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.

[gobucks]

When pressed, I think most scientists assume we can't know the origin of life or the universe.

Most that I have 'pressed' question the rationality of anyone who spends time thinking about it. The r square value is roughly 96 percent. Why do you figure scientists get so uneasy when the discussion devolves to beginnings?

[anguish]

Why do you figure scientists get so uneasy when the discussion devolves to beginnings?

Because it's a leap into the unknown. Scientists dislike unknowns - especially so when they lack testable data.

[Ichneumon]

As I understand “Darwinism,” it is based upon inductive reasoning.

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

“Whenever an event occurs, at least one sufficient condition is present and all the [...]

Yeah, yeah, get to your points.

The proponents of “Darwinism” currently propose that the mechanism (in my limited understanding of the subject) for evolution is a purely random “mutation”

There's no requirement that it be "purely random". Many mutations are decidedly non-random, in fact.

of existing an organism which is both heritable and beneficial in terms of natural selection to the enhanced survival and/or reproduction of future generations of that organism.

No, non-beneficial mutations also play a part, and neutral mutations can fix in the genepool through genetic drift alone.

in particular, with relation to the “Cambrian Explosion:”
Stated factors/conditions:
1. Mutations must exist randomly.

Wrong.

2. Mutations must be heritable.

If they're going to make any long-term evolutionary difference, right -- mostly. Non-heritable mutations play a small but significant role in evolution (via horizontal transfer, etc.)

3. Natural selection pressures must determine that a particular mutation provides a benefit to the organism.

Oversimplified, but close enough for a discussion like this. And again, you're leaving out genetic drift. Plus you've skipped things like mutations which by themselves may be non-beneficial, but when shuffled together with another non-beneficial mutation via sexual recombination may provide some advantage -- it's a mistake to think of a given mutation as providing a specific advantage *in isolation*. Furthermore, mutations which are advantageous in one setting may be non-advantageous in another, etc etc.

Unstated factors/conditions:
1. Mutations can only be classed into the following categories: a) none; b) benign: c) beneficial: or d) detrimental.

See above -- even the same mutation can shift from category to category depending upon other factors.

2. The sum of mutations in categories a), b) and c) must significantly exceed category d) or the organism will become extinct prior to the production of a “better adapted” next generation.

If you mean "in a specific individual", I'll buy that.

(note: this condition disallows excessive mutagens which puts an absolute upper limit on mutation rates which,

Correct.

when combined with the requirement for purely random occurrence, negates the likelihood of multiple beneficial mutations occurring simultaneously or successive mutations occurring excessively rapidly.)

If you mean in a particular individual, good enough.

3. Beneficial mutations must occur at a frequent enough rate to accommodate the time frame estimated for new organism appearance from fossil record. (note: this condition mandates the presence of sufficient mutagens which puts an absolute lower limit on mutation rates.)

Okay.

4. A sufficient number of generations must occur within the fossil record time frame to make the beneficial mutation present in enough individuals for production of a sufficient population size to generate the next beneficial mutation within acceptable mutation rates.

Uh.. You need to clarify this more, it's ambiguous in a lot of ways.

5. For the appearance of successive (in time) species in the fossil record having new/better capabilities, beneficial mutation must make the organism more biologically complex that its parent.

Nope! Just different. It can even be simpler -- and in a lot of environments, simpler is better. But if your point is that if evolution *can't* ever increase complexity, then living forms today would still be awfully simple and not like what exists today, I'll buy that. The evolutionary scenario for producing today's living things doesn't "work" unless evolution can indeed result in increased complexity.

6. The time between generations must be short enough to accommodate the time frame estimated for new organism appearance from fossil record.

You're throwing around a lot of undefined terms like "short enough" without actually getting specific...

7. As organisms increase in complexity, the time between generations typically increases as well, e.g., nine months of gestation and at least 12-15 years for puberty for humans, etc.

In general, yes, but it's not ironclad. Sometimes an increase in complexity is what's required to enable faster reproductive rates, for example.

8. Natural selection pressures must determine that a particular mutation provides a benefit to the organism at rate that prevents the mutation from disappearing due to genetic drift or other phenomena.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but you're not saying it right.

9. Natural selection pressures must not be so great as to cause organism extinction before the organism has produced an adequate number of generations with the beneficial mutation to make the beneficial mutation widespread enough to ensure its survival.

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

10. As some simpler “parent organisms,” e.g., sharks, continue to exist alongside “descendant” organisms, Natural selection pressures must not be so great as to cause organism extinction or the simpler “parent organism” cannot appear simultaneously with its more complex “descendant” organism.

Not really a problem, actually, since the "daughter" species may have moved into geographic isolation, or into a niche non-competitive with that of the "parent" species, etc. And again, it's a mistake to presume that the parent species must necessarily be "simpler" than the offspring species.

The list of “necessary” factors could potentially go quite a bit further. However, the above number, alone, establishes that “Darwinism,” as it is postulated, must overcome some very near impossible odds.

WOW, a mathematical claim without any math! Try again, son.

The probabilities associated with each “necessary” factor are multiplicative with the probabilities of each additional factor.

Horse manure! You have in no way established this. And you can't establish it by just "I say so, that's why".

Therefore, even if the probability associated with each factor were only a single decimal place

"If". Feel free to actually support such an assumption.

the resulting product yields a number with a tremendously large negative exponent.

Faulty conclusion due to being based on unsupported premises and numbers pulled out of a hat instead of from real-world testing.

Additionally, there are those factors with many more than one decimal place such as beneficial mutation rates which have a negative exponent greater than 6. The implication is that the “millions” (i.e., a positive 6) of years allowable even with “millions” of individuals (i.e., another positive 6) within a species in the Cambrian fossil record cannot account the appearance of between 17 and 34 animal phyla attributed to that time frame.

Again, you've provided no real math, just made up numbers followed by a non-mathematical conclusion ("can't!"). Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.

Furthermore, you've overlooked quite a few things in your simplistic "Cambrian" scenario:

1. Mutation rates are *per nucleotide* *per copy*, if I recall correctly. Quick, Einstein, how many nucleotides in the genome of a single organism? You've presumed it's per individual, per generation. Wrongo. In fact, I don't have it at hand right now, but one study determined that every individual human has on the average *four* new mutations that are unique to him (or her), having occurred in the mother/father germ line which led to his conception.

2. You use "million" as your "population size", but that's a *very* small number for most species. Do you have any idea how many, say, Green Crabs there are in the ocean? A million is a drop in the bucket.

3. You mention the Cambrian radiation evolving from "a species", but even leaving aside the obvious that the Cambrian explosion likely resulted from advances in *multiple* species, and buying your oversimplified scenario that it arose from *one* preCambrian species, you're still overlooking the fact that after the first bifurcation, now there are *two* species within which the further mutations can arise, and so on as the clades further split in turn.

4. You have provided zero, zip, nada estimate of how many mutations (at least on the order of) would be a necessary number to result in the Cambrian evolutions. Sort of *need* that for your calculation, don't you?

5. The actual time over which the Cambrian radiations occurred is at least 100 million years, not just on the order of "millions" as you assert.

6. You mention "between 17 and 34 animal phyla" as if that's a large number to evolve in 100 million years, but a "phylum change" back in that era was little more than what we'd write off as a "species change" now (although in another half billion years a few of today's "species differences" may have resulted in enough subsequence divergence to be recognized, *then*, as a "phylum split" -- it's all relative to where you're measuring from). For example, today vertebrates are hugely different than invertebrates, thanks to a half billion years of subsequent evolution and divergence, but back in the early Cambrian the difference between the "vertebrate phlyum" and the "invertebrate phylum" was little more than a worm with a notochord versus a worm with a neural net -- hardly a huge amount of genetic change.

So keep working on your math until you get some more realistic, concrete numbers.

Beyond the challenge presented by the required conjunction of a huge number of “necessary” conditions,

*cough*

there are several straight forward questions that should also be addressed:
1. Why do the genomes of salamanders, a supposedly less complex animal, have 50 times more DNA than humans?

They went nuts with polyploidy and repetitions. Their *genome* maybe larger, but that doesn't mean they've got that many more useful genes. A lot of the genome in most species -- including humans -- is a vast amount of junk and fuzz and "fossilized" viran infections from our distant ancestors, etc. There are long stretches of the human genome which are just vast wastelands of "stuttered" repeats, relics of past DNA-copying errors. Since they do no harm, they just stay there.

2. Why do supposedly related organisms have widely varying amounts of junk DNA (the C-value paradox)?

See above.

3. How can complicated new body parts or new organs (e.g., eyes and feathers) form when the necessary thousands or millions of intermediate steps would have offered no selective advantage?

Hogwash. Even Darwin had already answered this one in 1859 -- read his book. And for pete's sake, feathers aren't *that* complicated that they requier "thousand or millions of intermediate stages"... See for example:

Evo-Devo of feathers and scales: building complex epithelial appendages

The morphogenesis of feathers

Avian skin development and the evolutionary origin of feathers

Origin of archosaurian integumentary appendages: The bristles of the wild turkey beard express feather-type Beta keratins

Molecular biology of feather morphogenesis: A testable model for evo-devo research

When did theropods become feathered? - evidence for pre-archaeopteryx feathery appendages

4. How could those many steps occur in the relatively short time during which those new organs and organisms were coming into existence?

By calling it "relatively short" you're assuming your conclusion... But in the studies of particular organs, systems, and species I've seen researched in depth, the time it took them to evolve was well within real-world mutation acquisition and fixation rates for the relevant genes. See for example the following sections of a link I gave in an earlier post:

Prediction 5.7: Morphological rates of change

Prediction 5.8: Genetic rates of change

Note that section 5.8 directly relates to the point you're trying to make here, and references studies which have done actual research on this topic.

5. How could all the hundreds of proteins needed for vertebrate blood suddenly come into existence at the same time from invertebrate "blood," when none of those proteins are present or useful in any invertebrate?

Answer: They didn't have to "suddenly come into existence" in the way you describe. Modern vertebrate blood came about through stepwise changes from ancestral vertebrate blood.

Name a vertebrate blood protein you're interested in and I should be able to find some papers on when during vertebrate evolution it was found to have arisen. A quick search on a few relevant terms turned up the follow possible hits, not sure if they're all entirely relevant though, but they give the flavor of the kind of research that's being done (note that there's a lot of research on agnathans, which being an early branch off the ancestral vertebrate line, often retain primitive characteristics which can be used to determine which vertebrate biochemical changes occurred "early" versus "late" during vertebrate diversification):

The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes

Comparative physiology and molecular analysis of carbonic anhydrase from the red blood cells of teleost fish

Molecular Evolution of Hemoglobins of Antarctic Fishes (Notothenioidei)

CO2 transport in agnathan blood: evidence of erythrocyte Cl-/HCO3- exchange limitations.

Different red blood cell characteristics in a primitive agnathan (M. glutinosa) and a more recent teleost (O. mykiss) influence their strategies for blood CO2 transport.

Bicarbonate permeability and immunological evidence for an anion exchanger-like protein in the red blood cells of the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus

The 2.0-Å crystal structure of tachylectin 5A provides evidence for the common origin of the innate immunity and the blood coagulation systems

Functional Evolution of the Vertebrate Myb Gene Family: B-Myb, but neither AMyb nor c-Myb, complements Drosophila Myb in Hemocytes

Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins

Exon and domain evolution in the proenzymes of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis

6. How could so many unique creatures suddenly appear over a short time 500 million years ago, but relatively few (practically no) new creatures appear since (the Cambrian explosion)?

There weren't *that* many new creatures, the "short time" was over a hundred million years, and there have been *millions* of "new creatures" since. Such as the entire mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and insect families, and every one of their various species.

7. If the mutation rate is constant, ( or even with the punctuated equilibrium or the “fits” and “starts” proposal) why has the rate of "evolution" slowed down so much since the Cambrian explosion?

It hasn't. See above.

8. What accounts for the wild and unique creatures of the Burgess Shale?

The fact that since some of them went extinct and left no modern descendants, they look pretty exotic to us since we're not familiar with any of them.

9. If all of those phyla happened once in the Cambrian period (it did, right?), then why not twice? Or a hundred times? Or a million, or a billion since?

Millions of new species have evolved since then, along with entirely new and novel families totally unlike anything seen in the Cambrian period (e.g. mammals, birds, flowering plants, grasses, etc.)

The only reason that the divergencies in the Cambrian (which at the time, were *not* that drastically different from each other when compared one-on-one) are now called "phyla" is because there has been time for another 540+ million years to accumulate and deepen and highlight the divisions between their descendants. Such classifications are only meaningful when viewed in *retrospect*.

[gobucks]

"why is this so hard?"

"Evolution is not a scientific theory because it cannot be proven or disproven in a laboratory or by other scientific methods. It's an idea that you either take on faith, or you don't. As such it has no place being taught in a science classroom AS FACT."

That is why this is so hard, coupled w/ the fact that scientists are quite aware that young kids listen to scientists, and extrapolate the moral implications into choices that they make into their own lives.

And, despite the utter social nightmare kids are exposed to today, the scientists remain .... deadly quiet. Why? Well, there's certainly no need for a conspiracy if everyone is on the same page.

What is the 'same page'? All you have to look at is this: how does any science dept PAY for itself at ANY university. The cash flow analysis betrays the same page, and that page is directly connected to politics and liberal democrats protection of a constituency. In effect, the scientific establishment is a complicated version of a longshoreman's union .... with the attendant rules, union practices, regulations, and soap operas. It is actually quite predictable.

And, oh yes, what is the consequence if someone gets out of line? In academia, the options for discipline are many ...

[Ichneumon]

[Why do you figure scientists get so uneasy when the discussion devolves to beginnings?]
Because it's a leap into the unknown. Scientists dislike unknowns - especially so when they lack testable data.

Actually, there's quite a lot of testable data concerning the beginnings of life. For example:

On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. Russell

Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

And:

The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of Glasgow

Abstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.

And:

The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey University

Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.

"Phylogeny from Function: The Origin of tRNA Is in Replication, not Translation", in the online book "Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Genetics and Paleontology 50 Years After Simpson"

Obcells as Proto-Organisms: Membrane Heredity, Lithophosphorylation, and the Origins of the Genetic Code, the First Cells, and Photosynthesis (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 53 - Number 4/5, 2001)

N-Carbamoyl Amino Acid Solid-Gas Nitrosation by NO/NO_x: A New Route to Oligopeptides via alpha-Amino Acid N-Carboxyanhydride. Prebiotic Implications (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 48 - Number 6, 1999

Chemical interactions between amino acid and RNA: multiplicity of the levels of specificity explains origin of the genetic code (Naturwissenschaften, Volume 89 Number 12 December 2002)

The Nicotinamide Biosynthetic Pathway Is a By-Product of the RNA World (Journal of Molecular Evolution, Volume 52 - Number 1, 2001)

On the RNA World: Evidence in Favor of an Early Ribonucleopeptide World

Inhibition of Ribozymes by Deoxyribonucleotides and the Origin of DNA

Genetic Code Origin: Are the Pathways of Type Glu-tRNAGln to Gln-tRNAGln Molecular Fossils or Not?

Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP.RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension. Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1319-25.

Ferris JP. (1999 Jun). Prebiotic synthesis on minerals: bridging the prebiotic and RNA worlds. Biol Bull , 196, 311-4.

Levy M, and Miller SL. (1999 Jun). The prebiotic synthesis of modified purines and their potential role in the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 48, 631-7.

Unrau PJ, and Bartel DP. (1998 Sep 17). RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis [see comments] Nature , 395, 260-3.

Roth A, and Breaker RR. (1998 May 26). An amino acid as a cofactor for a catalytic polynucleotide [In Process Citation] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 95, 6027-31.

Jeffares DC, Poole AM, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). Relics from the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 46, 18-36.

Poole AM, Jeffares DC, and Penny D. (1998 Jan). The path from the RNA world. J Mol Evol , 46, 1-17.

Wiegand TW, Janssen RC, and Eaton BE. (1997 Sep). Selection of RNA amide synthases. Chem Biol , 4, 675-83.

Di Giulio M. (1997 Dec). On the RNA world: evidence in favor of an early ribonucleopeptide world. J Mol Evol , 45, 571-8.

Hager AJ, and Szostak JW. (1997 Aug). Isolation of novel ribozymes that ligate AMP-activated RNA substrates. Chem Biol , 4, 607-17.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1997 Aug). Surprising fidelity of template-directed chemical ligation of oligonucleotides [In Process Citation] Chem Biol , 4, 595-605.

Lohse PA, and Szostak JW. (1996 May 30). Ribozyme-catalysed amino-acid transfer reactions. Nature , 381, 442-4.

Lazcano A, and Miller SL. (1996 Jun 14). The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time. Cell , 85, 793-8.

Ertem G, and Ferris JP. (1996 Jan 18). Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. Nature , 379, 238-40.

Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995 May 5). Prebiotic synthesis of 5-substituted uracils: a bridge between the RNA world and the DNA-protein world [see comments] Science , 268, 702-5.

Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995 Jun 29). An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil [published erratum appears in Nature 1995 Sep 21;377(6546):257] Nature , 375, 772-4.

Breaker RR, and Joyce GF. (1995 Jun). Self-incorporation of coenzymes by ribozymes. J Mol Evol , 40, 551-8.

James KD, and Ellington AD. (1995 Dec). The search for missing links between self-replicating nucleic acids and the RNA world. Orig Life Evol Biosph , 25, 515-30.

Bohler C, Nielsen PE, and Orgel LE. (1995 Aug 17). Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides [see comments] Nature , 376, 578-81.

Connell GJ, and Christian EL. (1993 Dec). Utilization of cofactors expands metabolism in a new RNA world. Orig Life Evol Biosph , 23, 291-7.

Nielsen PE. (1993 Dec). Peptide nucleic acid (PNA): a model structure for the primordial genetic material? Orig Life Evol Biosph , 23, 323-7.

Lahav N. (1991 Aug 21). Prebiotic co-evolution of self-replication and translation or RNA world? J Theor Biol , 151, 531-9.

Ekland EH, Szostak JW, and Bartel DP. (1995 Jul 21). Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences. Science , 269, 364-70.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution is not a scientific theory because it cannot be proven or disproven in a laboratory or by other scientific methods.

Why are you lying about this? This is complete claptrap.

It's an idea that you either take on faith, or you don't.

No, you examine the evidence for it. Stop lying, please.

As such it has no place being taught in a science classroom AS FACT.

Many parts of evolutionary biology are indeed fact. Other parts are theory. If you know of a school that is *actually* confusing the two (as opposed to creationist hysteria that it might be doing so), let me know and I'll help you go take them to task for it. Until then, stop hyperventilating.

That is why this is so hard,

What, it's so hard because you misrepresent it?

coupled w/ the fact that scientists are quite aware that young kids listen to scientists, and extrapolate the moral implications into choices that they make into their own lives. And, despite the utter social nightmare kids are exposed to today, the scientists remain .... deadly quiet. Why? Well, there's certainly no need for a conspiracy if everyone is on the same page.

So let me get this straight -- your paranoid view of scientists is that they "knowingly" allow the "false" doctrine of "evilution"(tm) to corrupt the precious bodily fluids (oops, I mean "precious morals") of our children and send our country on the road to hell, but everyone's in on the conspiracy and stays silent because, hey, it's a living? Is that *really* what your twisted mind came up with?

Is that you second from the right?

What is the 'same page'? All you have to look at is this: how does any science dept PAY for itself at ANY university. The cash flow analysis betrays the same page, and that page is directly connected to politics and liberal democrats protection of a constituency. In effect, the scientific establishment is a complicated version of a longshoreman's union .... with the attendant rules, union practices, regulations, and soap operas. It is actually quite predictable.

YES, YES!! AND IRAQ IS ABOUT HALLIBURTON'S STOCKHOLDERS, AND VIETNAM WAS ABOUT THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX'S BOTTOM LINE!

Do you realize what you sound like here?

And, oh yes, what is the consequence if someone gets out of line? In academia, the options for discipline are many ...

Getting flashbacks, eh?

[Ichneumon]

Why can't each "stage" of the bird shown, simply be similar birds with slight differences, such as the differences between a grackle and a crow?

That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it.

...I'm just not glad you asked it right *now*, because I need to get to bed and a proper anwer will take at least 30 minutes which I don't have at the moment. Can I give you a raincheck for now, and I'll get back to you on it later today?

[Ichneumon]

Yes, science 'can' theorize about that which can't be observed .... but, pray tell, when it comes to intelligent design, why is it they REFUSE to theorize?

They don't. Where did you get the bizarre idea that they do?

They refuse to discuss reasons why ID is illogical.

ROFL!! Do a Google search for "Dembski" or "Behe", and aside from the creationist websites fawning all over them, you'll find nothing *but* scientists "discussing reasons why ID is illogical" -- or at least why the current ID movement is.

It is just 'wrong' a priori. How is that rational?

It isn't, which is why they don't actually do what you're falsely accusing them of. Nice try.

Why are kids taught, by scientists, that to theorize about the unobserved is 'crazy'?

Lying again, eh? No, kids aren't taught that by scientists.

(IMHO it is because scientists are quite aware that all moral rulebooks, especially the sexaul one, are suddenly subject to change if ID is involved at all.)

You know, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but scientists aren't nearly as motivated as you think they are by thoughts of what their epistimology might do to their sexual options -- but *you* certainly seem to bring up that topic an awful lot. Why the fixation?

[Woodworker]

A "fossil sequence" is an interesting opinion, just like global warming. Do you have a field experiment for other than microbes?

[Woodworker]

Simple, because the basis of the evolutionists is an attack on religion, not science.

[Thatcherite]

(IMHO it is because scientists are quite aware that all moral rulebooks, especially the sexaul one, are suddenly subject to change if ID is involved at all.)

gb solved his sexual problems with Christianity, and thinks that the rest of us should do likewise whether we have problems or not. He is bizarrely fascinated by the (usually nonexistent) sexual morality dimension of scientific positions. ;)

BTW, Evolutionists do it very slowly.

[ThinkPlease]

Yay! Lets bring back astrology and teach that, too! That's just as scientific as ID! ID still isn't science. It still doesn't have a research program, and still doesn't have any testable theories.

[mhillclimber]

what these so called scientists are missing is that the Bible is objective Truth

Hate to cast this profound doubt, but stating that "The Bible" is evidence that "The Bible" is objective truth is the same as stating that "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" prove the existence of Tom Sawyer.
It's a circular argument.

[ml1954]

Intelligent design is not SCIENCE. So it should not be taught in a SCIENCE class.

Whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory is disputed by a proportionally very small number of scientists. Fine, spend a little time in SCIENCE class covering their points, but not a disproportionate amount of time.

Trying to redefine what SCIENCE is by legislating it is ridiculous.

[Ichneumon]

Simple, because the basis of the evolutionists is an attack on religion, not science.

Where on Earth do you hallucinate this sort of idea from?

Take a look at posts #49, #63, and #65, and spend twenty or thirty hours wading through the linked materials. You'll find science, not "attack on religion" there.

Yet you can sit there and with a straight face claim something blatantly false like "the basis of the evolutionists is an attack on religion, not science"?

[Ichneumon]

Hate to cast this profound doubt, but stating that "The Bible" is evidence that "The Bible" is objective truth is the same as stating that "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" prove the existence of Tom Sawyer. It's a circular argument.

Like The Story of Hank.

[ml1954]

Why is this so hard?

Because the objective is not to teach science. The objectives are: 1) to attack and discredit a scientific theory (evolution) and, if necessary, attack and discredit science in general (by calling it a religion); 2) forcefully promote the teaching of a specific religious belief (ID/Creationism).

On the one hand attack science (or a scientific theory) as invalid and equivalent to a religion to justify the teaching of an alternative religious belief. On the other hand, try to make a religious belief look like science to justify teaching it in a science class.

The objectives of these people are clear. IMO, rather than arguing with them, it's best to just point out what they are really trying to do....forcefully proselytize their religious beliefs. This is what religious fanatics who want to force the teaching of their religious beliefs on others do.

[gobucks]

That website, like others he has linked to, is pro-gay and pro-abortion (pro-embroynic stem cell research) and titanically anti-Christian.

This fellow is a well-disguised troll, but he has Freeper tenure and will not be banned. Fyi.

[gobucks]

Intelligent design is not SCIENCE.

Why not? Because you have something to protect by owning what true 'science' really is?

Fess up. 'Science' has an underlying agenda. It is an agenda with vested interests, exactly the same way the NEA is a vested interest.

Scientists vote OVERWHELMINGLY for liberal democrats (and if communists were actually on the ticket, they'd get that vote).

And finally, if ID was such a non-issue, if evolution was so obvious, why have the scientists been so successful in failing to explain it in such a way that it is as believable as ..... gravity. You'll notice few Christians will stand up and say "Gravity is not real, it's just faith".

Scientists, in my opinion, deliberately obfuscate what ToE is, and when public high school science teachers are screwing up how their students can even THINK about it, the great professors of reason in our trustworthy illustrious intitutions of glorious higher learning remain ..... deadly quiet.

Just why is that? How are scientists incented to keep your average american kid dirt stupid via our public school system? Ohhhhhhhh .... they're not incented to do so, right? I'm quite fed up with the outright lies of scientists regarding what 'science', really now, is ...

That is the bottom line; scientists know that the definition of science itself is under attack .... and they're not about to give up their monopoly without a fight.

The NEA recently announced they are issuing pom poms to its science teachers to help bolster morale. After all, as a client monopoly, they have a lot to lose as well....

[gobucks]

gb solved his sexual problems with Christianity

I didn't have sexual problems before submitting to Christ. But, I do indeed claim Christ-based sex is much, much, better. Unfortunately, married Christians do a rotten job advirtising this reality.

and thinks that the rest of us should do likewise whether we have problems or not.

What I think the 'rest of you' should consider is this question: why is discussing Christian-based sexual experiences avoided like the plague?

Why is the total amount of discussing how little kids are being exposed to preverted sexual agendas at younger and younger ages being avoided like the plague?

Why are the most ardent defenders of ToE the most quiet regarding how the priests of the 'sexual revolution' use 'evolution' to justify their actions and behavior?

He is bizarrely fascinated by the (usually nonexistent) sexual morality dimension of scientific positions. ;)

No, I am dismayed at how folks like yourself can willingly (dare I say bizarrely? yes I dare say indeed), remain so blind to the impact of the ignored moral dimensions of the currently held scientific positions. Maybe it is because you don't teach Sunday School, like I do, where teen kids ask for prayers about their parents.

Maybe it is because you live in a fish bowl and deliberately avoid getting your hands dirty with the day to day reality of kids who suffer at the hands of parents who .... well, let's say this: many of them are screwing up big time.

But, you likely avoid learning these details in your wine and cheese world I would have to guess. For if you knew them, I strongly suspect you wouldn't post the air-headed nonsense you post here...

(but at least you we're polite enough to ping me when you offered your helpful criticism of who gb is .... so you are not beyond hope :))