Evolution debate enters ‘round two' (Proposal in Kansas: Change the definition of 'Science')

Kansas City Star ^ | Jan 30, 2005 | DIANE CARROLL

[gobucks]

*snip* The conservatives who attacked evolution because it conflicted with the Genesis account of how the world was created have faded into the background.

In their place are professionals such as Harris who support intelligent design, a theory that states some aspects of the universe and living things are best explained by intelligent causes, not chance. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't always add up, they say, and students should hear more about its shortcomings.

“There are only two options,” said Harris, who is leading this year's fight. “Life was either designed or it wasn't.”

That's not the point, evolution defenders reply. Science is about searching for natural explanations of the world, they say, and has no room for a theory based on faith.

The public will join the debate beginning Tuesday, when the first of four public hearings on new science standards will be held in Kansas City, Kan.

*snip*

So far, no state board of education has required the teaching of intelligent design. And the Kansas supporters of intelligent design are not asking that it be mandated, said Harris, who is on a committee that is rewriting the science standards.

Harris and seven other members of the 26-member committee instead propose students be “more adequately informed” on evolution.

The eight submitted a proposal to the state Board of Education. One recommendation was to change the definition of science. The current definition, they say, limits inquiry because it allows only “natural” explanations. They want it to be more objective and to allow students “to follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Evolution supporters said such a change would shake science at its foundation.

[Ichneumon]

Here's another couple of questions which won't require as much thought, most likely.

Well, the problem is that the questions are formed precisely enough to be able to give a meaningful answer.

1) What is the most recent example of a newly evolved species?

That problem with the question as asked is that it presumes that there's some "instant" when a changing population "suddenly" becomes a new species. That's not how it works, so I can't tell you anything like, "on December 17th at 5:28 pm, a new species of bird appeared in Utah."

Instead, a species (or an isolated subpopulation of a species) changes slowly over time, gradually accumulating differences which eventually gain the population enough difference from either their original ancestors or their "cousins" (remaining non-isolated population) to qualify for the category of "different species".

The actual "point" where this is reached is rather a matter of taste rather than anything else (although given enough relative change there will come a time when *everyone* will agree that two different species have are definitely present rather than two "varieties" within one species). So although one population of nearly identical creatures is clearly "one species", and two populations of distinctly different creatures clearly match the concept of what people would label "two species", there's a pretty big gray area in the middle where different portions of the orginal one population are acquiring "minor" differences from each other -- and during that time there's no one sharp moment when *ping*, a distinct event occurs which suddenly qualifies the differing subpopulations as "different species starts today".

This is why there are a number of animals for which there's disagreement over whether two or more species are present, or subspecies within the same species category. Those animals are on the "cusp", in the "gray area" where they are two species in some people's views, and "not quite there" in other people's views. "Species" is a man-made category anyway, nature itself doesn't make such distinctions.

For one example (out of countless), the African Grey parrot comes in two main varieties -- the "Congo" variety and the "Timneh" variety. The Timneh is somewhat smaller, more delicately built, has noticeably darker plumage (especially the tail, which is bright red in the Congo and maroon in the Timneh), and has the Congo has a black beak while the Timneh has a "flesh" colored upper beak. There are also noticeable differences in temperament between them.

Are they two different species, or two subspecies within the same species? As one parrot-owners' website puts it: "There are two types of African grey parrots; some authorities consider them different "races", others consider them sub-species, while still others classify them as different species." Cases like this occur when differences between populations are in the "gray area" -- on the verge of having enough differences between them to eventually qualify as "clearly" different species finally.

It's kind of like baking a cake -- in the beginning it's batter, in the end it's a cake, but what is it at various times in the middle? At what "instant" does it change from batter to cake?

Similarly, plate tectonics causes mountains to rise and fall -- but there's no "instant" when a "hill" becomes a "mountain" or vice versa, and there's a "gray area" during the transition where different people will say "it's a mountain now", and others will say "still a hill, not quite a mountain yet". And it happens so slowly a "geological creationist" could say, "no one's ever seen a hill turn into a mountain or vice versa, so there", even though one could point to measured cases where hills were rising (inches per year) and mountains were shrinking (also inches per year). The creationist would then counter, "that's just 'micro-changes' -- there's no proof that the changes will go on long enough to do the 'macro-change' necessary to convert a mountain into a hill or vice versa".

Nor is it a well-formed question to ask, "What is the most recent example of a newly grown mountain?" What you *could* do is be shown mountains in different stages of the growth process, and instrument readings that show that they are indeed slowly rising even at the present time. And also geologic evidence that the tallest mountains were once much less than their current height (like sediment layers which must have been laid down flat, which are now "humped" through the mountain, or ocean-life fossils which are now up near the mountain's peak). And so on.

And so it is for for being able to make an overwhelming case for speciation, "macroevolution", common descent, and so on, and ruling out alternative explanations for one observation or another.

2) Can you name a plant or an animal of which there is only one species?

I have no idea what you mean by this. "A plant" or "an animal" is too vague. For example, if by "an animal" you mean "Moluccan cockatoo", then "there is only one species" of that type of "animal", because "Moluccan cockatoo" *is* a species. But if by "an animal" you mean "cockatoo", then no, there is not "only one species" because there are many species in the cockatoo group of the parrot family. So I don't understand the question.

If so, how long has it been known to exist without another species evolving from it?

Once you clarify the first half of your question, you'll have to clarify the second half: Do you mean "known to exist" during the past century or so, or "known to exist" across geologic time?

Still not sure what you're asking, but within the past few thousand years the domestic dog species has been evolved from their gray wolf ancestors by selective breeding (which is a directed form of, but still the same process as, natural selection). And while domestic dogs and wolves are both still canids (along with foxes, coyotes, etc.), they're no longer *wolves* -- they're a new distinct species. (Although for reasons I gave above, it would be hard to pinpoint the *exact* time that "the" transition took place even if we had a complete collection of preserved "dogs and wolves of the past", which we don't).

If this helps answer your question (whatever it was), good. If not, try asking more clearly.

[Drammach]

2) Can you name a plant or an animal of which there is only one species? If so, how long has it been known to exist without another species evolving from it?

I think I have an answer for this one.. CATS...
Cats diverged from the "rodent" line very early in the mammalian evolutionary line..
While rats, horses, pigs, elephants, dogs, all descend from that same split, the line of felines remain feline and nothing else.
In other words, descendents of A, (B and C) resulted in mammals, but descendents of B resulted in the feline line, and no other.. descendents of C resulted in many other mammals, (species?) but none that were feline..

[Ichneumon]

[Gravity is inherently "believable" because it operates at a physical level and over a time scale that is easily observable. Evolution does not.]

So, I as a limited creature, can believe what scientists say about gravity, because I can calibrate what they say to my own experience.

More or less, although he didn't say anything about "limited creatures", you added that yourself.

But, scientists, being less limited creatures, can perceive something called evolution, which operates at a physical level, still, but over a time scale that is not readily experienced by us, the more limited creatures.

Horse manure, and not at all what he said. If that's really what you got from his reply, you need more tinfoil on your hat, because you're receiving thoughts from outer space or something.

All he's saying is that the "slow-motion" action of evolution is not obvious in daily life (just as the slow movement of continents and the slow rise of mountains due to plate tectonics is not obvious during a human lifespan either).

The only reason that scientists "can perceive something called evolution" (or plate tectonics, for that matter) is because they make the effort to do the tests and conduct the fieldwork and examine the evidence (DNA sequences, etc.) where evolution leaves its trails and shows its activity.

You can do the same things, if you bother to do so. You don't even need to run the experiments, etc. yourself - you can examine the records of those who have. But you don't want to see, do you? You're afraid that like millions of others, you'll check out the evidence and work through the material and say, "oh, so it *does* make sense after all..."

And you think you folks are not percieved as 'priests'?

*You're* the one who introduced some sort of bizarre "limited and less limited" dichotomy between scientists and laymen -- he didn't. Don't accuse *him* of "elevating" scientists to some sort of "priesthood", when *you're* the only one who introduced such a "higher/lower" view into the discussion.

[Ichneumon]

"Accepting" a particular theory IS a matter of faith.

No, it really isn't. It's a matter of understanding, knowledge, and following the evidence.

Read this, it should make the difference clear: "Do you believe in evolution?".

[Lucky Dog]

If so, do your credentials entitle you to equal standing in the field in order to do so or are you merely offering questions and/or criticisms you might think are justified? If this is the case, how is your position any different than mine offering questions of "Darwinism?"

Credentials? I don't need no steenkin' credentials!

You didn't answer the second question... Well, what is the difference?

[stremba]

And that means there's no such thing as atoms either, right? After all, the Bible doesn't say, "In the beginning there were a whole bunch of little invisible particles created." If God created atoms, wouldn't He have said so in His book?

[stremba]

Study evolution. Cows don't turn into walruses or frogs into kittens. There are many testable predictions of the real theory of evolution, however. For example, it predicts that all life on earth will share a common genetic material. It predicts that if you dig in really old rock layers, you will find only fossils of simple creatures, not things like modern mammals and birds. It predicts that you can find fossils of creatures that have characteristics of both reptiles and mammals and fossils of other creatures that have characteristics of birds and reptiles, but that you won't ever find a fossil of a creature that has characteristics of both birds and mammals. That's what scientific theories do; they make testable predictions. If the predictions don't hold, the theory is rejected. If you really want to cause scientists to doubt evolution, you can't just push some nonscientific idea like ID. You actually have to get out there and do some scientific work such as finding a new species of animal that uses silicon oxides as a genetic material or finding a one billion year old monkey fossil or finding a fossil of a creature with bird-like wings and a mammalian jawbone. Please note, however, that even if you were successful at doing one or more of these, evolution would be rejected, but it would be replaced by some SCIENTIFIC theory which would probably be viewed as negatively by those who feel it conflicts with their religious beliefs as evolution is now. Creationism/ID would not be the idea that replaces evolution.

[stremba]

You are correct. Science can and does incorporate all sorts of non-material entities. (Think of field theories, for example.) The problem with incorporating God into science stems not from the inability to incorporate the nonmaterial into science, but rather from a lack of testability of any idea that tries to incorporate God. In order for an idea to be testable, there must be at least one (and for good scientific theories, many) hypothetically possible observation that would be inconsistent with that idea. If all possible observation confirm an idea, that idea can't be tested in any meaningful sense, since the idea must always pass the test. Any idea that incorporates God, by the very nature of God, is compatible with ALL possible observations. God is by definition omnipotent. Therefore, no matter what is observed, it is possible that God caused that observation to be observed. Since there's no way that an idea that includes God could possibly fail a test, it is meaningless to even perform the test. Thus, God is excluded from the realm of science. (Note that I don't say that any idea that incorporates God is necessarily untrue. I only say that any idea that incorporates God is nonscientific.)

[Ichneumon]

[No, it isn't. It's based on empirical science, and rests upon a foundation of evidence.]

em·pir·i·cal adj.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws
I am unaware of any experiment even suggesting “evolution” beyond that involving bacteria or other very simple life forms.

By specifying only "experiment", you've left out the "observation" part (i.e., the gathering and testing of evidence by other than just "experimental" means). Don't do that.

But as to your being "unaware" of such, there are countless thousands of experiments and observations which support every aspect of evolutionary biology. What aspect of evolution would you like me to show you empirical evidence for? You'll find dozens of different examples in the links I've already posted on this thread.

Even those are apparently subject to some controversy as to whether they establish the concept or not…To wit, see below:

Oh, puh-lease... The "loss of information" goofiness is from Dembski, who's rather an idiot (details upon request), which is probably the reason he's a favorite of creationists. And Dembski is quite simply wrong. Furthermore, the evolution of *new* metabolic pathways has been observed for example, contrary to #20's implication that bacterial evolution has just been a matter of "losing" function. See for example this link which was *already* posted on this thread by me: http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/279/40/41259.pdf.

There is no other “naturalistic” assumption other than “pure randomness” available as to how mutations can occur.

Sure there are.

Consequently, if mutations are not “purely random,” the implication is that something or someone is directing them.

Depends on how you define "directed", I suppose. For example, since the 1960's it has been known that environmental stresses on some organisms causes them to trigger shuffling of certain parts of their genomes. This is not "purely random", and it is "directed" in a sense, but not in the sense of sitting down and thinking, "hmm, how do I want to alter the genome today..."

As this is exactly the argument for intelligent design, I do not think that is what you intended to say.

The problem with the "argument for intelligent design" is that it's not terribly familiar with the fact that there are a wide range of possibilities between "purely random" and "intelligently designed". For a trivial example, natural selection is neither "purely random" (nor "purely *non*random), nor is it "intelligent" or "design", and yet it still brings "order from chaos".

If there is an absolute upper limit on the possible mutation rate, then the probability of more than one, simultaneously, becomes the mathematical product of that rate times itself.

What you keep missing is that there's no requirement that useful mutations happen "simultaneously".

Your "product of the rate" calculation assumes that the ONLY way to get two useful mutations together in a population is to have them originate *TOGETHER* in the very same individual. This is entirely incorrect.

For example, one of the mutations ("A") could occur in Green Crab #304,392,673 out of a 400,000,000 population in generation #3829, and then the other mutation ("B") could occur in Green Crab #286,293,869 out of another set of 400,000,000 crabs in generation #4728. As both mutations get passed around in the populations of generations #4729 and later, they then subsequently manifest together in many individuals. (And while almost a thousand generations later may seem like a long wait, keep in mind that even for a species that has only one generation a year, that thousand years for two "required" mutations to occur is still a tiny fraction of the time the Cambrian explosion took to happen -- it's 1/100,000th of the "quick" Cambrian timespan.)

You're calculating the odds of "Joe Smith wins the lottery two weeks in a row", when the actual case is "someone, somewhere, wins the lottery most every week, what are the odds that two of them will run into each other at some point?"

Similarly, the probability of multiple, simultaneous beneficial mutations,

*NOT* "simultaneous"...

which occur at a much smaller rate than mutations in general, also becomes a mathematical product of a small number making an extremely small probability for such.

*NOT* a "mathematical product...

Therefore, for all practical considerations, the accumulation of beneficial mutations in any organism is restricted to those that occur in successive generations.

Bingo!

This successive accumulation means that benign mutations that could later become beneficial must survive many, many generations in the face of genetic drift and “negative” selection.

You make genetic drift sound like a destructive process only. It's also likely to "boost" a neutral mutation in the population. And there's no "negative selection" on neutral mutations.

If there is an absolute lower limit on mutation rates, the theory of punctuated equilibrium becomes tenuous at best and, more likely, completely unsupportable.

Huh? Does not follow. Run realistic real-world numbers and you'll find it's not a problem. People *have* analyzed these things, you know.

For “beneficial” mutations to accumulate, the required population size, the required number of generations to reach the appropriate size after the appearance of each beneficial mutation,

Say what? "Reach the appropriate size"? What's this about expanding populations, and why?

the time between generations and the mutation rate act multiplicatively to decrease the probabilities of additional beneficial mutations within a limited time.

You're trying really hard to justify that "Multiply" key on your calculator again. And again, I think your reasoning is faulty, but in this case I'm not even sure *what* you're trying to say, so I can't tell what the correct mathematical model for it would really be.

Bacteria have the ability to produce large populations of individuals with very short time periods between generations and thus are potentially subject to many “beneficial” mutations.

Correct.

Consequently, by “Darwinism’s posit, bacteria would arguably increase their complexity to the point of becoming another organism.

< INcorrect. As I've already stressed, evolution does *not* "strive for greater complexity". Yes, it sometimes produces greater complexity in its exploration of fitness space, but contrary to popular impressions, evolution is *not* a walk up a "ladder" of "progress". Increased *fitness* is not synonymous with increased *complexity*.

Furthermore, "bacteria" covers an *enormous* range of types of organisms. The complaint that some are "still bacteria" -- when evolution has produced many different *kinds* of bacteria -- is as specious as seeing evidence that, for example, dinosaurs evolved into birds, but shrugging and saying, "so what, they're still vertebrates..."

Furthermore, today's bacteria are *far* more "complex" than the bacteria of, say, a billion years ago. The fact that they're "still bacteria" doesn't mean that they haven't changed tremendously.

However, to my limited knowledge, experiments with bacteria have never produced anything but other bacteria even after many thousands of generations.

And exactly how much evolution would one *expect* to achieve in only "many thousands of generations" of lab-sized populations?

And before you try, don't bother comparing numbers of bacteria versus numbers of animals and trying to draw any direct comparisons. Animals have two advantages which allow them to evolve faster with smaller combinations -- sexual reproduction, and the greater phenotypic plasticity that comes with multicellularism.

This would be the minimum time allowed for a beneficial mutation to appear and be propagated to the next generation and successor generations become large enough to sustain the mutation’s presence and, then, grow large enough for the next beneficial mutation’s appearance, etc.

Huh? Again with the "growing populations"... Why? Evolution works just fine in populations that remain constant from generation to generation.

[When speaking of "negative" selection pressure, yes, but "positive" selection pressure can't be "too great".]

If I understand your point, here, I must disagree. As I understand it, natural selection can only offer one “pressure:” that which enhances the survival and/or reproduction of an organism having a beneficial mutation. By “Darwinian” posits, if there is no benefit to a mutation, will it not, most likely, eventually change or disappear due to genetic drift?

"Negative" selection is that which differentially hinders survival or successful reproduction, like famines and droughts for example. "Positive" selection is that which gives certain individuals greater survival or reproductive success, like taller giraffes getting more food than their shorter-necked brethren for example, or most forms of sexual selection.

While you are correct in that "negative" selection can't be too "strong" or else it can wipe out a population before it can adapt, but "positive" selection pressure can be arbitrarily strong without endangering the population being selected.

If, in fact, the successor organism had an advantage by natural selection, it should completely supplant the “parent” organism, should it not? Otherwise, what is the advantage?

If still in direct "competition", yes it probably will supplant the "parent" species.

If there are a number of probabilities that must occur sequentially, then each must be multiplied by the other.

And again, you're incorrect in assuming that they *must* occur "sequentially" or "simultaneously". No, they do not. And not even "sequential" probabilities are correctly multiplied together unless they are *required* to occur *together* in sequence (e.g., mutations #456 and #457), which is *not* the case with mutations facilitating evolution. As previously explained, they can occur quite separated in time and location.

For example, the probability of heads of tails on a fair coin’s toss is 0.5. However, for the same coin, the probability of two heads (or tails) in succession is 0.5 times 0.5 or 0.25, i.e. a smaller number. Similarly, the probability of 7 heads (or tails) in succession is 1.52 x 10-5. Is the math sufficiently displayed for you, now?

Sure, but it's still wrong for the process you're trying to model.

Furthermore, I was complaining not only about the lack of equations in your post, but your lack of "real numbers" -- you were pulling some numbers from a hat, and just waving your hands and calling others "not too large", "not too small", etc. If you're going to do a mathematical argument, DO THE MATH. Use the best real-world numbers available for the parameters you're using in your model, or best estimates with appropriate error-bars.

You can't just say, "this is a factor and this is a factor, and I'll bet if we combine them, then WOW, that sounds pretty unlikely to me."

Consequently, it was not I who “just said so”… The rules of mathematics did.

Ahem. The "rules of mathematics" only give the correct answer if you build your model correctly and use correct values for your parameters.

Again, as an example, 0.1 times 0.1 equals 0.01. Sufficiently supported?

No, since I asked you to support your estimate that "0.1" was a realistic figure for the parameters you were using. And again, simple multiplaction is the wrong way to figure the odds you're trying to work out.

Again, as an example, 0.00001 times 0.00001 equals 0.0000000001. Does this example “cut it?”

Again, no.

Even if the differences were small, the probabilities of that many splits, given the mutation rate discussed above makes the issue still on the “very low end of probable” in my view.

Do the *full* model, especially with realistic estimates of population sizes, total mutation events, number of mutations necessary, etc., and you'll find it's entirely within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Check out the links later in the post you were replying to. They discuss the results of similar issues where *actual* rates of accumulated mutations in populations and *actual* numbers of mutations required to effect morphological change were measured, and found *well* within the rate required to support the evolutionary change which is seen in the fossil record, and which would be required to produce the diversity of modern life that we see.

So if your model's conclusions demonstrate that such results are impossible in the real world, well, it's your model that's wrong. And I've already identified a number of serious false assumptions in it (primarily your requirement that mutations happen *together*).

[stremba]

...process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms...

This statement tells you that evolution began with single-celled organisms. These are alive. Therefore, evolution began after life came into existence. Therefore, evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.

[WildTurkey]

Everytime believers have tried to test their faith in a scientific manner, they have failed. I really don't think you are doing anygood to bring faith into the science discussion.

[WildTurkey]

Similarly, the probability of 7 heads (or tails) in succession is 1.52 x 10-5. Is the math sufficiently displayed for you, now?

I think I need new batteries in my caculator. I keep getting 0.0078125.

[PatrickHenry]

"Do you believe in evolution?"

Soon to find a place in the List-O-Links.

I'm groaning to think I may have to add an epistemology section to accommodate it.

[stremba]

Yes, but you still don't have any real evidence that evolution occurs </creationist mode>

[WildTurkey]

Even if the differences were small, the probabilities of that many splits, given the mutation rate discussed above makes the issue still on the “very low end of probable” in my view.

But possible. And given infinite worlds in infinite universes very probable.

[stremba]

I would also suspect that while scientists in academia may lean further leftward than the general population, those scientists in private-sector industry generally are pretty reflective of the general population. There is pressure on scientists in academia (and in some cases outright discrimination) that would tend to push many toward the left. That pressure is largely absent in industry, and if anything the management in industry would probably tend to be further right than the population in general. Thus, if there's any pressure in this setting, it probably would lead to industrial scientists being a little more conservative than the population as a whole.

[WildTurkey]

You noticed that RWW ducked my response.

[Thatcherite]

The odds are greatly against all biologists accepting the theory of evolution.

I didn't say that they did, but I contend that around 99% of them do. In evidence look at professional publications (as opposed to websites and pop-science books). Creationists and ID supporters are virtually invisible in peer-reviewed publications.

And why am I surprised that agnostics and atheists choose to trust evolutionary theory??

Not at all, but as I said plenty of religious people also trust ToE, yet the opposition to ToE is almost entirely religious.

I recall hearing of debates between creationists and evolutionists in which creationists were more convincing. I wish I could point to some as proof, but I can't. If that is true, what would you make of it?

What I would make of it as that some creationists are adept at presenting convincing sounding arguments to non-experts. When I look at websites like AiG and ICR (basically full of lies and misinformation) and the output of people like Behe and Dembski I see work that is almost entirely targeted at convincing lay people, not the scientific community. Creationists and ID'ers try to end-run round the normal scientific process of observation/experimentation/peer-review/publication. I believe this is because scientifically their arguments are largely free of substance.

[Thatcherite]

You can't just say, "this is a factor and this is a factor, and I'll bet if we combine them, then WOW, that sounds pretty unlikely to me."

Hadn't someone better tell Dembski and Behe that?

[balrog666]

Hadn't someone better tell Dembski and Behe that?

Conmen are rarely such fools as to believe their own BS.