DJD,

I think you're hinting that students have the right to challenge science in the classroom. However, it is doubtful that high school students have enough background in science to put up a convincing challenge. I guess the challenges would be creationistic or ID in nature. Well, that I see as wasting everyone's time. The class is about science, and if the students pay attention, the doubt factor is built into the scientific method.

Actually, the one who needs to be treated more like a god is the teacher. The students ought to have enough respect to accept what's being taught as reliable.

A student who jumps up with, "Evolution is only a theory!" needs to be immediately retorted to with, "Creationism and ID are only religious beliefs!"

And something to the gist of, "We teach theories here, not beliefs."

The best comment I have heard on this is from my Biology proffesor, and he said this "When Sir Issac Newton and others were putting forth thier theories, they were much more sure of themselves and called them "laws" instead of theories- but interestingly enough, many of those "laws" seem to have some small flaws in them- but no church is really considering repealing the "law" of thermodynamics, are they? There are several accepted scientific theories out there, not very controversial, that have larger flaws than evolution, but the overall theory is sound, but the details are not filled in, however, we still don't wholesale throw out that theory and go with say, a Wiccan definition of spirits in the trees or whatever when a theory is not completely passed into scientific law"-

Evolution is the only OVERTLY anti-creationism theory out there, and it is not really ever been challenged by science, but by religion.

When you delve into any aspect of organic chemistry or biology, it is hard not to have an education in evolution, because so much of it ties into one another-

just as there once was many species of man, now there is only one- and to understand why our biology works the way it does, it is helpful to understand why some species of early humans died out.

Any belief system should be taught by the parents and the church they attend- it has no place in mainstream education unless you are putting your child into some kind of church school- and having attended Christian school much of my life as a child- it is enormously handicaping the childs education- though parts of my education were excellent, I had to play catch up in Chemistry and Biological sciences big time!

Teach the religion in the church, teach the science in the school. It is just sad how much power we have given to televangilists these days.

Instead of delving into the tiny details of evolution I'll raise the issue of practicality when answering the initial topic question. I took two years of High School Biology, regular and A.P. And even in that amount of time, the amount of information that had to be learned was substantial and a bit overwhelming.

As is obvious in this debate the proposed flaws of Evolutionary Theory (reminder that the laymen use of the word "theory" is different than the scientific definition of theory) require a firm understanding of the general principles of evolution. It is hard enough for a biology teacher to succeed in achieving that basic level of understanding in a majority of their students in the small time that is allotted them. To confuse students by raising nuances that are beyond their level of understanding would be a waste of time.

High school is not the place to dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. That debate should occur in higher levels of education. And as many people have pointed out it does, even amongst proponents of the theory. But nothing in that debate has led to a revision of the general principles that are taught in a basic high school biology class.

Evolution is not one issue but there are actually several aspects that are commonly blended together. It's been defined as the changing of alleles in populations over time, that pretty much makes everyone an evolutionist. The Discovery Institute is not advocating ID be taught alongside evolution, the question the Kansas school board was considering was whether or not Darwinian evolution is beyond skepticism. This is an intellectual issue not a scientific one since the philosophy of science since most of evolution as natural history is beyond the scope to testable hypothesis.

There are laws of science that have been established as the standard by which alleles change over time. Mendel's laws of inheritance were rediscovered some fifty years after his famous pea plant experiments. It has been tested so many ways that it is no longer seriously questioned how alleles change. During transcription the genes cross over and errors (aka mutations) are removed from the DNA stings or the cell will die, automaticlly. What happened back in the 40s is philosophers of science like Ernst Mayr and others reconciled Darwin and Mendel in the Modern synthesis. Darwin's natural selection has allways been controversal and should be criticised. Danial Dennet called 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' universal acid that eats through everything. The main issue is whether or not natural selection explains the rise of diversity from simple to the complex or is it simply a presumption.

Darwin's concept was simplicity itself, the less fit are simply eliminated. This thinking has led to some really bizzare rationalizations like social darwinism and eugentics. Still, the theory of evolution has become the basis of modern biology and people should be aware that it has two vital aspects that are in conflict. Evolution as a theory of science is perfectly sound but as a theory of natural history it has serious problems. There has been discussion about macroevolution and the role of mutations, the trouble with mutations is that they rarely result in a selective advantage. In the debate this was brought up and both sides agreed whole heartedly that students should be encourged to explore the findings of the Human genome project. If you are seriously interested in how mutations effect the human genome try this, follow the link and see what happens when mutations make it through the checkpoints during the cell cycle.

Homo sapians genome viewer

Mutations are not a mechanism of change, they are simply transcript errors that result in disease and disorder. Scientists have realized this and raised serious questions about Darwin's natural selection and in time I expect it will be discarded. By the way, creationism and ID have been discarded from University and public school lesson plans. The real question would be does ID offer a viable alternative to natural selection and ID is growing and in time it will raise a serious challenge to natural selection. Students should be aware of this lingering controversy and consider for themselves but don't expect it to happen any time soon.

I assume that this is merely a phrasing error, but if by "it", you mean "Darwin's natural selection", you've got a pretty tough case to make there.


Inasmuch as ID has failed to raise a serious challenge to natural selection, what do you expect will change the situation? What could plausibly happen in the future that would turn things around?

Natural selection has allways been contorversal and will continue to face serious criticisms. I don't know that we could ever get completely away from Darwin's natural selection since it has been the basis for evolutionary biology for something like 150 years. My point is simply that there has to be a genetic basis for evolution particularly with regards to its premise of universal descent from some kind of a protoorganism.

As far was what 'could plausably happen' I see it happening allready. ID is getting published in peer reviewed journals and this is raising some serious questions for the neodarwinian. Consider this, Mendel made this statement:

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.”

Does this raise any questions in your mind as to the extent to which living systems may evolve? To put it more directly, are there limits beyond which the complete transformation of one species to another are impossible?

The controversy you refer to is not scientific but religious and political.


Genetics is part and parcel of "the Darwinian synthesis". One big problem with Darwinism in the late 19th century was that the mechanism of descent was unknown, which opened up an avenue of attack. With the Darwinian synthesis of the 30s, genetics and natural selection were shown to fit together like hand in glove and everybody lived happily ever after -- except the creationists. So, yes, genetics plays a big role: a supporting role, not a competing role, to Darwinism.


These peer-reviewed journals you speak of are reviewed by other ID people. The mainstream academic press is another matter entirely. I know of no serious questions being raised by reputable scientists regarding the basic correctness of the Darwinian synthesis. Lots of arguments over the details of how it's done, but not fundamental challenges.



The limits are imposed by the environment and time. If the environment remains stable, there will be relatively little evolutionary change, as we saw during the Mesozoic era. If the environment changes rapidly, then we can expect rapid evolutionary change. When you realize that fishies led to land mammals, some of whom went back to the sea and became dolphins -- well, the range of possibilities is gigantic.

It is a scientific controversy and allways has been.



Genetics and natural selection did not fit hand in glove otherwise there would have been no need for a sythesis. Genetics had been well established and universal laws regulating sexual reproduction and the modern definition for evolution was taken from genetics not natural selection. Darwinian evolution and Medelian genetics do conflict particularly when we discuss the rise of novel genes and the origin of alltogether different forms. The only way this could occur would be mutations in the genetic code resulting in a selective advantage. This simply does not happen except in rare instances and offer only marginal selective advantages.



That is simply not true, for example:

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

This paper underwent the same procedure for publication that any scientific paper would. This is what the editor wrote in response to the ensueing controversy surronding the publication of the paper:

"In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg



The limits of possible changes are measurable and well established. Combinations of genes can account for most of the changes from wolves to dogs and variations of hybrids. There is no need to mutate the genetic code unless you are locked into a single common ancestor model the way modern evolution is. Now as far as the sea creature that grew legs, developed a mammalian respiratory system only to return to the sea I would say the evidence for this mophology has to have some kind of a genetic basis. Genetics is not a minor, supportative elemement of evolutionary theory, it is the very definition of evolution and natural selection never has been nor can it be.

The first part of your paragraph is phrased so vaguely that I cannot divine your meaning. Your last sentence, however, makes perfect sense and is flatly incorrect. The rate of mutation in DNA is so well-understood that we now use mutations as an evolutionary clock. This is most commonly done with mitochondrial DNA. By comparing the number of different mutations between two closely related species, we can determine how long ago they separated.

You're right that genetic recombination is a major component of evolutionary development, but to flatly deny any role to mutations is simply wrong. In modern large populations with correspondingly large gene pools, recombination will surely play a larger role in evolutionary development than mutation. However, in the early stages of life, when gene pools were smaller, mutation would have played a bigger role. That's one reason why it took several billion years to get from a lifeless planet to the first single-celled creatures, and then less than a billion years to get from single-celled creatures to the crown of creation: Homer Simpson.


I've got the paper, I'll read it and get back to you.


Whether or not the need exists, the phenomenon takes place. Genetic mutation happens all the time. To deny it any role is to ignore a crucial component of the evolution of life on earth.


Yes, it does have a genetic basis. But on what basis do you reject the role of mutation in this process? How can you be certain that the entire process was accomplished without any mutations whatever?


This sentence makes no sense to me. You say that genetics is the very definition of evolution, but that's not the definition I find in the dictionary. And remember, the word "evolution" has been badly abused. Darwin himself did not use it to refer to his theory; he summed it up as "descent through selection", and that central idea has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Your criticisms are all over the map here. You acknowledge some things and deny others. Could you please specify your objection to standard evolutionary theory as it is taught at, say, the college undergraduate level?

You speak with great apparent authority, but are sadly mistaken about a great many of your suppositions. While there are, and have been, and likely will continue to be discussions about the exact nature of the mechanisms and rate of mutation and selection under demographic stress which form evolution, there is no serious secular discussion about the validity of evolution whatsoever.

There is not a secular institution of higher learning in the first world that would give the time of day to creationists or psudo creationists. There are no serious secular scientific journals in the first world that would public 'ID', which is nothing but the latest iteration of the creationist fable, ever-changing to try and adapt to the continuous dismissal of its foundations.



Really? This never happens? really? Well, you had best inform the scientific community about this, because they seem to think it happens all the time. In fact, in every single creature with a generational age small enough to allow us to measure and track evolutionary change there have been beneficial mutations. From bacteria up to insects beneficial changes seem not only possible, but quite common. Pesticide resistant blackflies, mosquitoes that dine on different blood chemistry, antibiotics resistant bacteria, new forms of bacterial infection... the list goes on.

These changes are not only common, but also dramatic, and offer a massive advantage. Please check your facts before posting.



Yes, and have you read it? It completely and directly contracdicts your argument. Perhaps you should have consulted it before you referenced it. He states quite clearly the value of beneficial mutations in the role of evolution, and unlike you he does not seem to 'doubt their existence' at all.

This article is essentially a historiography of modern evolutionary though, 90% of which he disagrees with, but states that he finds the current explanation of the development of new species 'unlikely'. As such he proposes other models should be explored. He gives no evidence whatsoever for ID, he simply states it is a possible alternative which might explain some of the existing questions.



In the end, let me ask you this. If as you seem to claim, evolution is so unreasonable and 'soon to be discarded', then why does it and ONLY it form the entire basis of biological teachings in every single secular institution of higher learning in the first world? Have Harvard, Cornell, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, Heidelburg, and every single one of their secular contemporaries all individually succumbed to some mass conspiracy? Why is it that this tiny spike of creationism has spiked only in the conservative fundamentalist sections of the south of the United States, and even there has not reached secular universities at all?

I think you are misunderstanding my meaning, I'm not saying that mutations cannot result in a slight selective advantage. What I am saying is that mutations are most often deleterious, sometimes neutral and only a very rare few offer a selective advantage.



I give you the crown of creation and the product of billions of years of evolutionary change

Image

...but seriously, you are right that the mutation rates are well established.

"Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. "

Rates of Spontaneous Mutations



I disagree, ID is certainly not a mainstream philosophy of science but it is certainly a fundamental challenge. Neodarwinian thinking has been criticised from its inception and will continue to face serious challenges.




I would be interested in whatever you have to say about it.



Fascinating! Then why is it that geneticists have so much trouble finding them? The Human Genome Project has identified dozens of diseases and disorders that result from mutations in human genes. The have listed a string of disease and disorder for every chromosome in the human genetic code. Don't believe me? Follow the link and click on any chromosome:

Human Chromosome Veiwer



Mutations are simply transcript errors and the effects of mutations are well established. We can talk about beneficial effects from genetic mutations if you like but there are very few examples of them and they generally offer only a slight selective advantage.



Do you have a different definition for evolution then I do?

Evolution- The change in gene frequencies in populations over time.

For one thing this definition is the same as one you will get in any biology textbook. For another thing we know how these gene frequencies change, its through recombination of genes. The reason Mendel made such brilliant insights is that he chose traits that result from genes that are on seperate chromosomes or far enough apart on the same chromosome that they can recombine. This is basic genetics, the further apart the genes are the more often they are recombined.

Now if you are interested in a more detailed description of how transcript errors are prevented this should get us started. How genes are duplicated is what genetics is all about and how the genes are recombined is what creates the divergence of character Darwin attributed to natural selection. The S phase is where the DNA is replicated in the cell cycle and there is a checkpoint that insures that the replication is without error. It’s like a quality control inspection in the G2 phase where the cell cycle is stopped. There is another one at the apoptosis checkpoint where if the enzyme survivin has not accumulated, cell death is automatic. Just before the cell completely splits during the anaphase is the spindle assembly checkpoint. Here the spindle must be built, the chromosomes must attached to the spindle and the chromosomes must aligned down the center. If there is a change (transcript error) in the DNA that gets past these, and possibly many others, the result is known as a mutation.

For a more detailed description of various kinds of mutations try this:

Mutations

ID has been published and they are making inroads into mainstream biology. Behe and Meyer have both been published in ligitamate scientific journals and offer serious questions that challenge natural selection. ID is not creationism or anything like it and while this mischaracterization is common it is erroneous in the extreme. This is not about creationism, its about the Discovery Institutes minority report to the Kansas State Board of Eduction. The real problem was the definition of science which is required under the No Child Left Behind inititative. Kansas defined science as accepting only natural explanations and they are the only state in the union that does that.



Like I said, only slight selective advantages and I could offer a list that would go on for pages of harmfull effects from genetic transcript errors.



I did check the facts and the list of selective advantages you are generalizing about are anything but massive. For every selective advantage you can name as the direct result of a genetic mutation I can list at least a dozen harmfull ones.



I did read it and I would have to see the quote you think contradicts me so strongly. The rise of complexity in the Cambriagn expolosion went from 5 basic cell types to well over 50. Every major phylum, class and subclass appear suddenly in the geologic record with no explanation for how they occured. The fundamental question of Darwinian natural selection remains unanswered.



It's a discussion of theoretical biology and it is a credible scientific journal written by an ID scientist. This is not supposed to be possible for an ID paper to get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal and yet it was.



For one thing ID is an evolutionary theory so I could not advocate an ID perspective and reject evolution. Since evolution is defined by genetics it should be realized that the very mechanisms that cause diversity prevent fundamental change from one kind of a species to an altogether different one.

“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)

Look, all I am saying is that there are limits on how much change is possible. Over 5/6 of geologic time the only life was fauna and bacteria. Then suddenly an explosion of complexity and diversity gave rise to every basic taxa on this planet. How does this occur? There is nothing wrong with the theory of evolution as natural science its the presumptions with regards to natural history that I find exaggerated.

Edited to add: I didn't realize that images were against the rule. My apologies.

phaedrus, I read through the paper you linked to and found it wanting. It takes advantage of one of the weak spots in most biologists' education: information theory. To really grasp this stuff, you need some electrical engineering, some probability theory, and some thermodynamics under your belt. Few biologists have that kind of background and so few can immediately see the paper's weaknesses, which I find glaring.

For example, he states that the probability of building a large protein is 1 in 10**77. He errs here in using the probability of building it from scratch; there's no basis for that assumption. It is almost a certainty that most proteins in use in cells are themselves the product of evolution, building on past protein history. But even if we grant him this point, he miscalculates its use. He applies a mutation rate of 10**-9 per base pair per year to conclude that only 1% of a given bit of DNA will change in 10 million years -- but that's the mutation rate for a single individual. His calculation assumes that all the little pre-Cambrian bugs are looking at one single bug to produce all the mutations necessary. If you instead use the entire gene pool, then you're talking about millions of individuals, and the net probability would be millions of times higher if probability added linearly. Instead, it is vanishly close to 1.0 in this case.

There are lots of other flaws in his reasoning, but I don't care to root every last one out. This one is such a whopper that I see no need to further consider this paper.

You still have not clarified your position on evolution, and I still find your statements all over the map. You seem to be quite happy with genetics but I still can't figure out what your problem with Darwinism is. Could you succinctly state your objection to Darwinism?

Erasmussimo, I realize that probablity theory and thermodynamics would be important but I don't get why electrical engineering is important. Keep in mind this is a focus on theoretical biology and many of the empirical demonstrations are not as vital as they would be when considering a specific transition.



I think you are getting ahead of yourself here, he specifies what the basis for his calculations is. When you go from single celled organisms to more complex ones there is an astronomical rise in the specified complexity:

"We must also ask about the origin of the “specified complexity,” as opposed to mere complexity, that characterizes the new genes, proteins, cell types and body plans that arose in the Cambrian explosion. "

This is an attempt to call in to question the genetic basis for the Cambrian explosion. Let's look at the numbers he is using to determine the probability of this occuring through random changes:

"Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. "

Going from a few hundred to over a million base pairs is not a gradual change but a giant leap. Genes program the proteins from DNA with very specific form and function. The proteins in turn are the building blocks of the cells and how this explosion of complexity and function has reamained an unsolved problem for neodarwinians.

"A typical gene contains over one thousand precisely arranged bases. For any specific arrangement of four nucleotide bases of length n, there is a corresponding number of possible arrangements of bases, 4n. For any protein, there are 20n possible arrangements of protein-forming amino acids. A gene 999 bases in length represents one of 4^999 possible nucleotide sequences; a protein of 333 amino acids is one of 20^333 possibilities."

That is random variation in a nutshell, it is the changes in the protiens that account for adaptations, not mutations. I am still at a loss for why you don't see the rise of complexity being a problem for Darwinian evolution. Keep in mind that the single common ancestor model is clearly a premise of both Darwin and modern biologists. There should be a genetic basis for this and to date no one has ever seen a bacteria single celled population grow a nucleous, which it would have to do to evolve into a Eukaryote. Then a number of Animalia cells must be developed with specified complexity being coded into the genes on a macro level.




That's your call but I think he was pretty clear what the issues were and why this giant leap in information and specified complexity is a signifigant flaw in Darwinian philosophy.



My objections are as follows:

1. Darwinism presumes universal descent from a single celled protoorganism with no genetic basis for such transitions being possible.

2. Evolution is defined by genetics not natural selection and there is no need for the single celled ancestor model.

3. Genetics has identified a number of mechanisms that clearly regulate the limits beyond which species may change from one kind to an altogether different kind.

That is about a clear and distict as I can get without relying on generalities that have no relevance to the issue under discussion. ID is about valid criticisms of the modern synthesis and very little else. Genetics is the basis for the theory of evolution not natural selection and it sounds to me like Darwin has established an outdated concept of the blending of characteristics. We know how characteristics and traits are passed from one generation to the next and what the long term effects are. What we have no genetic basis for is the seemingly limitless amount of change that would have to have occured for there to be a single celled common ancestor to develop into more complex taxa.

I do have one question for you though. Do you agree with the Kansas State Board of educations definition of science? If so, why are they the only state that has such a definition?

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?
I'm a bit of an anti-federalist on this one. Let each state or municipality decide for themselves.

However, if I had children and my school board were considering adding ID to the curriculum, I would advocate fiercely against it.

While there are remaining questions about evolution that science has not provided an answer to (yet), intelligent design hasn't advanced beyond mere hypothesis in the scientific realm. And high school biology is just that, a science class. I say that fully appreciating as a spiritual being the mystical nature of the universe. Some might argue those are mutually exclusive. I don't believe so.

Doc

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?


ID and creationsim simply have no place in a science classroom.
Point of order: We simply could not be holding such a technical discussion concerning the validity of ID because Inteligent Design provides no numbers, no predictions and no statistics of ANY sort. Intelligent design provides quaint metaphors and analogies about long walks on the beach and encountering random, complex objects. Truly, ID is the stuff of poetry class.


One thing I have noticed in this discussion is the most common error people make in discussing evolution: people tend to oversimplify as they argue from example. For example, phaedrus said,


This is true! Beneficial mutations are very rare compared to deleterious ones. But this is often because no mutation has a single effect on the individual/species.
For example, the genetic mutation that brought with it sickle cell anemia is also the human's best defense against malaria. Article here

Have your pick on the chicken/egg argument. Sickle cell anemia is prevalent in people who also live in the malaria belt across Africa and India. Which came first, the mutation or the malaria? It is possible that the mutation for sickle cell arose and later on people in high malaria areas (environmental factor) simply selected for survival in that area. Or perhaps Malaria was around first and humans mutated so that, after hundreds of generations, those with resistance to malaria flourished. (and held on to Sickle cell anemia begrudgingly)

Either way this happened in a geometrically expanding pattern over at least many thousands of years. It is misleading to talk about the rarity of positive mutations for two reasons: 1. Almost any mutation can become a positive one given the proper environment <see above> 2. Given the boundless number of individuals of a given species over millenia it is ludicrous to think that a useful mutation WON'T happen. The odds are simply in favor of it. It does not matter (on the evolutionary scale) if a million individuals die horribly and painfully from a mutation before just one succeeds. As an aside to my aside I would add that the above linked article also discredits phaedrus's claim that "negative" mutations are common and egregious.

A very interesting article but there is one problem with sickle cell mutations (much less sickle cell disease) are the best defense for malaria, this is directly contradicted by the article. Now if the individule has a balanced polymorphism (see figure 2) it can offer a slight survival advantage. From the article:

"A common misstatement is that malaria selects for sickle cell disease. This is not true. A person with sickle cell disease is at an extreme survival disadvantage because of the ravages of the disease process. This means that a negative selection exists for sickle cell disease. Sickle cell trait is the genetic condition selected for in regions of endemic malaria. Sickle cell disease is a necessary consequence of the existence of the trait condition because of the genetics of reproduction."




The sickle cell trait does assert itself in areas where malaria is endemic, so you do have an example of natural selection in action. However, it offers as many disadvantages and only a slight selective advantage. It is also not true that the sickle cell trait offers the best defense against malaria and the article is clear on this point as well. It is host immunity and vaccinations that provide the best defense against this disease:

"Host immunity is crucial to survival of people infected with the malaria parasite. This is particularly true with respect to the nocuous falciparum parasite. The immune system works best when it has been primed against the invader. Children who suffer their first or second bout of malaria have not developed the immune response needed to provide adequate defense against the parasite. "



Effects from mutations are neutral the vast majority of the time, often deleterious and on rare occasions offer a slight selective advantage for a short period of time. The sickle cell mutation is a prime example and only in areas where endemic malaria is ravaging populations does it offer any selective advantage at all. Then it is only a slight advantage while suffering from the effects of the disease and only when there is a balanced polymorphism and sickle cell disease offers no advantage at all.

Intelligent design is, as I have said before, a valid criticism of Darwinian natural selection. All the minority report suggested was that the definition for science being used by the Kansas State School Board should not insist and exclusivly naturalistic explanations. Unless we want to place natural selection above skepticism then problems with this aspect of modern evolutionary biology should be taught as well as its strengths.

So you keep repeating, but that does not make it any more true.

I already explained that in almost EVERY species in which the generational life is short enough that scientists can study evolutionary change, they have seen improvement due to positive mutation and natural selection.

Your repeated comment of 'rare mutations offer a slight selective advantage for a short period of time' is simply not in any way, shape or form true.

I listed several of the significant changes to insects and bacteria through beneficial mutation, you dismissed them without comment. Yet the reality is, as anyone with any knowledge of cell biology will telling you, bacteria developing anti-bacterial resistant strains is akin to human becoming bulletproof, not in any way a small or 'short term slight advantage'. Furthermore this mutation is becoming domonant due to the basic darwinian principle of natural selection during demographic crisis.


You can keep saying beneficial mutations never happen, but it seems reality disagrees with you.



No, it is not. Not at all. In no way.

Let me put it another way. IF these problems with evolution you repeat did exist (which they do not, but lets just say, for the sake of argument), then which would you say is a more valid theory to explain them?

-Intelligent design, in other words God moving and shaping the process of evolution towards some ultimate goal; or

-Zeus battling with the other Olympian Gods over the final shape of humanity, each god occasionally interfering with human development in their own way, some gods making positive adjustments, other gods making negative ones, resulting in humans being a genetic random hodge podge based on the interference of conflicting dieties?

Of those two, and we should be very clear on this, there is MORE evidence for the second than the first. After all, if evolution has been prodded and prompted by God, then why are there so many design flaws in the human body? Why is God doing such a crappy job of it?


Intelligent design is a fairy tale, with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to back it up, nor any reason EXCEPT FAITH to even give it the slightest credence.

It is just as reasonable to assume the interference of the Olympian Gods, or Kali, Shiva and Genesha from Indian mythology, or for that matter Gloosecap and the great sky mother from Native North American mythology.

So if you want to discuss the (real) questions about evolution, then certainly we can do so, in a scientific context, with the realisation there there are no more holes in evolutionary science then there are in any other science. But to bring myth and fables into it serves no purpose.

I think Vermillion said it very well- intelligent design does not even belong in a scientific discussion forum- it belongs in a philosophy or seminary/belief debate.

I think that lies at the crux of the matter- the Kansas school board is trying to subvert science with religion- and that is a horrible disservice to the children of that school.

Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses?

If it is not taught- then the students education will have an enormous whole in it, and will not be able to compete with budding scientists that do have the basics of thier education.

That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

Absolutely- there is no science in intelligent design as pointed out by others- it is a belief system. It should be taught or offered though IMO, in a philosophy or mythology class.

"Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. The impact of mutation is quite different in different DNA sequences. It is maximal in a conventional gene or exon, and at least transitorily less in a gene whose function is required rarely or is redundant. If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift, as KIMURA 1983A has argued. In this case, the proportion of neutral mutations at a site or locus is the ratio of its rate of evolution to that of a region that can be considered neutral, such as a pseudogene. Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious, but the fraction may approach zero for spacer DNAs such as introns and intergenic regions. Of course, some protein evolution certainly results from favorable mutations, and to this extent the neutral fraction is overestimated. "

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation



You can keep saying it but the evidence is just not there. Random drift and mutations are the only vehicle for change in DNA sequences that result in adaptive evolutionary change. I am open to counter evidence but what I am finding is that many mutations are deleterious, most are neutral (not having enough effect for selection to act on) and in rare instances offer a slight selective advantage. The sickle cell trait has been tauted as the most dramatic example of natural selection in action and if that is the best we have then it hardly rates a demonstrated mechanism for evolution of a macro scale.



I am aware that bacteria and insects change, for a hundred years they have been studying the effects of mutations on fruit flies and e coli bacteria and they do seem to indicate a slight selective advantage. I pointed out the massive changes that would be nessacary for the transition from bacteria and fauna to every major taxa (phylum, class and subclass). The type of cells prior to the Cambrian explosion must have went from 5 basic cell types to well over 50, from several hundred base pairs of nucleotide sequences to well over a million. Bacteria would have to develop a nucleous in order to transform into a Eukaryote and then diversify into a multitude of animalia cells and produce every major vital organ and body part in about 10 million years. These points remain unanswered and I fail to see how this is not a valid scientific criticism of natural selection.




I never said that and I have been pretty clear about what major transitions lack a genetic basis and the marginal effects of rare beneficial mutations.




Intelligent design is nothing new but natural selection is a relativly modern model. I think specified complexity could contribute to an understanding of what must occur for evolution to happen. I never once argued against evolution as science and I see no real reason to do that. I think students should be exposed to the evidence and be challenged to learn the limits beyond which species cannot change from one species to an altogether different one. Science is about measuring things precisly so it only makes sense that they would be taught to look at the mutation rates in cell replication and their effects.



Frankly, I have asked real questions and the primary one involve the limits of beneficial mutations on genetic alleles in populations over time. I have also raised the question of whether or not the criticism of the Kansas State Board of Education in the minority report is a valid one. I agree that there are no more holes in the Theory of Evolution then there are in other scientific theories. My thing is that we would have no problem introducing valid criticisms of Newton's theory of light or gravity so why is neodarwinism immune? Nothing in science is beyond skepticism, not even laws of science, like Mendel's laws of inheritance.

Why not simply present the evidence and let students examine it pro and con and come to their own conclusions. Banning valid criticisms of certain aspects of evolutionary theory does not contribute to the development of a well rounded eductation. I am not advoating teaching Intelligent Design or anything like that, I'm saying that students would benefit from being exposed to the controvesy surronding the theory of evolution and alternatives to Darwinian natural selection. That was the heart of the minority report and I think it is a reasonable suggestion.

Yes it should.
Reason? Why not? If you have the resources to do this, it should be done. The children should get the chance to learn how the world works as soon as possible, and preferably, as good as possible.


Yes, of course Creationism (or Intelligent Design as they now call it) should be banished from public high school biology courses. Why? Because it has nothing to do with Biology. Its Religion.



It seems to me, that the question asked, is like "Should cars not be allowed to drive on the sidewalk".. Why? Because it is for pedestrians. Its Ham and Cheese. Perhaps i missed something(?).

I have patiently read this thread Phaedrus, and I have a sense based on previous posts that your taking this as a challenge of playing 'Devil's Advocate' on this topic. While many of your arguments against current evolutionary theories seem to have some scientific grounding (I am no biologist, and neither is anyone else in this thread from what I can tell), as Julian stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread, and an issue you have ignored in your arguments, Intelligent Design is simply not science.

And that's all anyone is offering up to replace evolution as a viable explanation for life on this planet.

Refer to Julian's post for specifically why it is not science. For more background on the reasoning and politics behind trying to introduce ID as a viable alternative to evolution refer to the Skepdic:

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

http://skepdic.com/creation.html

Relevent passages:

Concerning Macro vs Micro evolution:



Concering ID:



I'm not the biggest fan of the stubborness of the scientific community, so I can understand the frustration with the lack of reception of new ideas that counteract old ideas. However, this should not be confused to be an exceptional case with Evolution. In fact, anytime a group of scientists come up with a controversial theory idea or results from an experiment, the scientific community immediately becomes suspicous. It's only through extensive work that new ideas can become accepted universally.

Unfortuantely, ID is clearly not a science, nor does it follow any sort of credible scientific process. It's as impossible to prove ID as it is to prove there is in fact a God short of direct evidence of the existence of God.

I don't consider it playing devils advocate when you offer a valid criticism of a mainstream scientific theory, namely Darwinism. The original topic question involved the Kansas State Board of Education's definition of science and other aspects of evolutionary biology. What is so supprising about the responses is that there is no interest expressed in what the issue was that they were considering in the first place.

Define science and I suppose we could have something to talk about but simply saying that Intelligent Design is not science is begging the question. I have asked other and now I will ask you, do you agree with the Kansas State Board of Education's definition of science? If so, why are they the only state in the Union that defines it that way? If we are going to ban ID then it only makes sense to look at what they advocate and why it is not suitable for science classes.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. While I don't yet think that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, I also don't believe in the concept of banning/censuring criticisms of scientific theory. If students at least understand that scientists can't explain everything, it would be a motivating factor for them to want to proceed in the work of discovering those answers.

ID relies on the statistical improbabilities found in some of the holes in evolutionary theory. For example, it is nothing short of a statistical miracle for complex life to exist and defy the laws of entropy. But because we are unable to model and recreate the concept (ID) in a lab, it loses its scientific edge. Ironically some of the concepts of evolutionary theory have yet to be recreated in a lab as well. But at least with evolutionary theory we have something we can try and test.

*edited for clarity

Actually, Phaedrus, the topic question is:
Should evolutionary theory be taught in public high schools with the same core content used in university courses? That is, should all this creationism and intelligent design non-science be banished from public high school biology courses?

So your question is actually signficantly off-topic. You keep reiterating that ID may be suitable for science classrooms. But several people have pointed out that ID is not science, and in fact belongs more appropiately in philosiphy or theology classes. I've already cited credible sources which show why ID has come about, how it's gained momentum from creationists as a new way to get creationism back into the classrooms, and quite specifically why ID is not science.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I simply don't understand why you think ID is valid? You've done a lot to point out the flaws of evolution and Darwinism, but this does not mean ID has any scientific basis. To be taught as science it must have some scientific evidence which supports it. Real, observable, empirical evidence. I've seen lots of evidence where there are flaws in our understanding of Evolution, but where is the evidence that a supreme being created life?

The answer is that there is no evidence. And that is why ID has no place in any classroom Kansas or otherwise.

HOWEVER:
From reading over your posts again it seems that you may believe ID is merely a collection of flaws in Evolutionary theory. But that isn't a science. Even if you proved everything about Darwinism is wrong, you would still not have proven one iota of ID.


I'll concede the point that if Kansas wants to take the time that could be used to learn much more productive things to demonstrate the holes in this theory, than they have every right to.

I couldn't find what you were specifically talking about concerning Kansas' policy, could you perhaps give me a post # or post the link again?

ID is an intellectual movement of scientists, philosophers and educators that simply descent from Darwinism. What is not really appreciated here is that the Discovery Institute is not advocating the teaching of ID in the public schools and never has. I still think the concept of specific complexity would be a good subject for discussion when teaching about evolutionary biology. I mean think about it, what is the first thing your Biology teacher started teaching your class in High School. Typically there is a short discussion of scientific method followed by learning the parts and functions of the cell. Intelligent Design while it may not be an empirically demonstrated theory it could stimulate examination of what constitute irreducibly complex systems.

ID is an evolutionary theory and many of the proponents are simply critical of Darwinism. While I am not really interested in seeing this controvesial perspective on evolutionary theory added to educational standards in the public schools I still think it has its merits. I read the minority report and say nothing in the way of a relgiously motivated philosophy advocated. This is what the suggested and why:

"Dennison and Miller, along with reviewers Heppert and Theobald, also claim that the revised definition would open the door to supernatural explanations in science. This is simply false: No one is proposing that supernatural explanations should be included in science.

The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result...

Only Kansas currently defines science primarily as "seeking natural explanations." As the comprehensive survey attached below shows, the Minority's proposed revision would bring the Kansas science standards back into the mainstream of the U.S. science education community."

Kansas Science Standards and the Minority Reports Suggestion

I just think that it is not true that there was some suggestion of a supernatural explanation. What is more I think that the minority report's suggestion that they alter the definition to conform with the mainstream U.S. science education community was a reasonable one.

What you don't seem to realize is that the thread title implied that Kansas State Science standards were the topic of discussion. I'm told repeatedly that ID isn't science but it was the definition of Science in the Kansas Educational standards that was the main issue addressed. I never suggested that ID should be a part of science standards in public schools I just don't think that banning it is anything other then censorship. What is even more fascinating is that no one suggested such a thing to the Kansas State Board of Eductation.

What I did was point out what I felt the merits of ID were and refuted the contention that ID does not appear in scientific journals. I also defended my statement (meant to be a passing remark) that mutations are often delerious, mostly neutral and rarely beneficial or adaptive. There was also some discussion of sickle cell traits offering a beneficial effect but I have been trying to discuss what happened in Kansas and what the minority report suggested. Unfortunatly this has been ignored and I am not sure why the title of the topic and the question for debate are so unrelated.





I made this general statement in my first serious post, post #54.

"The Discovery Institute is not advocating ID be taught alongside evolution, the question the Kansas school board was considering was whether or not Darwinian evolution is beyond skepticism. This is an intellectual issue not a scientific one since the philosophy of science since most of evolution as natural history is beyond the scope to testable hypothesis."

I also asked this question in hopes of discussing what I considered the main issue in Kansas, post #64:

I do have one question for you though. Do you agree with the Kansas State Board of educations definition of science? If so, why are they the only state that has such a definition?




What is puzzling about this is that neither the Discovery Institute nor anyone in Kansas ever considered adding ID to the standards. The controversy surronded their definition of science and whether or not criticisms of Darwinism should be allowed in the standards.

phaedrus, I don't believe the article you have been posting as your "one size fits all" reply to some of our critiques even says what you think it says. I'm no biologist, but it seems to me that this article is an attempt to explain why and how there is a great variation in the mutation rates of various micro-organisms.


The article goes on to discuss various species from virii to Homo Sapiens and comparing mutations rates with environmental variables such as heat, population, gender, somatic cell vs. germ cell, age, etc... What I have found (having suffered through the entire article) is that the authors are explaining how evolution MAKES SENSE considering the wide variety of mutation rates and types in nature.
Your oft-quoted line " A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against"
is a reference to measurements made in individuals. So, as they point out, rarely do individuals have a mutation that pans out as an immediately beneficial one. This is a no brainer. Mutations can often take eons to find their evolutionary relevance. As far as the indiviual is concerned, most mutations (being a cellular variation from the "norm") turn out to be bad. Hence, we have many individuals who suffer disease and die, technically, before their time. Those individuals who suffer a particularly vicious mutation often die before they are able to reproduce thus failing to further the prevalence of said mutation. (they say that in the article as well)
Later in the article the authors explain the difficulty of actually maintaining a test population that harbors severely deleterious mutations because it is difficult to "prevent the operation of selection":


In other words, in order to do their studies on a variety of species they must isolate small populations of like or even "clonal" organisms such that they are unable to select out the most negative mutations. This is the only way they are able to measure the rates of negative mutations on a population. If you see another meaning in here by all means, please put it in laymans' terms as I have tried to do. Simply quoting a chunk of technobabble is no argument.

I fail to see how this article aids your argument in any way. It seems to promote the argument for natural selection, it is somewhat old (published in 1998, before a host of breakthroughs in cellular biology and genomics) and it is ridiculously academic. Being a Liberal arts kinda' guy I found it painful to read for long bouts....it certainly was NOT iambic pentameter.


As well, I fail to see how you have countered the assertion that ID has not been published in a reputable scientific journal. I have seen no linnk to a journal nor even a mention of an article promoting ID in a journal. I would like to see proof of some sort.
Here's an article in Nature where the debate is framed in laymans terms (Thankfully) But it is a report on the controversy, not a peer reviewed paper.
Interestingly, the proponent of ID said in the article, ""If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually." I think this comment speaks for itself. He is on a crusade and nothing more....

As far as the actual subject of this thread goes I have changed my mind slightly.
I see no reason why a good science teacher could not use ID in, perhaps, an honors Biology course in which the students have already had a year of Biology.
The fundametal principal of science is that all theories must hold up to scrutiny. When a theory becomes so precious that it cannot be challenged we set ourselves up for stagnation. Alowing students to apply their understanding of evolution and defend it from ID would be an excellent lesson on the value of scientific method.

Will ID ever supplant evolution as the dominant understanding of life on Earth? Never, not possible as long as science is based on method and experimentation.
Why did Kansas offer up such a vague definition of "Science"? Most likely to grease the way for the adoption of the equally vague ID proposal. This is simply the lowering of the proverbial bar. If they had a standard definition of science in place ID would not even be an option....

I have been staying out of this discussion for several reasons. First, the Gods have warned us about topic drift, and I slunk back into my hole for fear of offending them. Second, I felt that others were making all the important points, so I felt no need to merely repeat what others were saying. However, I shall timidly poke my head out of my hidey-hole, make a point, and then scurry back into my hole before the thunderbolts rain down upon us. (Why don't we just set up a topic in the science area on ID versus evolution? So long as we make sure that creationism is off the table, there's no violation of site rules as I understand them.)

OK, on to my point: this improbability argument you raise is way off the mark. Remember, all this increased complexity is being driven by the negentropy coming from the sun. I once did a calculation showing that the amount of sunlight hitting the earth in one second contains millions of times more negentropy than the negentropy content of the entire biosphere. In other words, the "improbability stuff" that drives evolution is raining down on us in vast quantities and only the tiniest fraction of it is used by the biosphere. Think of it this way: take your typical third world country and drop billions of dollar bills over it every day. Ten years later, the third world country is rich! Do we say, "What an amazing and improbable thing it is for this country to have just spontaneously gotten rich all by itself"? No. We say, gosh, they've had trillions of dollars rained down on them and they're only worth a few hundred billion?!?!?

Same thing with life. With all the negentropy pouring down on the earth, it's a wonder that life took so long to develop. Yes, I know, there are little matters like having the right kind of medium in which life can take place. But arguing improbability is just way out of touch with the thermodynamic reality here.

La Herring Rouge, I am going to resist the temptation to do an expositon of the post. Some of the members have complained about this becasue they feel it distracts from the discussions and take too much space. That said, I want to thank you for struggling through the entire publication and by the way, I'm a Liberal Arts student as well. On to the paper:

The purpose of the research was to determine the mutation rates in various genomes. They note that the most striking difference is the sheer size of Eukaryotes (you are a Eukaryote btw) as compared to bacteria and microbes. I am going to offer a couple of exerpts I found helpful.

From 'Evolutionary forces shaping mutation rates:'

"Because the fidelity of DNA replication depends on elaborate enzymatic machinery, mutational inactivation of any component of which can greatly elevate the mutation rate, selection acts primarily to reduce the standard mutation rate, although allowing higher rates in specific circumstances."

The enzymes are the molecular machinary that does the work of replication. Selection only allows the mutation rate to increase when it inhances the ability of enzymes to eliminate mutations. With this going on the author were wondering why the mutation rate isn't zero. The answer was actually fairly simple, the benefit of these impovements was outweighed by the cost of doing it. It's like when a factory knows that there is a much more effective machine or how to improve an old one, but the cost outweighs the profits. However, because lethal and detrimental mutations are so dangerous in is sometimes nessacary. The point being that it is selection that is deliberatly preventing the mutations from being accumulated. Here is part of the section you were talking about:

"...estimates of the rate of mutation to most detrimental alleles, i.e., mutations that reduce fitness by less than about 50% when homozygous."

That is best explained by simple cost efficiency, if it costs more then it profits it is simply not worth it. You were asking how this helps my arguments. This principle is applied in ID to the bacteria flagelum. It acts like a propellor on a motor boat engine. Michael Behe (a micobiologist) has simply said that it cannot be evolved in parts because of a simular cost efficency of producing it. Here is the molecular machine he was talking about. The baceria falgelum motor In other words if the bacteria flaggelum was produced in parts, like say, the motor was produced without the other assemblies it would be eliminated on a simple cost efficency basis.

There is one other point I think needs to be addressed. The minority report did not suggest an ID definition of science to the Kansas School Board, they simply said that; "The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S." Here is the difference they noted.

Other state definitions:

"Science investigates the natural world through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument.

Kansas State's:

"Science seeks natural explanations through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument."

Notice the shift in emphasis from an open ended inquiry to a forgone conclusion. They never suggested a supernatural explanation as they have been accused of. Now it may well open students to the possibility but people tend to make up their own mind about that anyway. Descent with modification has its strengths and no one is really arguing that it doesn't, but students should be exposed to its weaknesses as well and draw their own conclusions.

1. I do not accept your claim that there is no genetic basis for evolution from a single celled proto-organism. I take it you accept that eukaryotes evolved from simple bacteria. What's wrong with making the transition to multi-celled creatures? I see nothing in genetics or DNA that precludes such a possibility.

2. This is verbal hash. If you can clean it up and turn it into something precise enough to discuss, then let's discuss it.

3. I have read all your postings and I have yet to see any mechanisms that clearly regulate the limits beyond with species may change from one kind to an altogether different kind. Change is a matter of degree. We know that whales evolved from land mammals which evolved from amphibians which evolved from fish. That's a lot of change there. What's wrong with any other change?

As to your issue about the Kansas definition of science: the standard definition is deliberately somewhat vague, but the proposed definition suffers from the ambiguities in the word "explanation". An explanation provides a cause for an observed phenomenon. Unfortunately, the word includes all of the different kinds of causes: material, formal, efficient, or final. If it's the final cause, then, poof, we're back into religious issues, and the efficient cause raises some possibilities as well. The fact that the proposed definition permits this possibility opens the door to all those nasty religious battles, which is what we want to avoid. Therefore, I think it best that we dismiss that definition.

2. Evolution is defined by genetics not natural selection and there is no need for the single celled ancestor model.




The single celled protoorganism would have had to be very much like bacteria. These populations would have to have had an exponential growth of their respective genomes in both size and function. The key feature would be the development of the nucleous that houses the DNA and the enzymes that do the work of transcription. Now, if there were some kind of an explanation as to how this has been demonstrated or directly observed I would agree it is an empirical fact. You saying that if we accept that a bacteria can become a eukaryote then why can't it develop into the hundreds of other cells in multicellular creatures? There is no genetic basis for a bacteria becoming a eukaryote that I am aware of, if you have one I'd love to hear it.



Oh really? Evolution is the change in genetic alleles in populations over time. That is pure genetics and there is nothing in this standard definition that requires universal descent. We really should look at scientific definitions a little more closely.



You mean things like deleterous effects, the mutation rate, apostasis and spidle assembly checkpoints in the cell cycle, selective coefficiants don't do it for you? When you talk about morphology like the amphibian to mammal for instance it really make no sense to say that it happened without identify what would actually have to change.



Wait a minute, are you saying that the definition used in other states is causing nasty little religious battles? The purpose of the definition is to set a standard by which science should be taught. The emphasis should not be on the explanations they are looking for but the methods science uses to explore nature.

The generally accepted hypothesis is that eukaryotes were bacteria that absorbed other bacteria, which did not break up but instead survived inside the host cell. It's most likely that the internal bacteria were initially parasites, and like all parasite-host relationships, the parasite eventually became part of the host. So yes, you're right bacteria did NOT evolve into eukaryotes through genetic transformation. They evolved through a different mechanism -- which kinda blows your own definition of evolution out of the water. However, I'll concede that this kind of evolution is a one-off, so your definition is still functionally useful for the great majority of situations.