Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world.

Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science.

Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates' critical analyses of evolution theory.

This lesson should be used midway or toward the end of a unit on evolution. This will allow students to “carry over” their knowledge of basic evolutionary concepts into this lesson. The strength of this lesson lies in having students research topics that interest them about evolutionary biology. Students are encouraged to consider the research and discuss their findings with fellow students.

· Instruct students to copy the following items from the chalkboard in their science lab notebook.

· Direct students to respond to the questions in their science notebook in as much detail as possible leaving space to record information from the ensuing dialogue to add to their notes.

Collect pre-assessments and evaluate for indication of prior knowledge and/or misconception. Sample definitions for question five in the pre-assessment include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

· Critical analysis
The separation of an intellectual idea into its constituent parts for the purpose of a careful, exact evaluation and judgment about those parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole. (This definition combines the definition for critical and analysis.)

· Natural selection
The principle that in a given environment, individuals having characteristics that aid survival will produce more offspring, and the proportion of individuals having such characteristics will increase with each succeeding generation.

· Biological evolution
Changes in the genetic composition of a population through successive generations.

· Macroevolution
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

· Microevolution
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Scientists make a distinction between two areas of evolutionary theory. First, scientists consider mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow (immigration and emigration) as the processes that generate evolutionary changes in organisms and populations. Second, the theory of universal common descent describes the historical pattern of biological change. This theory maintains that all living forms have descended from earlier living forms and ultimately from a single common ancestor. Darwin envisioned the theory of universal common descent as a necessary result of evolutionary changes in organisms and populations, and represented it in his branching tree of life. Students will investigate and analyze these two areas of evolutionary theory in this lesson.

In addition to the distinctions between different areas of evolutionary theory, scientists also find it helpful to distinguish amounts of biological change or evolution. Microevolution refers to evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. These terms are helpful distinctions in the course of analyzing evolutionary theory. These terms have appeared in OhioLink research databases, numerous Internet sites, and biology and evolution textbooks. Though “micro” and “macro” are prefixes, it is quite clear that the scientific community recognizes and acknowledges the distinction between the words. To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.

· Spontaneous generation versus biogenesis
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is Francesco Redi’s observation that flies must contact meat in order for maggots to appear on the meat.

· Geocentric versus Heliocentric
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is the observed phases of Venus.

Teacher Presentation

Alternative strategies for beginning this lesson could be to engage students in a Socratic discussion or a mini-lecture. See the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for guidelines on the Socratic method. The Web address is listed in the Technology Connections section.

Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, has questions that can be applied to all five aspects. This will help students become familiar with the data, and therefore be able to critically analyze the evidence for either the supporting side or the challenging side. As they complete the worksheet, the group members may all work together on each question, or divide the questions among themselves and then share their findings as a group.

Critical Analysis Activity

Encourage all students to participate in the critical analysis activity because the experience will be a learning opportunity. Be prepared, however, to distribute alternate assignments to students who do not want to participate.

Instruction is differentiated according to learner needs, to help all learners either meet the intent of the specified indicator(s) or, if the indicator is already met, to advance beyond the specified indicator(s).

Have students consider other aspects of evolutionary biology that are critically analyzed by scientists. Possible topics include:

The inclusion of a specific resource in any lesson formulated by the Ohio Department of Education should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that particular resource, or any of its contents, by the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio Department of Education does not endorse any particular resource. The Web addresses listed are for a given site’s main page, therefore, it may be necessary to search within that site to find the specific information required for a given lesson. Please note that information published on the Internet changes over time, therefore the links provided may no longer contain the specific information related to a given lesson. Teachers are advised to preview all sites before using them with students.

For the teacher: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

For the student: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources

Marzano, R. et al. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria: Associat ion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2001.

1. Ayala, Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, 239:3 (1978): 56-69.

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Different animals have very similar anatomical and genetic structures. This suggests that these animals share a common ancestor from which they inherited the genes to build these anatomical structures. Evolutionary biologists call similarities that are due to common ancestry “homologies.” For example, the genes that produce hemoglobin molecules (an oxygen carrying protein) in chimps and humans are at least 98% identical in sequence. As another example, bats, humans, horses, porpoises and moles all share a forelimb that has the same pattern of bone structure and organization. The hemoglobin molecule and the “pentadactyl limb” provide evidence for common ancestors. Also, the genetic code is universal, suggesting that a common ancestor is the source.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry. The nucleotide sequence of hemoglobin DNA is very similar between chimps and humans, but this may be because they provide the same function for both animals. Also, if similar anatomical structures really are the result of a shared evolutionary ancestry, then similar anatomical structures should be produced by related genes and patterns of embryological development. However, sometimes, similar anatomical structures in different animals are built from different genes and by different pathways of embryological development. Scientists can use these different anatomical structures and genes to build versions of Darwin family trees that will not match each other. This shows that diverse forms of life may have different ancestry.

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The fossil record shows an increase in the complexity of living forms from simple one-celled organisms, to the first simple plants and animals, to the diverse and complex organisms that live on Earth today. This pattern suggests that later forms evolved from earlier simple forms over long periods of geological time. Macroevolution is the large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The slow transformations are reflected in transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx (a reptile-like bird) and mammal-like reptiles. These transitional fossils bridge the gap from one species to another species and from one branch on the tree of life to another.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. The fossil record as a whole shows that major evolutionary changes took place suddenly over brief periods of time followed by longer periods of “stasis” during which no significant change in form or transitional organisms appeared (Punctuated Equilibria). The “Cambrian explosion” of animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example, of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record.

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The number of strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as of Staphylococcus aureus, have significantly increased in number over time. Antibiotics used by patients to eliminate disease-causing bacterial organisms have facilitated this change. When some bacteria acquire a mutation that allows them to survive in the presence of antibiotics, they begin to survive in greater numbers than those that do not have this mutation-induced resistance. This shows how environmental changes and natural selection can produce significant changes in populations and species over time.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: During the industrial revolution in England, more soot was released into the air. As a result, the tree trunks in the woodlands grew darker in color. This environmental change also produced a change in the population of English peppered moths (scientifically known as Biston betularia). Studies during the 1950s have suggested a reason for this change. It was observed that light-colored moths resting on dark-colored tree trunks were readily eaten by birds. They had become more visible by their predators compared to their dark-colored counterparts. This different exposure to predation explained why the light-colored moths died with greater frequency when pollution darkened the forest. It also explained why light-colored moths later made a “comeback” when air quality improved in England. This whole situation demonstrates how the process of natural selection can change the features of a population over time.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population. They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter—i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Complex eukaryotic cells contain organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. These organelles have their own DNA. This suggests that bacterial cells may have become established in cells that were ancestral to eukaryotes. These smaller cells existed for a time in a symbiotic relationship within the larger cell. Later, the smaller cell evolved into separate organelles within the eukaryotic ancestors. The separate organelles, chloroplast and mitochondria, within modern eukaryotes stand as evidence of this evolutionary change.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.

Investigative Worksheet

This activity will help you to prepare for the critical analysis activity. Complete the following table by addressing the following points when you record supporting and challenging data for one aspect of evolution. Record your responses on the appropriate space on the chart.

I'd suggest anyone interested in investigating their authenticity and credentials take a look at this link and be sure to click on "Judging" and scroll down to see the names of the judges.

I already read that page (and the rest of the relevant pages) before I made and posted my opinion about the disingenuous nature of the "offer". I stand by my assessment.

The list of "judges" doesn't prove a thing. Even if the list is a valid one of people who have actually agreed to participate as judges (and there's no way to tell), it's not hard for any group, no matter who they are, to get some big-name scientists to agree to be "on call" to review a paper or two if you promise to pay them for their time, as the website indicates is the case. It doesn't mean that the prospective "judges" even know much about the "foundation" or approve/disapprove of the Foundation or its project.

A strong indication that this is indeed the case can be found on this discussion thread, where this "offer" was being discussed. The following post is instructive:

I contacted Blair Hedges, supposedly one of the confirmed judges, and he says that he has heard that the website is linked to a creationist group. He has requested that they remove his name from their site.

So clearly one of the "judges" was hardly on intimate terms with the "Foundation" itself. Agreeing to judge (and from the above, it's not even clear that he *had* agreed) does not constitute an endorsement or even familiarity with the Foundation.

From one of the Foundation's directors himself:

Many well-known investigators such as Francis Crick and Sir Frederick Hoyle have written kind letters explaining that they have changed interests or are now getting up in years and regrettably cannot assume new academic responsibilities. Others like Stanley Miller explained that they were already too over committed to judge.

So again, it looks as if they just sent out letters to lots of known names in the field and asked them if they'd agree to review submitted papers, for a fee. Heck, if they make me the same offer I'd accept too -- reviewing papers for money is an easy gig.

Additionally, lots of scientists like to accept offers like that because it helps puff up their resume to be a "consulting reviewer" on various projects. Note that this guy has done that very thing for his "position" as "Elected Member, International Board of Judges" to the "Gene Emergence Project" (under the "Memberships" section).

Furthermore, an earlier "announcement" issued by that website included a lot of "big names" as if they were likely to be involved with the project, but note how few of them actually ended up on the "judges" list (practically none). I only spot a couple of really "big names" on the final list (Freeman Dyson and Frank Drake), and their fields are only tangentially related to the subject. I also note a lot of "huh?" names on the list, like the guy whose organizational affiliation is "Mobil Oil". Ooookay...

But the above is not why I find the "offer" to be highly questionable -- it's just the reason(s) I find the list of judges to be unimpressive.

Furthermore, the list of requirements is so long and unreasonably stringent (I doubt even quantum theory or relativity could pass the kind of hurdles this "offer" lays out) that contrary to their claim, the authors aren't asking for an "explanation" of the origins of life, they're demanding a fully complete, fully mature field in which all questions have been completely answered. Any submission that could actually meet their standards would pretty much close the book on an entire field of biology. Such expectations are not reasonable ones -- they're offering a $1 million dollar "prize" for what would amount to be a billion dollars worth and many decades of research. Do they really expect anyone to try to claim it?

Additionally, their claimed motives are highly suspect. They claim to be trying to "encourage the pursuit" of research in this field, but as was well expressed on this discussion thread, if they were truly interested in that end they'd be far more effective offerring a million-dollar *grant* to the most promising applicant and *directly* enabling more research, than to instead say, "if someone wants to answer all our questions, we'll reward them years after they've finished".

Finally, there are so many "gotchas" in the requirements and rules that it's clear the Foundation has no intention of ever letting anyone win.

It is not "about" biology - it is about information, how it arose in the genetic code. All of those requirements are aimed at keeping that perspective, i.e. they are not looking for yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis.

They're looking for both, actually, as well as quite a few other things -- probably because the more requirements they add, the more ways they can reject an application for addressing 99% of their topic, because it didn't cover a 1% side-issue they threw in.

Here are some examples of where they specifically require submissions to address biological issues:

[Applicants must provide] empirical correlation to the real world of biochemistry and molecular biology - not just mathematical or computer models
[must address] The ability of the genome to convey instructions, deliver orders, and actually produce the needed biological end-products
[must address] The bizarre concentration of singlehanded optical isomers (homochirality of enantiomers) in living things
By "mechanism," the Foundation means a scenario of sequential, cause-and-effect (or at least "functionally dependent"), empirically correlated events explaining how genetic prescriptive information (instruction) arose naturally within Nature sufficient to give rise to current life.
Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it
The hypothetical mechanism must demonstrate correspondence with "the real world" of biochemistry
Parallel computer models must similarly have direct empirical correlation with naturally occurring environmental, chemical, biochemical, and molecular biological scenarios.
model addresses biochemical problems such as the instability and difficulty with which ribonucleotides are made and activated; exclusively 3'5' beta-D-ribonucleotide phosphodiester linkages are established rather than 2'5' or 5'5'; deleterious cross-reactions are avoided; hydrolysis is prevented; and other issues of prebiotic plausibility

And so on.

Not only are submissions required to in effect explain all modern biology, but they are also required to be so comprehensive as to strike silent all possible concern about evolvability of any complex biological system whatsoever:

submission silences arguments of all-or-none "irreducible complexity" in evolving molecular machines and larger biosystems

And not only that, but the submission must be able to convince fans of "apparent design" that they are mistaken when they perceive "design" in any biological system (which needless to say goes vastly beyond merely demonstrating how life could have begun):

submission demonstrates that the "appearance or inference of design" in biosystems is only apparent rather than real

As I said earlier, the sponsors of the "prize" want to set the bar so high and difficult that they never have to pay out.

Thank you for your reply, Ichneumon! And thank you so much for the links, Doctor Stochastic!

I have re-reviewed your first reply and reviewed the second but haven’t gotten to Doctor Stochastic’s links yet. I went through all of your criticisms and dismissed each claim wherein you or another party have attributed motive to the people involved with the Origin of Life Foundation. They were dismissed because it is not possible to read another’s mind and even if it were, motive does not cancel truth. For instance, if a person accuses another of stealing as long as the charge is the truth it doesn’t matter that the motive was to slander the thief. In this case, if the search is valid then the motive – even if nefarious – would make no difference to its validity.

The discussion at the link you provided is very instructive indeed – particularly the response from the Origin-of-Life Foundation itself to the allegations of the effort being a hoax. Here is the full response for those interested:

The Origin-of-Life Foundation has been approached by Duane E. Salmon asking for a reply to dialogue on your forum. We are happy to respond, but would like to make plain that we are a science foundation. We do not participate in political, religious, or metaphysical debates.

The Origin-of-Life Prize is designed to foster focused attention on possible mechanisms of derivation of functional genetic information.

Once the Origin of Life Prize is officially announced in the journals, _we cannot keep changing the rules_. It is imperative that the larger scientific community get every opportunity to critique and suggest edits of the rules before beginning to accept submissions. Science does not always move as fast as we would like. We prefer to err in the direction of academic responsibility. This requires a great deal of scientific discussion and critique.

Some of the officers of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life requested that we slow down to give the full membership more time to get to know us at international meetings. Our Board of Directors agreed and voluntarily complied.

Other problems center around the definition of "life." If definitions are ambiguous in the rules, the judging process will become impossible. Professor Gulya Palyi has been soliciting "definitions" of "life" from many O. L. investigators around the world. We look forward to his published work and distillation of widely variant ideas among life-origin specialists.

Another hold-up has been describing the nature of "information." Shannon, and practically all information theorists since, have avoided pursuit of the "meaning" of information/message. Information theory concerns itself more with successful transmission of bit strings. Information theory is of course statistically based. Some investigators question how the randomness necessary for statistical applications can be correlated with instructional (functional) biomessage. We are interested in empirical chemical evolutionary mechanisms of self-organization -- of function out of stochasticity. Metabolism-first models must also address this question, not just RNA-world and information-first models.

The Gene Emergence Project involves investigators in forty different countries. Many judges are well-known, but no one individual is given prima dona status, including the Nobel laureates. Many well-known investigators such as Francis Crick and Sir Frederick Hoyle have written kind letters explaining that they have changed interests or are now getting up in years and regrettably cannot assume new academic responsibilities. Others like Stanley Miller explained that they were already too over committed to judge.

Some widely published and competent writers such as Daniel Dennett at Tufts modestly insist they are unqualified to judge! But most agree that the derivation of initial functional information/genetic instructions in nature is one of the most fundamental problems yet to be solved in science.

The Foundation wishes not to throw its weight behind any one model of life-origin. History has taught us the hard way to be careful of paradigm ruts. We wish to maintain an open-minded policy toward all models and combinations of models.

We make no apologies for including a judge with PhD's in two different fields (mathematics and philosophy) from widely respected universities who has received NSF fellowships at M.I.T. and Princeton, and who has published a Cambridge University Press book, among others. It's none of our business what personal metaphysical position any particular judge holds. Our wish is to be inclusive and pluralistic of all qualified scholars. Yet via the rules and in every communication, we are making clear to judges and others that the Foundation wants nothing to do with speculations better addressed by world religions or metaphysics.

No Foundation employee is permitted to participate in the judging of the Prize. All judging has been turned over to the larger scientific community itself. The rules have been open for critique and suggested edits now for almost two years. Frequently the suggestions we get are exactly opposite from one another, so sometimes it is difficult to do everything everybody wants us to do.

Our financial soundness is overseen by certified public accountants. Our audit has been submitted to the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life governing board. I am a member of this society, and attended ISSOL99.

The Origin-of-Life Prize is not about us. We seek no personal attention whatsoever. Our Foundation is about understanding the nature and derivation of functional information/genetic instructions, and about the pursuit of empirical accountability in theoretical physics, cybernetics models, and in the historical sciences. We make no apologies for de-emphasizing ourselves in favor of simply concentrating on the most fascinating pursuit in physics, biophysics, and cosmology.

Are there those who feel we are under obligation to them to justify our existence? Perhaps, but as a nonprofit science foundation, we have every right to give away Prize money for worthy scientific accomplishments without being subjected to anyone's inquisition. Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the Prize offer is welcome not to submit.

As long as a well-known accounting firm's audit shows the money to be real, as long as we are not the ones doing the judging, and as long as we give the world's scientific community ample opportunity to critique the rules, what exactly would account for whining or "sour grapes" about The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, or the Origin-of-Life Prize? Is anyone seriously arguing that the judges are incompetent?

The Prize is not a hoax. The stimulus for research in this area is badly needed. Too many highly respected people are behind it. It will be formally announced in the journals when everything is in place. We have eschewed media interviews and coverage from the start. The project is not for the general public. The website exists for scientists who realize that to set up an international Prize of this magnitude and prestige takes time and a great deal of patient planning. It would have been far more suspicious if the project had appeared full-bloom overnight.

We expect to have the application forms back from legal counsel shortly.

I will be at the Gordon Life Origin Conference if anyone wishes to speak to me in person.

Thank you for voicing responsible concerns about the The Origin-of-Life Prize. Time will prove the legitimacy of this endeavor.

Dr. David L. Abel, Program Director
The Gene Emergence Project(R)
mailto:life@us.net

Again, as the above email states and as it shown in the discussion on the Origin of Life Prize website - the objective is not yet another chemical abiogenesis hypothesis. The foundation is specifically looking for a highly plausible materialistic origin for the information content in the genetic code. It’s not as if scientists weren’t already engaged in this quest. In fact, I have already offered a link to the most promising research known to me:

Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Might Evolve Them

Luis Rocha recognizes the scientific challenge and has defined it well in the above article. He also suggests what the hurdles would be in an RNA world model and how they would need to be overcome. Rocha is not making a theological or metaphysical argument at all. His credentials are solid. Also, I believe Doctor Stochastic knows him personally and can confirm that he is a strict evolutionist.

I don’t know if Rocha will be competing for the prize, but if he were I’d suggest he ought to be in the lead because he focuses on the autonomy and symbol requirements which I personally agree are most important to any theory. His greatest challenge would be to meet the bar of “highly plausible” because of the state changes required for an information bootstrap in an RNA world. Here is his latest effort concerning the biological information mechanism post-origin:

Material Representations: From the Genetic Code to the evolution of Cellular Automata

But getting back to your primary objection:

I find the offer to be questionable mainly because the "science" discussion on the first several pages is full of buzzword gobbledegook and classic creationist canards/misunderstandings about evolution and science. Furthermore, the list of requirements is so long and unreasonably stringent (I doubt even quantum theory or relativity could pass the kind of hurdles this "offer" lays out) that contrary to their claim, the authors aren't asking for an "explanation" of the origins of life, they're demanding a fully complete, fully mature field in which all questions have been completely answered. Any submission that could actually meet their standards would pretty much close the book on an entire field of biology.

I had previously responded by noting:

To which you now counter as follows:

You followed with excerpts from the discussion concerning the biochemical aspects related to the rise of information.

Again, I first dismiss attribution of motive and concentrate on their discussion of the chemical and biological issues. If you read through the articles by Luis Rocha, I believe you will see that he also recognizes the need to exclude information theory only models.

IOW, it is one thing to prove that cellular automata is viable (von Neumann, Wolfram) – which is to say, self-organizing complexity is viable - but it is quite another to show how the initial conditions could cause biological self-organizing complexity to arise in nature. That is the entire point of the Origin of Life Prize.

Rocha’s work is centered around the information content, the autonomy and function of symbols necessary to give rise to autonomous self-organizing complexity. Even so, this alone does not answer the question of how such a thing could arise in nature. Thus, Rocha goes further to suggest the chemical mechanism required to give rise to autonomous biological self-organizing complexity. That is the depth of research the Foundation is seeking and why Rocha is the top contender known to me.

One of the goals of the prize is to silence “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity”. I don’t understand why you, of all people, would object to such a goal. Or perhaps it is that you do not agree that the strongest materialistic argument against evolution (unassisted by intelligent agency) is the absence of a highly plausible explanation for the rise of information in the genetic code?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


Interdisciplinary Connections:
Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard

Benchmark A	Evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources.
Indicator 1	Determine the credibility of sources by considering the following: a. The qualifications and reputation of the writer; b. Agreement with other credible sources; c. Recognition of stereotypes; d. Accuracy and consistency of sources; e. The circumstances in which the author prepared the source.



English Language Arts Research Standard

Benchmark B	Evaluate the usefulness and credibility of data and sources.
Indicator 3	Determine the accuracy of sources and the credibility of the author by analyzing the sources’ validity (e.g., authority, accuracy, objectivity, publication date and coverage, etc.).
Benchmark C	Organize information from various resources and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.
Indicator 2	Identify appropriate sources and gather relevant information from multiple sources (e.g., school library catalogs, online databases, electronic resources and Internet-based resources).
Indicator 4	Evaluate and systematically organize important information, and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes.

Teacher Presentation

Critical Analysis Activity

Investigative Worksheet

Dang!