Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/112003a.asp ^ | March 11, 2003 | Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano

[Remedy]

A university professor said she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought, and she now says academic freedom at her school is just a charade.

During a recent honors forum at Mississippi University for Women (MUW), Dr. Nancy Bryson gave a presentation titled "Critical Thinking on Evolution" -- which covered alternate views to evolution such as intelligent design. Bryson said that following the presentation, a senior professor of biology told her she was unqualified and not a professional biologist, and said her presentation was "religion masquerading as science."

The next day, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Vagn Hansen asked Bryson to resign from her position as head of the school's Division of Science and Mathematics.

"The academy is all about free thought and academic freedom. He hadn't even heard my talk," Bryson told American Family Radio News. "[W]ithout knowing anything about my talk, he makes that decision. I think it's just really an outrage."

Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought and said she hopes her dismissal will smooth the way for more campus debate on the theory of evolution. University counsel Perry Sansing said MUW will not comment on why Bryson was asked to resign because it is a personnel matter.

"The best reaction," Bryson says, "and the most encouraging reaction I have received has been from the students." She added that the students who have heard the talk, "They have been so enthusiastically supportive of me."

Bryson has contacted the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy and is considering taking legal action against the school.

[ml/nj]

from this link:

The vast majority of XXY males do not produce enough sperm to allow them to become fathers. ...

Thanks for your reply.

I did follow your link, and after a quick reading I'm still not sure what an XXY male is. Is this someone who has a chromosome triplet?

I am not arguing that abnormal chromosome counts are not harmful in these instances, but they do happen and they are not fatal.

I never suggested that everyone with abnormal chromosome sets dies prematurely. For evolution, the issue is not survival (despite Darwin) but the ability to reproduce. One of the reasons the Internet exists is that researchers who produced abnormal fruit flies needed to be able to communicate with others who had produced similar abnormalities to have a chance to breed them. To the best of my knowledge all such human engineered rendezvous have failed. That is: the little abnormal fruit flies lived, but never produced offspring.

Without the ability to reproduce, genetic change via mutation cannot result in evolution.

ML/NJ

[Ichneumon]

Where are your transition species?

Here are a few hundred for you to start on.

If you want to see transitions along a particular line, check out this compilation I made of some of the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and modern birds:

---

The cladogram for the evolution of flight looks like this:

(Note -- each name along the top is a known transitional fossil; and those aren't all that have been discovered.) Here's a more detailed look at the middle section:

Fossils discovered in the past ten years in China have answered most of the "which came first" questions about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

We now know that downy feathers came first, as seen in this fossil of Sinosauropteryx:

That's a close-up of downy plumage along the backbone. Here's a shot of an entire fossil

Sinosauropteryx was reptilian in every way, not counting the feathers. It had short forelimbs, and the feathers were all the same size. Presumably, the downy feathers evolved from scales driven by a need for bodily insulation.

Next came Protarchaeopteryx:

It had long arms, broad "hands", and long claws:

Apparently this species was driven by selection to develop more efficient limbs for grasping prey. One of the interesting things about this species is that the structure of the forelimb has been refined to be quite efficient at sweeping out quickly to grab prey, snap the hands together, then draw them back towards the body (mouth?). The specific structures in question are the semilunate carpal (a wrist bone), that moves with the hand in a broad, flat, 190 degree arc, heavy chest muscles, bones of the arm which link together with the wrist so as to force the grasping hands to spread out toward the prey during the forestroke and fold in on the prey during the upstroke. Not only is this a marvelously efficient prey-grabbing mechanism, but the same mechanism is at the root of the wing flight-stroke of modern birds. Evolution often ends up developing a structure to serve one need, then finds it suitable for adaptation to another. Here, a prey-grasping motion similar in concept to the strike of a praying mantis in a reptile becomes suitable for modifying into a flapping flight motion.

Additionally, the feathers on the hands and tail have elongated, becoming better suited for helping to sweep prey into the hands.

Next is Caudipteryx:

This species had hand and tail feathers even more developed than the previous species, and longer feathers, more like that of modern birds:

However, it is clear that this was still not a free-flying animal yet, because the forelimbs were too short and the feathers not long enough to support its weight, and the feathers were symmetrical (equal sized "fins" on each side of the central quill). It also had very reduced teeth compared to earlier specimens and a stubby beak:

But the elongation of the feathers indicates some aerodynamic purpose, presumably gliding after leaping (or falling) from trees which it had climbed with its clawed limbs, in the manner of a flying squirrel. Feathers which were developed "for" heat retention and then pressed into service to help scoop prey were now "found" to be useful for breaking falls or gliding to cover distance (or swooping down on prey?).

Next is Sinornithosaurus:

Similar to the preceding species, except that the pubis bone has now shifted to point to the back instead of the front, a key feature in modern birds (when compared to the forward-facing publis bone in reptiles). Here are some of the forearm feathers in detail:

Long feathers in detail:

Artists' reconstruction:

Next is Archaeopteryx:

The transition to flight is now well underway. Archaeopteryx has the reversed hallux (thumb) characteristic of modern birds, and fully developed feathers of the type used for flight (long, aligned with each other, and assymetrical indicating that the feathers have been refined to function aerodynamically). The feathers and limbs are easily long enough to support the weight of this species in flight. However, it lacks some structures which would make endurance flying more practical (such as a keeled sternum for efficient anchoring of the pectoral muscles which power the downstroke) and fused chest vertebrae. Archaeopteryx also retains a number of clearly reptilian features still, including a clawed "hand" emerging from the wings, small reptilian teeth, and a long bony tail. After the previous species' gliding abilities gave it an advantage, evolution would have strongly selected for more improvements in "flying" ability, pushing the species towards something more resembling sustained powered flight.

Next is Confuciusornis:

This species had a nearly modern flight apparatus. It also displays transitional traits between a reptilian grasping "hand" and a fully formed wing as in modern birds -- the outer two digits (the earlier species had three-fingered "hands") in Confuciusornis are still free, but the center digit has now formed flat, broad bones as seen in the wings of modern birds.

Additionally, the foot is now well on its way towards being a perching foot as in modern birds:

It also has a keeled sternum better suited for long flight, and a reduced number of vertebrae in the tail, on its way towards becoming the truncated tail of modern birds (which while prominent, is a small flap of muscle made to look large only because of the long feathers attached).

From this species it's only a small number of minor changes to finish the transition into the modern bird family.

(Hey, who said there are no transitional fossils? Oh, right, a lot of dishonest creationists. And there are a lot more than this, I've just posted some of the more significant milestones.)

There's been a very recent fossil find along this same lineage, too new for me to have found any online images to include in this article. And analysis is still underway to determine exactly where it fits into the above lineage. But it has well-formed feathers, which extend out from both the "arms" and the legs. Although it wasn't advanced enough to fully fly, the balanced feathering on the front and back would have made it ideally suited for gliding like a flying squirrel, and it may be another link between the stage where feathers had not yet been pressed into service as aerodynamic aids, and the time when they began to be used more and more to catch the air and developing towards a "forelimbs as wings" specialization.

So in short, to answer your question about how flight could have developed in birds, the progression is most likely some minor refinement on the following:

1. Scales modified into downy feathers for heat retention.
2. Downy feathers modified into "straight" feathers for better heat retention (modern birds still use their body "contour feathers" in this fashion).
3. Straight feathers modified into a "grasping basket" on the hands (with an accompanying increase in reach for the same purpose).
4. Long limbs with long feathers refined to better survive falls to the ground.
5. "Parachute" feathers refined for better control, leading to gliding.
6. Gliding refined into better controlled, longer gliding.
7. Long gliding refined into short powered "hops".
8. Short powered flight refined into longer powered flight.
9. Longer powered flight refined into long-distance flying.

Note that in each stage, the current configuration has already set the stage for natural selection to "prefer" individuals which better meet the requirements of the next stage. Evolution most often works like this; by taking some pre-existing ability or structure, and finding a better use for it or a better way to make it perform its current use.

---

[End of dinosaur -> bird discussion.]

Note, by the way, that while the existence of transitional fossils of this type -- and the way that they fall neatly along an ordered cladogram, showing the time-ordered addition of new traits on top of old -- is predicted by evolution. Meanwhile, there's *NO* reason for such obviously transitional fossils to exist AT ALL if the creationists are right and that modern forms were created more or less as they are today.

[f.Christian]

Family reunion album !

[edsheppa]

With all due respect, your posting betrays the very typical ignorance humanities types...

What kind of due respect is that? I'm neither a "humanities type" nor ignorant. I'm also a home schooling parent so I think that gives me some pedagogical legitimacy.

Back in the good old days, we taught elementary math. by rote.

Yep, and the kids (most of them) couldn't apply it to novel situations.

Now, we try to teach them 'fuzzy math'

And that's too far the other way. You need to learn facts and procedures and the wherefores of them to be proficient.

You can't truly think critically in a field until you've mastered it.

IMO critical thinking is an aid to mastery.

[thedilg]

"the preponderance of evidence is in the evolutionists favor."

What an incredible statement. Let me briefly outline the first step in life. In the Miller-Urey experiment they showed how amino acids could be formed naturally. These are the first steps needed to assemble a protein which is millions of time more complex. A huge amount of intelligence was exerted in this experiment that resulted in a few amino acids.

Scientists were giddy with excitement. They were on the verge of creating life. Now a half century later we know that the experiment was bogus as it did not duplicate the early earth. All we found in the half century since is that mankind is now eons further from creating life than we originally believed. Life has proven to be enormously more complex than they ever dreamed.

If scientists cannot assemble a protein using the laws of chance in half a century how can you state the prepronderance of evidence supports evolution. Of course a protein is still eons short of life.

"Simply saying, "God did it", or "Evolution does not have all the answers" does not qualify as evidence."

What informatiion do you have that suggests that she said, "God did it."? I will bet that you are totally mistaken. I am all but certain that she explained the continuing unscientific evolutionary assumptions that are hopeless in the real world and why.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[VRWC_minion]

If that had been what she had actually been doing, I don't believe they *would* have "thrown a fit". Thus I doubt it's what she *was* actually doing.

No, the assumption being made is that if she was given hell for what she was doing (and that much *is* clear from the article), there's probably a good reason.

How wonderfully scientific of you and the rest of the posters who automatically KNOW what happened. If you folks who make assumptions without facts or observations (much like the person who did the firing) are the only folks responsible for keeping the scientific method alive, we are in big trouble.

I'm not a creationist but I would sure be skeptical of some evolution scientists if this was the only example of critical thinking I was exposed to.

[ican'tbelieveit]

1. Scales modified into downy feathers for heat retention.

From which chromosome and gene do scales and feathers come from?

2. Downy feathers modified into "straight" feathers for better heat retention (modern birds still use their body "contour feathers" in this fashion).

From this we are to assume the world was cooling off at a rate slow enough for the feathers to evolve... otherwise these animals "evolving" would have died before evolution could occur. And if this can happen, why can't animals adapt thru evolution today to changing climates?

But wait, doesn't part of evolution theory state that dinosaurs (the species that "evolved" into these birds)were wiped out during a possible asteroid hitting the earth; something that caused mass death of the dinosaurs. If this happened, how did they have enough time to evolve into another species? Or had they already evolved? But that poses a problem. If this did occur, how did these other species survive?

Why are you threatened by people questioning this?

[VadeRetro]

Very nice post! Bookmarked for later use against invincible ignorance.

One point:

Presumably, the downy feathers evolved from scales driven by a need for bodily insulation.

There's growing evidence that scales and feathers are independent developments. See the current Scientific American cover story.

[Nebullis]

But wait, doesn't part of evolution theory state that dinosaurs (the species that "evolved" into these birds)were wiped out during a possible asteroid hitting the earth; something that caused mass death of the dinosaurs. If this happened, how did they have enough time to evolve into another species? Or had they already evolved? But that poses a problem. If this did occur, how did these other species survive?

Why are you threatened by people questioning this?

Before I frame this one I want to suggest you look at the timeline of bird evolution (at least 200 mya) and dinosaur extinction (65mya).

[Junior]

From this we are to assume the world was cooling off at a rate slow enough for the feathers to evolve... otherwise these animals "evolving" would have died before evolution could occur.

Nope.  We would assume the critters were becoming warm blooded and needed a form of insulation.  Small animals lose body heat rapidly, which is why even tiny desert mammals have fur.

But wait, doesn't part of evolution theory state that dinosaurs (the species that "evolved" into these birds) were wiped out during a possible asteroid hitting the earth; something that caused mass death of the dinosaurs. If this happened, how did they have enough time to evolve into another species? Or had they already evolved? But that poses a problem. If this did occur, how did these other species survive?

Birds evidently evolved from therapod dinosaurs (see my mention of archaeopteryx, above).  The dinosaurs were evidently on the way out when the asteroid delivered the coup de grace (the number of dinosaur species found in the fossil record had shrunk considerably in the few million years before the impact).  Birds had already branched off and been evolving for nearly 100 million years at this point.  The birds and mammals of the period were not nearly as heavily stressed by the impact as the dinosaurs, probably because the former were fully warm blooded and typically smaller and this gave them an advantage in competing with any surviving dinosaurs.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Again, the asteroid was presented as they say: a global killer. Sorry, but it was like the supposed nuclear winter. No food, no nothing.

[VadeRetro]

Apparently any crazy objection anyone can make up disproves all of science since 1859.

Or had they already evolved?

Yes.

But that poses a problem. If this did occur, how did these other species survive?

In at least one mass extinction case (at the Permian-Triassic boundary about 250 mya) 90 percent of all the species on earth were wiped out, but (so far) there hasn't been a 100 percenter. Why dinos, but not birds and little insectivore mammals? I not only don't know, but don't know if anyone does. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Not even a real problem for the idea that it did happen, just an interesting question.

[Junior]

You obviously haven't read much on the effects of the impact. It would have thrown millions of tons of dust into the atmosphere, increasing the albedo of the planet and dropping the temperature worldwide. Plants died off -- but not all plants. Plant matter would still be available for smaller animals to subsist upon, and other animals feasted upon those. The situation lasted about two years. Small, quick, warm-blooded animals had the best chance of survival and survive they did. Cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians already had slower metabolisms and are known to hibernate in cold times, so they survived, too. Your simplistic scenario would have the entire biosphere wiped out, instead of the 75 percent that was (a similar event 150 million years earlier had wiped out 90 percent).

[VadeRetro]

Of course nothing is known to a 100% certain point. This hurts the evolutionists "proofs" not mine.

Ever wonder why that is?

[ican'tbelieveit]

just an interesting question.

These are the points I am trying to make. There is nothing wrong with bringing these questions forward and discussing them. Why are evolutionists so scared of this?

[ican'tbelieveit]

instead of the 75 percent that was

You know for a fact it was 75%? You know for a fact that it just threw a million tons of dust into the air? Oh, wait, these are ALL THEORIES ON WHAT HAPPENED and as such, are open to question and debate.

[AndrewC]

and the way that they fall neatly along an ordered cladogram, showing the time-ordered addition of new traits on top of old -- is predicted by evolution.

Yes, except the data does not support the order in the cladogram. The fossils found in China are all younger in dating than the archaeopteryx which is younger in the cladogram. And don't give me the nonsense that the parent can outlive the child. There is no evidence that a purported antecedent(Caudipteryx,Sinosauropteryx,Protarchaeopteryx - middle Barremian) existed prior to the purported descendant(archaeopteryx -- Tithonian).

[Junior]

The rock that hit the Earth was probably on the order of 10 km across. The crater it formed is more than 100 miles across. That is a fact. The crater still exists buried beneath the Yucatan peninsula and Gulf of Mexico. Experiments done with smaller impactors indicate debris is ejected from the impact (it has to go somewhere). Extrapolating from the empirical data and the known size of the crater researchers can estimate the amount of dust dumped into the atmosphere. Likewise, only 25 percent of the species found on the Cretacious side of the K-T bounary are found on the Tertiary side. Assuming the number of discovered species to be a statistical sampling of species extant at the time, researchers can deduce with a high level of confidence that 75 percent of the species extant at the time were killed off by the impact and subsequent ecological disaster. If you have a better method of determining these figures, please feel free to post them here.