

---

Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after
the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

---

quote:

---

2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).

---

quote:

---

3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).

---

quote:

---

4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).

---

quote:

---

To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years.

---

quote:

---

Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select
systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact
irreducibly complex.

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peerreviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8-20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich
admitted that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor.

---

quote:

---

5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).

---

quote:

---

6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).

---

quote:

---

7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).

---

And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with. Giving even less reason for any such postulate.


I assume that OSC was simply unaware of the rather complex debate that is intelligent design, and therefore writing in ignorance, perhaps with some rather unfortunate polemical habits from the field of politics. I hope we'll be seeing a retraction soon.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Ha ha A retraction. That's cute. Based on an expression of contempt by you. I'm sure he's regretting his every word even as we speak. Shaking in his boots, as it were.

Card isn't denying at all that there are a lot of extremely competent, straightforward, and honest evolutionists who are defending their position in the most forthright, accurate, and responsible way. What he is trying to do is sweep away all the stupid arguments he's seen made by stupid people, so that he can get at the arguments that actually matter and make a difference.

The problem with an ancient and overdone debate like this is the fact that everyone is frustrated by all the stupid things they have heard the other side saying. What Card is doing here is first making a connection with potential proponents of Intelligent Design by acknowledging that all the ridiculous, frustrating arguments they have been contending with actually are ridiculous and frustrating. He points out all the places where they are right, or where they raise important issues. And then, once everyone is on the same page, he points out the primary reason why the Intelligent Design position is unscientific and therefore flawed.

It's a really good argument, it actually works to your side's benefit, and you want a retraction. Wow. Brilliant.

quote:

---

And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with.

---

quote:

---

Irreducible complexity is supposedly something which could not have come through unbroken law, and especially not through the agency of natural selection. Critics claim that Behe shows a misunderstanding of the very nature and workings of natural selection. No one is denying that in natural processes there may well be parts which, if removed, would lead at once to the non-functioning of the systems in which they occur. The point however is not whether the parts now in place could not be removed without collapse, but whether they could have been put in place by natural selection. Consider an arched bridge, made from cut stone, without cement, held in place only by the force of the stones against each other. If you tried to build the bridge from scratch, upwards and then inwards, you would fail — the stones would keep falling to the ground, as indeed the whole bridge now would collapse were you to remove the center keystone or any surrounding it. Rather, what you must do is first build a supporting structure (possibly an earthen embankment), on which you will lay the stones of the bridge, until they are all in place. At which point you can remove the structure for it is no longer needed, and in fact is in the way. Likewise, one can imagine a biochemical sequential process with several stages, on the parts of which other processes piggyback as it were. Then the hitherto non-sequential parasitic processes link up and start functioning independently, the original sequence finally being removed by natural selection as redundant or inconveniently draining of resources.

Of course, this is all pretend. But Darwinian evolutionists have hardly ignored the matter of complex processes. Indeed, it is discussed in detail by Darwin in the Origin, where he refers to that most puzzling of all adaptations, the eye. At the biochemical level, today's Darwinians have many examples of the most complex of processes that have been put in place by selection. Take that staple of the body's biochemistry, the process where energy from food is converted into a form which can be used by the cells. Rightly does a standard textbook refer to this vital organic system, the so-called "Krebs cycle," as something which "undergoes a very complicated series of reactions" (Hollum 1987, 408). This process, which occurs in the cell parts known as mitochondria, involves the production of ATP (adenosine triphosphate): a complex molecule which is energy rich and which is degraded by the body as needed (say in muscle action) into another less rich molecule ADP (adenosine diphosphate). The Krebs cycle remakes ATP from other energy sources — an adult human male needs to make nearly 200 Kg a day — and by any measure, the cycle is enormously involved and intricate. For a start, nearly a dozen enzymes (substances which facilitate chemical processes) are required, as one sub-process leads on to another.

Yet the cycle did not come out of nowhere. It was cobbled together out of other cellular processes which do other things. It was a "bricolage." Each one of the bits and pieces of the cycle exists for other purposes and has been coopted for the new end. The scientists who have made this connection could not have made a stronger case against Behe's irreducible complexity than if they had had him in mind from the first. In fact, they set up the problem virtually in Behe's terms: "The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin's natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality?" (Meléndez-Hervia et al. 1996, 302). What these workers do not offer is a Behe-type answer. First, they brush away a false lead. Could it be that we have something like the evolution of the mammalian eye, where primitive existent eyes in other organisms suggest that selection can and does work on proto models (as it were), refining features which have the same function if not as efficient as more sophisticated models? Probably not, for there is no evidence of anything like this. But then we are put on a more promising track.

In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. The building of the eye was really a creative process in order to make a new thing specifically, but the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called "evolution by molecular tinkering," stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells (p. 302).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog:

quote:

---

And moreover, all the 'problems' the ID movement has claimed have, in fact, been dealt with.

---

I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but somehow I doubt that all the open or troubling questions about evolution by natural selection have been completely answered and proven. Given the limits of what even can appear in the fossil record, I actually wonder if it's even possible to lay down a definitive answer to some of these questions that is any more reliable than Ptolemy's epicycles ...

---

There's a big difference between answering all of the examples that are cited by the ID movement as "flaws" in evolutionary theory (which KoM is saying has been done) and answering all of the open or troubling questions about evolution or natural selection.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
johnbrown: No, the theory begins with Darwin's observation of the Galapagos finches. There is no "line" between the theory of evolution and the fact of observed speciation... I get the feeling that you're using the IDer definition of "theory" (that is, an unconfirmed hypothesis), whereas in scientific terminology, "theory" refers to an explanation for natural events that is supported by the current body of data. Good fossil evidence is just as valid as direct observation in science, and as my link showed, there is plenty of good fossil evidence demonstrating the fact of change in species morphology over time.

As for fruit flies, I don't have time to dig up a cite right now, but IIRC they have managed to speciate Drosophila melanogaster. Creating a whole new genus would, again, take far longer than 10 years, even with modern genetic modification techniques.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Tarrsk,

I have no idea what the tenets of Intelligent Design are past what I read in Card's article, although I can guess. But I did like very much the idea Card raises of theory as story, of science observing phenomena and then coming up with a story (explanation) to account for the observations. (It also reminds me of what happens in criminal courts.) What I was trying to do is simply distinguish between what it is we've observed, the facts, and the theory that attempts to explain and predict them.

I know that Darwin did his studies down on the islands, but I'm not talking about story as in when the theory of evolution began, but story as science in the way Card is using it in the article.

When you say "theory refers to an explanation for natural events that is supported by the current body of data," it sounds like you're restating this idea of science as story, i.e. there are (a) events observed and an (b) explanation of them.

The line between the two is that events are there for anyone to see. Explanations fill in the blanks. Speciation is observed and reproducable. It's an observable fact. The fossil record is a fact. We can see new types of critters through time. However, it appears we have not observed the evolution between those all those types. Eolving new genuses, it seems, is not a fact of the case, but part of the explanation.

That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not interested in proving or disproving ID or evolution. I just want to see what the facts (observable phenomena) of the case are.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog:
[QB] Ha ha A retraction. That's cute. Based on an expression of contempt by you. I'm sure he's regretting his every word even as we speak.

---

quote:

---

Card isn't denying at all that there are a lot of extremely competent, straightforward, and honest evolutionists who are defending their position in the most forthright, accurate, and responsible way.

---

quote:

---

The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific.

---

quote:

---

What he is trying to do is sweep away all the stupid arguments he's seen made by stupid people, so that he can get at the arguments that actually matter and make a difference.

---

quote:

---

It's a really good argument, it actually works to your side's benefit, and you want a retraction. Wow. Brilliant.

---

Only of the stupid parts. I think I did mention that the second half of the article is fine. It's the strawman polemics in the first half I object to.

quote:

---

I'm not exactly an expert in the field, but somehow I doubt that all the open or troubling questions about evolution by natural selection have been completely answered and proven.

---

quote:

---

The trouble is that the idea of the "story" and the "facts" being separate (or, at least, different parts of an overall explanation) is in opposition to scientific thinking

---

quote:

---

So can we categorically state that all evolution is, without question, due to natural selection? No, we can't, because one of the basic tenets of science is that theories (explanation for the observed data) do not equal facts.

---

quote:

---

Most scientists feel that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism, which explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

---

quote:

---

I think it's important to separate events and explanations because good thinking as well as good science depends on it. If we confuse events with explanations, if we bury assumptions and premises, we might blind ourselves to new insights.

---

quote:

---

I'm not arguing about natural selection. I already said that's an observable event. What I'm trying to see is the extent of what has been observed. To my knowledge, nobody has observed lizards evolve into birds or E-coli into chimps (or any other equivalent jump). Nobody has seen the drastic morphing you suggest in the fossil record. What they see is the snapshop captured in the fossil record.

---

quote:

---

The evolutionary explanation of those snapshots makes a great deal of sense. But it is an explanation. That's not to say it doesn't have great predictive ability. It's not to say that it's not better than all other explanations out there. It's just saying it's not something observed.

---

Absolutely. We are in complete agreement here.

quote:

---

So back to my original question--what have we observed evolve? We've observed natural selection, speciation, changes in the complexity of the fossils through time as dated by layers and carbon dating. I think those are the big categories. Or have I missed some?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

The scientific community is not attempting to enthrone Darwin.

---

quote:

---

The Darwinists Reply

The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal and unscientific. The main points are:

---

quote:

---

Notice that Card doesn't say "scientists." He says "Darwinists" and specifically those who are attacking ID for the reasons cited.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I guess I've read enough OSC novels to figure that when he says something that looks like a straw man argument he knows that the situation is more complex and he's simply trying to make us think.

---

quote:

---

But indirect evidence requires us, as you just said, to *infer* connections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rohan:
When OSC says, "Darwinists say X" and you answer with "well, I personally have never heard a Darwinist say X therefore OSC is creating strawmen", is that really a legitimate blow to his argument? Who is the arbiter of what claims are actually made and which are only (mistakenly) ascribed to others?

---

quote:

---

there is no such thing as a "Darwinist." Nor is there such a thing as an "evolutionist," any more than there is a "gravitationist" or "Newtonist."

---

Why not? There used to be atomists.

Personally, I'm a quarkist. And you can tell, cuz I'm charming.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 

quote:

---

I suspect that to Card, and to the audience who would digest this article as "truth," being trained religiously and dogmatically in approaching life's bigger questions shapes their (quite incorrect) perceptions of others' non-dogmatic attempts to do the same.

---

Ooops, it appears someone has slipped and in their deconstruction of Card substantiated at least one of Card's claims. Be gone, ad-homeniem, be gone.
 

---

Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
 
First, I have not analyzed the merits of the Dover case, so I will not comment directly on that.

However, I do want to chime in on the subject of ID.

I'm not a big fan of ID.. I do believe, as Card does, that the basis of ID does not advocate any religious stance, rather, it just proposes a set of questions which create issues with Darwin's method.

HOWEVER, Intelligent Design has been widely adopted by the religious community, and instead of following up on the fair questions regarding issues with evolution as we now understand it, as an advocate of a reasoned debate on the issue, it is instead used as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory.

This is something I don't buy into.

For those above who say "I don't know of any "Darwinists"" I invite you to go into many high schools in America. The problem isn't just "Darwin" but it's also most things taught at the elementary and high school level, which is done as a matter of rote rather then reason. As a result, age-old biological charts (monkey to man) reside in classrooms nationwide and it is only given the brush of "this is how it is".

This, also, is not good science. For those kids who go to college, and study biology, while we still advocate the central core of evolutionary theory, alternative methods and thoughts come into the game - like punctuated evolution or macro-evolution, etc.

These exist also as alternative theories to explain problems within the evolutionary context as it is previously known. And these are theories not advocated by crack-pots; Macro-Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium have serious scholarly works published behind them. But, as theories, they too conflict and connect at points.

Darwin, as it is often taught in texts, raises none of these issues - in fact, bringing up serious, scholarly concern with Darwin at the High School level is equated as being religious biogotry - even if your observations have nothing to do with faith.

If I went into a HS and said "I have a real problem with the idea of (evolution) as it is being taught here, because we seem to know now that Gradualism as Darwin advocates would be difficult to occur within a free-flowing environment, as the dominant, more agressive species would be preferred over the lesser species.. this would indicate that something like Punctuated Equilibrium, Macro-Evolution, or newer Environmental-Burst evolutionary theories may be more realistic" Do it, schools own't want a reasoned debate on it, they will simply say "you're just trying to give Darwin a bad name, and refute whatever we say.. " (if you doubt this, I know exactly where this has happened, to someone who was a smart-ass, but also definitely not religious in the mainstream sense).

The problem with the ID debate is that ID as a scientific critique is a valid one; as an alternative theory, it isn't much of a theory as a whole.. it just doesn't stand on it's own. But even spit-ball criticism of a theory, as a means to improve and refine a theory are warranted. (A good example of this is the measures to rocketry; when NASA made some attempts that were no good, it was simply a janitor who asked the question "how do you keep the engine from overheating" It sent bells off in the minds of the engineers and thus.. Apollo.. btw, great series "From Earth to the Moon" for that one).

I have no problems with the teaching of Darwin. It should be taught. I also think that kids at the HS level are bright enough that someone could say:

"Now that we know the basics of Darwin's theory, it is reasonable for us to look at the criticism of this theory. Stephen J. Gould and others have argued that Darwin's theory has some issues with Validity due to sudden "booms" in evolution and long lapses; he calls this a theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium. Gould's theory is a refinement on Darwin's base idea"

etc.

Now, back to ID; On one level, even Darwin basically must concur with part of ID.. we all participate in "Intelligent Design" every day. When we marry and have children, we make an open decision, both conciously and unconciously, to chose our mate and determine the genetic makeup of our outcome. This is not some blind throw-together in which the species breeds only based on availability. As we've observed from other species, most higher animals breed based on many different factors, which is on almost every level an outcome determined by the concious decision.

So, every day, our society "evolves" a bit by producing different outcomes based on the intelligent choices of it's members (ie, I am a white male, married to a Chinese female, our outcome is a mix, etc.)

Now, this isn't exactly the "intelligent design" that most think of, but it allows us to study evolution "closer to home" by looking at the intellectual input on the outcome and observe that our species changes based on decisions made by the populous.

While birds, lizards, etc. do not have quite the reasoning ability that individuals do, they do have the ability to attract and lure mates. National Geographic and Science magazine have done complex articles on the nature of attraction amongst animals, mating rituals, etc. What all of these tell us is that movement within a species is largely directed by the consent and encouragement within that group.

Now, this doesn't in any way upset Darwin's outcome of gradualism, nor does it upset the idea of punctuated equilibrium. What it does propose is that the species in question are not solely directed by their genetic makeup to "mate" etc.

In the end, we may find that the intelligent designer, the "mover" so to speak, is us; and the other animals/species/etc. which have a literal input into their outcome.

Darwin, Gould, and others had written about the necessary outcomes based on communal needs and survival of the species. The longer we observe species, we understand that isn't always the way (look at Pandas, incredibly difficult to breed and picky about mates, even though their species depends on it)..

ID is not a "Theory" in and of itself, and I don't believe it should be taught quite that way. But I do think kids in HS should have the critical thinking skills to reason and debate potential problems with Darwin's theory, and alternate theories proposed, etc. If some kid wants to propose Creationism, fine, he can get heckled, but if someone wants to ask "literally, how do we get from X to Z, because it seems as though their are spurts/extinction/etc. which wouldn't be conducive to the base idea"

Even if a class debates it and backs Darwin or Macro or Punctuated 100%, it serves them well to debate the arguments.

"Another theory holds that Darwin's basic premise
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
tmservo: Okay, one point at a time.

Regarding Darwinists in high schools: I'll match your hearsay and raise you a personal anecdote. The high school I attended, in the mostly-liberal Bay Area of California, made every effort to avoid mentioning the E-word. Our biology teacher even issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the evolution section of the course. Far from being a cadre of hard-core "Darwinists," our faculty were terrified of being attacked by parents who didn't want their kids learning about evolution. They ultimately did the right thing and taught it anyway, but even then, Darwin was never made out to be anything more than the originator of the concept.

Incidentally, I don't think the presence of out-of-date materials can be causatively linked to some Darwin-centric curriculum. It seems more likely that public high schools simply don't have the necessary funding to buy the necessary modern materials. It's not unusual to find 35 year old textbooks being used in classrooms regularly; that the old "monkey to man" posters are still being used just shows how decrepit our primary educational system is. But that's another debate entirely.

Now, as far as your assertion that ID serves a similar purpose to theories such as punctuated equilibrium... well, this is just silly. Punctuated equilibrium is a modification of gradualism, not a replacement nor a rival to the theory of evolution as a whole. It is, in fact, an excellent example of how evolutionary biology works AS science: one part of the old theory appears to be falsified, so biologists are tweaking it to fit the new data, using the concept of puncuated equilibrium. Obviously, there are still kinks to work out, but the appropriate scientific response is to gather more data, not to throw the whole damn thing out. After all, the old theory still explains speciation, population genetics, and all the other stuff we've been discussing in this thread perfectly well.

Therein lies the fundamental difference between punctuated equilibrium and Intelligent Design. The former is an explanation formulated to fit the facts as they are now understood, whereas the latter is the scientific equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and giving up. A good scientist looks at a hole in the cumulative knowledge base and says, "Ah! I cannot make ANY conclusions about this until further data has been collected." And if he's a really good scientist, he'll go off and try to collect that data. But ultimately, scientists are agnostic in any subject in which the data do not support one hypothesis over the others. A concept that is fundamentally based on lack of data, such as ID, therefore has no place in scientific discourse. It is not a theory at all, much less an "alternative theory."

Lastly, consciousness in humans and other organisms has nothing to do with the ID/ evolution debate. The "intelligent designer" of Behe isn't choosing a mate. He/she/it is creating species. Your connection between the two is akin to saying that yeast can design new types of bread just because their biochemical reactions are responsible for the release of carbon dioxide into rising dough.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Um, what is wrong with the monkey to man posters? They may not have every detail correct, but humans certainly did evolve from an animal that, were it alive today, would be called a monkey. (By the American public, that is. An educated public would instead call it an ape.) So what is the objection?
 

---

Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
 
Here's the thing, I don't see OSC's essays (I read the Rhino one, and glanced at the one linked in World Watch -- I'll peruse that at greater length later) as being especially 'pro' ID. I think the point was that it wasn't that 'Darwinism' was wrong, but that the arguments that are typically used in support of it are usually pretty weak.

This is, in fact, somewhat true.

The bottom line is that, with the exception of the 7% [edit to add: +/- 6.9%, this was a SHAG and not a fact] or so of people who actively work as biologists, everyone's understanding of evolution (pro or con) is based on faith. For the 'con' group, the faith basis is pretty obvious. However, there is an equal degree of faith that the 'pro' groups (again, excluding those who actively work in the field) express. Yes, they are two different kinds of faiths in two completely different things. One is faith in a fixed spiritual world-view, the other is faith in a mutable naturalist process -- namely the scientific method.

Let's face it, no 'Darwinist' worships Darwin. No honest evolution supporter would insist on the truthfulness or usefulness of natural selection if a more comprhensive theory that explained all things better came along later. This is what separates the two camps. Natural Selection may be wrong. It is, currently, the best explanation we've got going. It is by no means the ULTIMATE ANSWER.

And this is the difference between the two camps. The anti-evolution side (for the most part) is based on an unshakeable faith in a particular product: a book, a church, a religion (see the note at the end). This is not something that they can change, because the product is already out there, and it is established and fixed. Other similar groups, on the other hand, have made accommodation by changing how they use the product (how they read the book or how they view the role of the church) and have no objection to any scientific findings.
The 'pro' side of the debate isn't (or rather shouldn't be) so concerned about any particular finding, it is the process that is important. If completely scientific evidence were found to discredit Natural Selection and a new theory was developed to fit all of the old evidence as well as the new evidence, isn't it right and proper that such a theory should be accepted (obviously only after much evaluation and many challenges)?

However, too many 'pro' evolution arguments lose sight of this fundamental aspect of the scientific process. We, in fact, do not know that natural selection explains how evolution took place. It is simply the best explanation for what we have. I understand why it is tempting to try to phrase the debate in absolutist terms: you are either supportive of the theory of natural selection or you are an inbred toothless banjo-playing redneck moron. Part of this is because of the absolutism of the other side: you are either supportive of the truth of God's special creation of all things or you are a Satan worshiping pedophile homosexual atheist pig-dog.
But science cannot afford to be absolutist, or constrained by a rigidly inflexible dogma. That is why, of all of the philosophies and religions the world has ever seen, the products of science have been so varied and useful.

NOTE: My comments regarding the fixed nature of religious faith is only applicable to those faiths where the process of revelation or prophecy is sealed. Where continuing revelation is accepted, dogmatic shifts are possible, and the faith is then primarily focused on the process of revelation and not on any one specific product of revelation.

[ January 20, 2006, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: WntrMute ]
 

---

Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
 
I think, unfortunately, when this gets discussed we automatically make god/devil assumptions that someone voicing an opinion not 100% ours must 100% believe the opposite viewpoint. So, I want to recap a bit:

quote:

---

Regarding Darwinists in high schools: I'll match your hearsay and raise you a personal anecdote. The high school I attended, in the mostly-liberal Bay Area of California, made every effort to avoid mentioning the E-word. Our biology teacher even issued a disclaimer at the beginning of the evolution section of the course. Far from being a cadre of hard-core "Darwinists," our faculty were terrified of being attacked by parents who didn't want their kids learning about evolution. They ultimately did the right thing and taught it anyway, but even then, Darwin was never made out to be anything more than the originator of the concept.

---

First, I do believe a big part of the problem at HS level is out of date text books and inneffecual teachers, far more so then any dogmatic response to Darwin or acolyte-esque following; many teachers simply have taught the same text repeatedly, know it, and so it is delivered as rote, as several states do not spend the time or effort on retraining teachers, thus they hold fast to it as the text not because of any "super belief" in darwin, but because teaching it the exact same way every year is "easier".

Second, I am not advocating ID is on the same plane as Punctuated Equilibrium. And I tried to not make it seem as though "these critiques carry equal weight" In fact, I made sure not to say that. I am, however, saying that they are both critiques, and could be debated. I personally find a lot of merit in Punctuated Equilibrium and not so much merit in ID. But part of what makes education is to test good ideas and bad ideas and allow them to be debated for their merits and lack of merits. If a kid grows up through HS and does not learn the science of how to refute anything, they haven't been educated very well. Understanding how to debate the ideas good and bad helps everyone.

So, I get your multiple paragraphs on punctuated equilibrium and simply say: I didn't equate the two as to the level of validity, only that they share a common base of being a criticism.

I can give a criticism of a movie and say "It sucks" but Roger Ebert writes up a long review and his critique has more substance to it. While both reviews share the fact that they are a review, it doesn't mean both have equal validity

Finally:

quote:

---

Lastly, consciousness in humans and other organisms has nothing to do with the ID/ evolution debate. The "intelligent designer" of Behe isn't choosing a mate. He/she/it is creating species. Your connection between the two is akin to saying that yeast can design new types of bread just because their biochemical reactions are responsible for the release of carbon dioxide into rising dough.

---

*shrug* I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I am saying is that the inherent fault I find with ID is that it makes such assumptions on Behe's part in regards to creation of species. My argument is that the species itself makes intelligent decisions on which direction the species itself evolves by it's concious chosing of partners. Behe doesn't deal with this element at all, which blends perfectly with our known theory of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium and macro-evolution theories; and is an "intelligent design" that comes from those other two theories rather then a god of the cracks

In other words, I think you're arguing with me as someone opposed to your viewpoint, when by and large I'm agreeing with you
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 

quote:

---

So, I get your multiple paragraphs on punctuated equilibrium and simply say: I didn't equate the two as to the level of validity, only that they share a common base of being a criticism.

---

quote:

---

*shrug* I think you missed the point of what I was saying. What I am saying is that the inherent fault I find with ID is that it makes such assumptions on Behe's part in regards to creation of species. My argument is that the species itself makes intelligent decisions on which direction the species itself evolves by it's concious chosing of partners. Behe doesn't deal with this element at all, which blends perfectly with our known theory of evolution as well as the punctuated equilibrium and macro-evolution theories; and is an "intelligent design" that comes from those other two theories rather then a god of the crack.

---

quote:

---

Okay. So do you advocate teaching ID in science classes as a means to teach critique? Because while I would agree that teaching creationism (or in a religion or cultural studies class with the express intent of analyzing them from a critical perspective is perfectly acceptable, creationism and ID have no place in a science class, because as previously stated, they are NOT scientific. If you want to use scientific theories to teach critical thinking, use punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, or relativity versus Newtonian mechanics. All of those theories are based on the principle of falsifiability, and are genuinely scientific (even if they happen to be incorrect). But don't fuzz up the definition of science by introducing non-scientific concepts into a science classroom.

---

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure I understood you just fine. You're making the mistake of associating intelligence in mate choice with Intelligent Design just because both concepts involve a conscious decision by some entity, when the two concepts literally have nothing to do with each other. Intelligent mate choice does not require any sort of supernatural explanation, whereas the concept of Intelligent Design specifically as promoted by people like Behe is specifically based on supernatural explanations. The only thing the two concepts share is that the word "intelligence" occurs in both, and even then, it is applied differently.

---

quote:

---

I personally find a lot of merit in Punctuated Equilibrium and not so much merit in ID. But part of what makes education is to test good ideas and bad ideas and allow them to be debated for their merits and lack of merits. If a kid grows up through HS and does not learn the science of how to refute anything, they haven't been educated very well.

---

Part of what makes Science "Science" is it's ability to educate people in the means to refute mysticism. Science at some point had to make the effort to teach people that "Fire" was not "Magic" and so, there was a point at which the discussion of "magic" as an option had to be presented so it could be reasoned implausible in the face of facts.

Science is at it's best when it uses itself through the standard methodology to show itself to be the most logical, testable conclusion.

I'm very up to any science class that will take on any theory - no matter how goofy; and I'm glad I had teachers who were willing to test those. Example: during an advanced biology coursework, someone asked about "cryogenics" our teacher was more then willing to dip a butterfly in liquid hydrogen and basically posit that "yeah, this won't work" because of numerous attempts at revival which showed the inherent problems. Now, it didn't prove that it would "never happen" but what we learned was that you find the truth of something by testing it.

I think you could test Behe's ID in less then 20 minutes, and point out that real Intelligent Design (I'll think of a better term so there isn't confusion between the two at some point, but I'm drawing blanks because Natural Selection isn't quite appropriate), the kind that backs all known science theory to date, does exist and is generally supportive of currently evaluated theory.

I hope this makes a bit more sense to you now
 

---

Posted by HectorVictor (Member # 9003) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by WntrMute:
We, in fact, do not know that natural selection explains how evolution took place. It is simply the best explanation for what we have. I understand why it is tempting to try to phrase the debate in absolutist terms: you are either supportive of the theory of natural selection or you are an inbred toothless banjo-playing redneck moron.

---

quote:

---

In the late 1990s Ofria’s former adviser, physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to create the conditions in which a computer program could evolve the ability to do addition. He created some primitive digital organisms and at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.



Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward.Within six months, Adami’s organisms were addition whizzes. “We were able to get them to evolve without fail,” he says. But when he stopped to look at exactly how the organisms were adding numbers, he was more surprised. “Some of the ways were obvious, but with others I’d say, ‘What the hell is happening?’ It seemed completely insane.”



On a trip to Michigan State, Adami met microbiologist Richard Lenski, who studies the evolution of bacteria. Adami later sent Lenski a copy of the Avida software so he could try it out for himself. On a Friday, Lenski loaded the program into his computer and began to create digital worlds. By Monday he was tempted to shut down his laboratory and dedicate himself to Avida. “It just had the smell of life,” says Lenski.



It also mirrored Lenski’s own research, launched in 1988, which is now the longest continuously running experiment in evolution. He began with a single bacterium—Escherichia coli—and used its offspring to found 12 separate colonies of bacteria that he nurtured on a meager diet of glucose, which creates a strong incentive for the evolution of new ways to survive. Over the past 17 years, the colonies have passed through 35,000 generations. In the process, they’ve become one of the clearest demonstrations that natural selection is real. All 12 colonies have evolved to the point at which the bacteria can replicate almost twice as fast as their ancestors. At the same time, the bacterial cells have gotten twice as big. Surprisingly, these changes didn’t unfold in a smooth, linear process. Instead, each colony evolved in sudden jerks, followed by hundreds of generations of little change, followed by more jerks.

---

 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*glare* I made a funny, and no one noticed.

Barbarians.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
HectorVictor, thanks for sharing that Discover blurb. Very cool. What I'd love to see is some more stimulus in that environment to see if the bacteria would actually do enough jerks to accumulate into macro-evolution. Do you think you might be able to email me the article? Just let me know via the email function and I'll reply.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If you would care to give a good definition of macro-evolution, specifically as applied to single-celled organisms, so that we can actually tell whether your criteria are fulfilled, that would be good. Indeed, I made a perfectly good thread on the other side some time again, for precisely that purpose. When the bacteria are twice as large, and breed twice as fast, then a refusal to call it macro-evolution certainly smells to me like 'macro is a bit more than has been demonstrated.' You must surely know that in the wild, such bacteria would certainly be labeled separate species.
 

---

Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HectorVictor:
I seriously recommend you read up on the evolution/natural selection computer program called Avida. It was in the February 2005 issue of Discover Magazine if you are a subscriber, or I can post the article on here if you like, but it is fairly long...

---

quote:

---

Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, use the term macroevolution to instead describe evolutionary processes that occur at the level of species or above.

---

quote:

---

Carl Sagan was among the worst perpetrators of this almost ecclesiastical abuse of position, using authority and standing as cudgels against whatever he chose to call “superstition.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnbrown:
[QB]

quote:

---

Carl Sagan was among the worst perpetrators of this almost ecclesiastical abuse of position, using authority and standing as cudgels against whatever he chose to call “superstition.”

---

---

quote:

---

He long ago began savaging me in public, I think perhpas because he’s irritated by the fact that we have fans in common.

(...)

What I have mostly criticized (and it is non-ad-hominem) is his apparent literary obsession with ubermenschen demigods, relentlessly returning to the trope of mutant superbeings who so-o-o-o-o regret having to impose their will on benighted/foolish humanity... for our own good, of course.

---

quote:

---

Claiming that two diametrically opposed viewpoints are really the same is outrageous...

---

Not when memos exist from Creation Scientists explaining that they intend to use ID to promote creationism in schools.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
HectorVictor, your comments make sense. My comment on the E-coli experiements was simply that given the number of generations in the experiment, wouldn't it be neat to actually see some macroevolution take place? Macro as in MACRO. And that's all I was saying.

You suggest that such experiments with e-coli or fruit flies can't run enough generations to get to macroevolution. This is an interesting claim. I'd like to see the periods described in the fossil record and see if any happened over a relatively short time. 35,000 generations (I think that's what it was), seems like plenty of generations to change things. That's why I was thinking that perhaps if he had made a richer environment he might have gotten something else. It looks like a very simple environment with only one pressure.

King Of Men, you seem to seek arguments and find them everywhere, even when there are none raised.

Brin's a guy with a PhD, mentioning Sagan as an example of exactly what Card suggests, agreeing with Card's assement of some in the scientific community. I do remember Sagan's book--Demon Haunted World--that took these thoughts as a theme. What is it that you want to argue about concerning Brin?

As far as change goes, weren't we all supposed to have evolved from single-cell organisms? So let's start with something big. Instead of trying to define the line of "species," (a definition, it appears from comments and links in this thread is fuzzy, not precise, as you suggest all science must be) just go far enough beyond that there's no question. Show me bacteria going to multiple celled organisms. Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity. That would be cool. But the E-coli experiment didn't do that. It took a species of bacteria and they grew bigger (Americans versus Pygmies) and cut their reproduction time in half (getting perhaps a bigger umbilical cord http://www.applet-magic.com/gestation.htm ), certainly a big change, but not a new order of complexity.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Show me bacteria going to multiple celled organisms.

---

How much time you got?
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 


Actually, how many generations do we need? Given the punctuated theory, how many do we really need?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Excellent question. The great thing about the theory of punctuated equilibrium is that it means we have absolutely no idea. *grin*
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Doh!
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Now that I think about it, that means it could happen in just a few, couldn't it? There's nothing saying it couldn't. So perhaps we don't need hundreds of thousands of generations. Perhaps we just need the right environmental stimuli.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The thing about the 'punctuation' in punctuated equilibrium is that it still takes place over several million years. It just doesn't take place continuously.

quote:

---

Brin's a guy with a PhD, mentioning Sagan as an example of exactly what Card suggests, agreeing with Card's assement of some in the scientific community. I do remember Sagan's book--Demon Haunted World--that took these thoughts as a theme. What is it that you want to argue about concerning Brin?

---

quote:

---

Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity.

---

Sure thing. Just as soon as you define 'complexity'. In a way we can measure, if you please.

Incidentally, would proof that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor satisfy this? I know of a really nice smoking gun on this one, but possibly that's not macro enough? After all, we're all bipeds.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 

quote:

---

As far as change goes, weren't we all supposed to have evolved from single-cell organisms? So let's start with something big. Instead of trying to define the line of "species," (a definition, it appears from comments and links in this thread is fuzzy, not precise, as you suggest all science must be) just go far enough beyond that there's no question. Show me bacteria going to multiple celled organisms. Or show me multi-celled organisms going into something of a higher order of complexity. That would be cool.

---

You go straight for the toughies, don't you?

It is important to keep in mind that major cosmetic changes do not equal large-scale evolution. Everything ultimately comes from the genetics, and one of the basic principles of modern biology is that minor genetic changes can lead to HUGE morphological, physiological, and developmental alterations, whereas TINY changes in basic cellular processes can require huge changes in the genetics (read: more time needed). It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but that's how it works. In the former case, multicellular eukaryotic molecular systems are so incredibly complex that minute genetic alterations will have massive ramifications throughout the rest of the system. For example, a single mutation in the oxygen carrier protein hemoglobin leads to sickle-cell anemia. That one mutation causes the protein to polymerize into long strands, which in turn forces red blood cells to assume a distended sickle shape. This altered morphology causes these blood cells to get stuck in blood vessels, resulting in oxygen deprivation of anything past that point in the circulatory system. Not an insignificant effect from such a tiny change, I think you'll agree. But there's more! It turns out that sufferers of sickle-cell anemia gain resistance to malaria, because the sickled cells are filtered out by the spleen automatically, along with the malarial pathogen, before they can do too much damage. The importance of this example is that its large effect comes from its modification of an existing gene, rather than the generation of entirely new molecular machinery, which requires the accumulation of anywhere from hundreds to millions of beneficial mutations.

Back to your suggested cases of macro-evolution. All of these cases happened over far longer time spans than, say, the speciation of ancestral apes into chimpanzees, humans, and bonobos (which IIRC only required a few million years). The primate case is really just a matter of altering gene expression during development so that certain organs grow in different sizes and shapes. That's not a simple change by any means, but it's ultimately a case of altering genes that already exist. Moving from unicellularity to multicellularity, or evolving cell differentiation (that is, the ability of a cell to become physically different from a genetically identical clone, which is what the move from colonies of identical cells to true multicellular organisms requires) from scratch required tens to hundreds of millions of years of gene duplications and the evolution of entire new families of genes. And all of this in the extremely rapid generation time of bacteria and single-celled eukaryotes!

Think of speciation in animals as the development of the various Romance languages from Italic Latin. Each language is clearly distinct, and native speakers of one cannot instinctively understand another. But in the roots of each language are many, many similar structures, so that a speaker of French can frequently guess at the meaning of Spanish words even if grammar and actual conversation are completely beyond his ability to understand. Under this analogy, French and Spanish are different "species," which share a clear common point of origin, but can no longer readily intermix.

The evolution of multicellularity and cell differentiation is more like comparing French to Chinese. The two languages undoubtedly share some common origin in the extremely distant prehistory of our species, but they have come so far since then that they are mutually unrecognizable. The most basic structures of the languages have changed, gradually, to an extraordinary degree. And so it is in those evolutionary cases. We're talking millions of mutations in loci all over the genome, massive restructuring of very basic cellular machinery, and a complete reorganization of cell development. While this is no challenge for natural selection, since the mechanism of gene duplication followed by independent evolution of the resultant identical genes is well-established as a mechanism for the evolution of new genes (and is in itself analogous to speciation versus "microevolution"), this type of restructuring requires incredible spans of time. There's a reason that nothing more complex than a bacterium existed on Earth for more than two billion years after life first appeared. Primitive life wasn't just sitting around, taking up space. Natural selection was already in full effect, and probably taking place extremely quickly due to the aforementioned rapid generation times of such single-celled organisms. That time was spent building up the basic forms of what would eventually become the building blocks of multicellular life as we know it.

[ January 22, 2006, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 

quote:

---

hundreds of millions of years of gene duplications and the evolution of entire new families of genes. And all of this in the extremely rapid generation time of bacteria and single-celled eukaryotes!

---

quote:

---

I don't know all the details, but wasn't the cambrian explosion and explosion--huge changes? Didn't we see major macroevolutionary changes of the type I'm thinking of there? And this was not with bacteria but more complex forms? I'll have to dig into this.

---

quote:

---

As long as you don't teach ONE religious view, you'd have a marvelous discussion on epistemology.

---

I imagine that most ID proponents would have real problems with their "theory" being included in a comparative religions class and given equal weight with, say, "the world is an egg laid by a giant turtle."
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Tarrsk, you overstate the difference between epistemology and science. I'm just not convinced that epistemology can't work very well in a science class. Nobody is going to have a semester-long philosophy class because it's not on the standardized tests. So you can't have a separate class. Besides, it's not the history of philosophy that's important--it's epistemology. So the thing to do is find out where it best belongs: PE, shop, history, English, math, science, etc. You could put it with history or science. I don't think it would matter. But I think it would be best in science because it's about discovering truth while the other is focused on events. I think it would frame learning all the theories of science quite nicely. Insisting that we must not muddy the waters of the science class by discussing other modes of knowledge is niggling and pedantic and ignores the fact that we already do that in a few different ways.

What we don't want to do is legislate the teaching of one religious view. I can heartily agree with that sentiment. But that's not what I suggested. Talking about epistemology is a very different matter as is opening the forum.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Again, let me suggest that ID advocates would not be happy if schools were to start using Intelligent Design as an example of how to not do science.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Teaching epistemology and in fact the current "gaps" in evolutionary theory have nothing to do with ID. They are entirely separate. I have no problem saying that we should change the way that we teach science in this country. Heck, I have no problem saying we should change the way we teach nearly everything in this country. But this doesn't automatically mean we should insert "Or possibly God did it." whenever there is a complex issue.

For that matter, ID, by itself, is not actually opposed to evolution. It's both acceptable and widely accepted (even among people who don't believe in ID) that these two can be consistent. On it's own, all ID says is that God is behind whatever processes, such as evolution, that we observe. You have to add something to ID before it becomes the natural opponent to evolution that the ID movement seems to treat it as. You have to add creationism.

Additionally, the ID movement is not about teaching better, especially not about teaching science better. Their basic idea, that we should not try to understand things and instead wave our hands and say "It's magic...err...God magic." goes against the very concept of education, especially science education. Also, no one needs to be taught ID. Those who believe it, already know all about it. Those who don't aren't going to care. It's not about education, it's about religious people marking their territory.
 

---

Posted by Oobie Binoobie (Member # 8059) on :
 
Citing examples of how not to do something is...

...a legitimate teaching method. Kindergarten teachers use it. My high school Chemistry teacher used it. The only thing that makes it inappropriate for ID to be used as a "how not to" is the numbers of people who would take it entirely the wrong way if you did.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Part of the method of citing "bad" examples is to show clearly what the problem with them is. As such, there are literally thousands of better, clearer examples than the currently active and politically contentious ID thing. Of course, if your objective is to get ID into the classroom by any means necessary and possibly use it as a "wedge" to get creationism in too, then I could see how you'd want to pretend that it's not a really poor choice for that lesson.
 

---

Posted by Zandperl (Member # 9088) on :
 
Johnbrown:
Tarrsk is right when s/he says we don't have any "direct" evidence for evolution, but it is still accepted. In the field of astronomy (my background), we do the same with stellar evolution - how stars are born, live, and die. We cannot watch one star for millions or billions of years, but we can compare millions or billions of individual stars.

It's similar to how you judge the ages of new people that you meet. You've met hundreds or thousands of people in your life, some of whose ages you do know, and when you meet a new person you mentally compare his/her age to what you've seen with the other people. You weren't there when the person was born and followed them for their whole life, but you have indirect evidence of their age. Even if you asked their age and they told you, that would still be indirect since you weren't there the whole time, but you accept it as the truth.
 

---

Posted by johnbrown (Member # 8401) on :
 
Being a citizen of Utah now and in response to Utah's SB96 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635178409,00.html , I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Or it's that I'm putting my mouth where my mouth is. Anyway, I just sent this to my Govenor, State Representative, and the State Board of Education memebers responsible for curriculumn.

---------
Subject: SB96 is either an example of gross micromanagement or an inadequate attempt to ensure we teach critical thinking and epistemology

Dear Representative Hunsaker:

I would ask you to please vote against SB96. I am a devout member of the LDS church, and, of course, believe that the current theories of evolution conflict in some points with what I believe about the origin of life. However, I do not believe we should legislate that teachers must state that the theories of evolution are indeed theories or that some scientists disagree with some or all of them. What will we need to legislate next?—mandatory statements about plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, and global warming? Are we going to set up a committee to go through every science book so we can vote on statements on each of the theories presented in them? SB96 is an example of gross micromanagement of the classroom.

If the intent of SB96 truly is to teach our children the limits of science as an epistemology, then I would say it falls short in its scope because of its narrow focus. I can certainly see the need for a discussion of epistemology. In fact, I think this is one thing our schools are lacking. If the following are the main epistemological methods we use to determine truth, then I think our children would benefit immensely by discussing the strengths and limitations of each.

1. Authority.
2. Observation (anecdotal and empirical).
3. Personal experience (of all sorts including revelation and mysticism).
4. Reason (logic, assumptions, premises, etc.).
5. Feeling.

Having studied epistemology, our children will not only be able to approach science (methods 2 and 4) with a knowledge of what it is and its limits, but they’ll be able to also think critically about all the other methods as they respond to advertisements, medical advice, statistics, law, religion, etc. Epistemology would make a perfect introduction to science. This I would whole-heartedly support. But using legislation to mandate statements on each theory that arises in the scientific community that may conflict with a citizen’s personal views will only lead us into a quagmire. I ask you to please vote against SB96 and instead sponsor a change in the state education objectives that would include a brief (1 or 2 week) study of epistemology.

Sincerely,

John Brown

PS If you want I can furnish you sample chapters of what this would look like. I took a physical science class as an undergrad at BYU that used a text which started with a brilliant discussion of epistemology.
 

---

Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
Great letter, John. We clearly still disagree on various important points, but I have nothing but admiration for someone who does something that could have a real, positive effect. Let us hope that your representative pays your letter the attention it deserves.
 

---

Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
 
egads!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Zandperl, welcome to the forums. Clod, can you perchance find something a little more illuminating to say? If not, you may find a different forum more suited to your tastes. We are generally not big on one-word posts.
 

---

Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
 
KoM,

Can I say hello?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I would suggest you do so in a separate thread.
 

---

Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
 
why?
 

---

Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
 
I just scanned this thread, so this might be a little out of place.

I recently attended a colloquium by a computational biologist from Harvard/MIT who has found evidence for a genetic method for huge leaps in the genome (say fish to amphibian). I am not a computation biologist, so this is a little hand wavy. His publications are at http://web.mit.edu/manoli/www/publications.html. They are written for the computational biology community, so are pretty technical.

They have found evidence that the entire genome of an animal can duplicate in the sex cells (the way it does now in a normal cell before it divides). Obviously, an individual with double the chromosomes is very "sick." However, in very rich environments, the individual can survive and constitutes a huge jump in "evolution."

It was the first real evidence for macro-evolution that I had seen.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
clod = fallow, I'm reasonably sure. fallow = banned, last I heard.
 

---

Posted by nekouken (Member # 9091) on :
 
I found myself rather annoyed at this essay, actually. I'm currently reading the Shadow series and am frequently impressed by Card's ability to write Bean as well as he does; his rational analysis of given situations, such as the state of the world political/military stage, even when he finds himself henpecked by adolescent hormones, is substantially astute (sure, he's just "predicting" developments Card intends to use -- he's a lot like the character in a movie who hears the audience telling him the killer is in the next room -- but his analysis is so much more than that), so it frustrates me that Card's own analysis isn't similarly so.

The entire first half of the essay is sloppy, unresearched, and practically devoid of anything approaching a real or fair argument. His characterizations of "Darwinist" arguments are oversimplified to the point that they can be presented as obviously wrong. I've never met an evolutionary biologist, or even a layperson who's studied evolutionary biology (or any of the other disciplines that support and even depend on evolution for the science to work) who dismissed sincere, real questions with "name-calling" and "elitism."

There's a difference, though, between asking questions and Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design doesn't say, "that doesn't work, and here's the science of why," it says "that doesn't work because I don't believe it can." ID is unscientific chiefly because its sole source of information is the personal incredulity of the individual rather than falsifiable, testable experimentation.

Also, using Michael Behe's work to defend his position should be an embarassment; I, as a layperson, can out-argue Irreducible Complexity, and that's the cornerstone of Behe's entire argument. He may be a scientist, (a biochemist), but that doesn't mean he understands evolution, and his IC proposal demonstrates pretty well that he doesn't.

The second half of the essay was more sensible, as he seems to be opposed not to evolution but Darwinian evolution, which even Darwin found problems with, some of which he was able to answer and some not. I agree with him; if schoolchildren are being taught Darwinian evolution straight from Origin of the Species, they should stop. They should instead teach modern evolutionary biology. Adding Intelligent Design to the cirriculum isn't the answer to the problem, new textbooks are.

Finally, people who accept evolution as scientific fact are not "evolutionists" or "Darwinists" any more than people who accept gravity as scientific fact are not "gravitationalists" or "Newtonists." Those terms serve no useful function.
 

---

Posted by plunge (Member # 9103) on :
 
Well, they DO serve to overemotionalize the debate, which is always important, no?

I can't think of any textbook that teaches anything other than that Darwin (and Wallace!) were the fathers of evolutionary theory which has long since developed beyond their authority or conclusions.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I've had it with this debate. I'm taking my genes, and I'm going home! None of you are invited to my birthday party.
 

---

Posted by plunge (Member # 9103) on :
 
Minerva, we've actually known for some time that all sorts of major chromosome level changes can take place without necessarily causing sterility or even death. Human beings have a chromosome that is simply two chromosomes fused together. Since all apes have these two chromosomes as separate, this fusion must have happened sometime after we diverged from other living apes.

In humans TODAY, there are many examples of major genetic changes in chromosome numbers that do not necessarily cause sterility. Females with Down syndrome can reproduce, and pass on the trait 50% of the time. Many rarer chromosome conditions that do not cause so many health and developmental difficulties also allow viable reproduction to take place.

The flexibility of genomes is different from creature to creature depending on their exact genetic structure (making things VERY VERY complicated: far too complicated to explain all the ins and outs in even a small book, much less a post). Mice, for instance, seem to have chomrosome fusions, deletions, duplications and the like happening quite a lot in their various speciations. Plants are exceedingly tolerant (which is why they vary so much in their ploidy: some hybrid plants even have up to six copies of every chromosome!)
 

---

Posted by plunge (Member # 9103) on :
 
I wanted to address some of the basic points here as well, going back to the points about species vs. genus, and so on. Tarrsk definately covers a lot of the key ground, but I think more can be said about macroevolution in general.

First of all, like Tarrsk said, there is no way to prove definitively that common descent (often refferred to as the "fact" of evolution) was all entirely the result of natural selection, anymore than we can prove that every sunrise in history was the result of earth's rotation.

In fact, this "natural selection explains everything about life" is a common straw man, because no biologist I know of claims that natural selection is the only force acting on the path of history in the common descent of species (even Darwin didn't think so). Any number of macro-evolutionary processes, from the neutral theory, to genetic drift, to mass extinction, to PE and others are thought to play a role (though where and how and when are all contentious matters) and are well within the accepted mainstream. Natural selection, of course, remains the only process proposed that can shape function and add "information" to the genome, and as such retains its central explanatory role as making adaptation, long term functional improvements over time, and other such constructive results possible.

As far as the proof that macroevolution in general happened, that common descent links all forms of life, this conclusion is basically unavoidable given the evidence. There may be, indeed, no more well established fact about the history of our planet. Nothing else aside from geology has such a broad scope of indepedent lines of evidence that all converge in such otherwise inexplicable detail, with the history and evidence spread across the entire globe. While specific historical events and sequences elude us, and may always elude us due to the evidence being destroyed, the general overview is sound. Fossil evidence fits in amazingly well with the patterns of the geographical distribution of life which is itself consistent with the geological history of continents, seas, land barriers, and so forth. The taxonomy of living things unswervingly conforms to the exact pattern that common descent demands: nested clades of traits, "allied" groups within groups.

Adding in the fossil record into this classification system only deepens the relations, fleshes out the already unavoidable implication that similar forms have some relation to each other. Countless transitional fossils, bearing blends of traits that are otherwise unique to different modern groups, strengthen the conclusion.

All of this was compelling enough already until the advent of genetics. Once we discovered ways to delve into the exact mechanisms and records of heredity, the reality of common descent became largely unavoidable. It wasn't simply that genetic studies showed so much in common between different creatures. It was the patterns of relation that the genes spelled out amazingly fit many of the patterns of ancestry that the fossils had already spelled out. That these two entirely different comparisons should match up is simply amazing: unless common descent is true, there is no reason for them to match, not in such detail, not in this particular way. In time, genetic studies even led us to fossils for more unknown historical transistions.

For instance, genetic evidence confirmed what had once been a fringe theory about whales and dolphins evolving from a particular sort of land animals, their closest living relative being the hippo. Once scientists knew this, they knew where to look for the ancestors of the whales (who in modern days range over so much of the ocean that we had never known where they might have started). And, amazingly, this new direction turned up several key transitional fossils sharing traits that are today unique to both land mammals and whales.

Genetics has allowed us to turn on long silenced ancestral genes, such as legs in snakes or the entire missing "adult" stage of the axotol. It has also revealed the mechanics of things like reproductive speciation: how mutations can begin and end the split of one population into two.

There is so much more one could go into to show why common descent is such a certainty: the particulars of hybridism, atavisms, population genetics. Each proof is not just another brick in the wall: it's a piece in a huge multi-dimensional puzzle that fits together in a coordinated way that could never ever happen if many or all the proofs were in error: error has no mechanism for coordination.

But this still brings us back to natural selection as the core of why and how this diversity is acheived, HOW these forms descend from each other with increasing modification. In many cases, especially those beyond the helpful guide of fossils and so far back in history that genetic evidence become confused and cloudy, we don't have much evidence to direct our invesigations. We are left, oftentimes, with many plausible pathways for some feature to evolve, but no way to distinguish what was merely possible from what actually happened.

Nevertheless, it is likewise quite certain that natural selection has been the primary driving force for adaptation and the construction of complex structures. No other explanation has both the potential the capability and the demonstrated means. Natural selection, which has been modeled and reproduced as a design process in all sorts of fields beyond biology, results in very particular sorts of outcomes. Its results tend to be repetative, wasteful, indirect, meandering but also often unpredictably ingenious. And here too, in genes and in physical function, we find that the functions in biology are often not only complex but needlessly, wastefuly complex and almost rube goldbergian. We find them built out of structures that appear to be modified duplications of previously existing structures rather than new parts. We find the history of common descent to be characteristically slow in getting to the point (otherwise obvious good tricks and traits taking hundreds of millenia to crop up)

That's only a sketch, but that's why even a layperson can convince themselves that evolution (micro, macro, common descent) is the best explanation anyones so far come up with, the one that fits the evidence so well that anyone seeking to disprove it faces an uphill climb to discount or explain not just any single piece of evidence or raise a doubt about this or that detail here or there, but the grand convergence of almost all of the physical evidence we have.
 

---