Seattle think tank raises questions about evolution

SEATTLE - (KRT) - Three years ago, the Ohio Board of Education invited a small but influential Seattle think tank to debate the way evolution is taught in Ohio schools.

It was an opportunity for the Discovery Institute to promote its notion of intelligent design, the controversial idea that parts of life are so complex they must have been designed by some intelligent agent.

Instead, leaders of the institute's Center for Science and Culture decided on what they consider a compromise. Forget intelligent design, they argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it.

They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school. Evolution controversies are brewing in eight school districts, half a dozen state legislatures and three state boards of education, including the one in Kansas, which wrestled with the issue in 1999 as well.

"Why fight when you can have a fun discussion?" asks Stephen Meyer, the center's director. The teach-the-controversy approach, he said, avoids "unnecessary constitutional fights" over the separation of church and state, yet also avoids teaching Darwin's theories as dogma.

But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science.

"You're lying to students if you tell them that scientists are debating whether evolution took place," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that defends teaching of evolution in school.

The Discovery Institute, she said, is leading a public-relations campaign, not a scientific endeavor.

The Discovery Institute is one of the leading organizations working nationally to change how evolution is taught. It works as an adviser, resource and sometimes a critic with those who have similar views.

"There are a hundred ways to get this wrong," said Meyer. "And only a few to get them right."

Ohio got it right, he said, when its state Board of Education voted in 2002 to require students to learn that scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

Scott said it was a small victory at most for intelligent-design supporters, but Meyer considers it a significant one - a model other states should follow. Minnesota has adopted similar language.

The School Board in Dover, Pa., however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction in intelligent design. (The matter is now in court.) Intelligent design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer said.

He also criticizes the Georgia school board that put stickers on biology textbooks with a surgeon-general-like warning that evolution is "a theory not a fact." The stickers were a "dumb idea," he said bluntly. (A Georgia court ruled they were illegal, and the case is under appeal.)

In Wisconsin, the institute hopes it helped the school board in the small town of Grantsburg switch to a teach-the-controversy approach.

In each place, the institute says it responded to requests for help, although it's working to become more proactive, too. Some critics suspect the ties are even closer.

The Center for Science and Culture opened in 1996 as a part of the already-established Discovery Institute, which also studies more earthbound topics such as transportation, economics, technology and bioethics.

Founder Bruce Chapman - who has worked as an official in the Reagan administration, head of the U.S. Census Bureau and Washington's secretary of state - became interested in intelligent design after reading a piece Meyer wrote for The Wall Street Journal.

Meyer, then a philosophy professor at Whitworth College in Spokane, Wash., was defending a California professor in trouble for talking about intelligent design in biology class. To Chapman, it was an issue of academic freedom.

He invited Meyer to come speak at the institute. The more they talked, the more Chapman and others at the institute became interested in offering a home to Meyer and others interested in intelligent design.

Intelligent design appealed to their view that life isn't really as unplanned or unguided as Darwin's theories can make it seem.

"It interested me because it seemed so different than the reductionist science that came out of the 19th century ... that everything could be reduced to chemistry," said John West, a political scientist and center associate director.

The private institute has an annual budget of about $3.2 million, and plans to spend about $1.3 million on the intelligent-design work, Chapman said, mostly to support the work of about three dozen fellows.

The Fieldstead Charitable Trust, run by Christian conservative Henry Ahmanson and his wife, is one of the largest donors to that effort. Chapman declines to name more.

Meyer, the center's director, is a tall, friendly man who has undergraduate degrees in geology and physics and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Cambridge, where he wrote his doctorate on the origins of life.

He says he's no creationist. He doesn't, for example, believe in a literal reading of the Bible, which would mean the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

He doesn't dispute that natural selection played a role in evolution; he just doesn't think it explains everything.

He often points to the Cambrian Period, a time more than 500 million years ago when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. Meyer and other Discovery Institute fellows say those groups show up too fast, geologically speaking, to have come about through natural selection. That's one of what they see as controversies they want taught in school.

Scientists, however, say the Cambrian Period may not be completely understood, but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is in trouble.

"They harp and harp on natural selection, as if natural selection is the only thing that evolutionary biologists deal with," said Scott. "Who knows whether natural selection explains the Cambrian body plans. ... So what?"

Scientists consider Meyer a creationist because he maintains some unnamed intelligence - and Meyer said he personally thinks it is God - has an active hand in creating some complex parts of life.

"I don't know what else to call it other than creationism," said Michael Zimmerman, a critic and dean at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.

Meyer, however, said he's a scientist who starts with scientific evidence, not the Bible. His goal - a big one - is to change the very definition of science so that it doesn't rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer is actively at work.

"Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data," Meyer said.

That would be a major change for science, which limits itself to the natural world. Scott said it would be a "science stopper."

"Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," she said.

Scott said science isn't an atheistic worldview. In science, she said, "It is equally inappropriate to say God did it, or God had nothing to do with it."

"There's no controversy about whether living things have common ancestors," Scott said. "There's no controversy about whether natural selection is very important in creating the variety of organisms we have today."

While the institute touts its list of 370 scientists who have signed a statement saying they have some doubts about Darwin's theory of natural selection, Scott's organization, in a parody of that effort, has a list of 500 names limited to scientists named Steve or Stephanie, in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known biologist who once wrote that evolution is "one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science."

Public opinion is mixed. Many Christian denominations, including Catholics, see no contradiction between evolution and their faith, but a Gallup Poll last November found that only about a third of the respondents think Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported by scientific evidence.

Meyer hopes the Kansas Board of Education will invite the center to speak at its hearings in May. Speakers will be asked to address the issue the center wants to highlight: whether Kansas' science curriculum helps students understand debate over controversial topics such as evolution.

Kansas Citizens for Science, however, has urged a boycott of the hearings, saying the proposals have been "rejected by the science community at large."

Evolution has nothing to say about God or atheism.

Oh?? Let's see....

Unfortunately, most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testement writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If there were no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

Evolution has nothing to say about God or atheism. OH?????

"...You clearly don't understand the point being made, which is that there is no more reason for ID to account for Mass Extinctions (currently thought to result from things like Giant Meteor Impacts) than for the theory of evolution to do so. Giant Meteors are explicitly outside the context of both concepts: organisms will be killed by them regardless of whether they were evolved, designed, or some combination of the two.

Get it?"

Oh, I certainly "get it". Here's the deal:

After some major environmental catastrophe, such as a meteor impact, or horrendous volcanic erruption where the previously stable bio-habitat is violently re-arranged...

evolutionary theory predicts that those organisms not suited to the new environmental conditions will perish. Organisms that can adapt to the new environment will continue to reproduce. After many, many generations, new species will emerge that are even better suited to the new environmental conditions, through the process of random mutation and natural selection.

intelligent design theory predicts that those organisms not suited to the new environmental conditions will perish. Organisms that can adapt to the new environment will continue to reproduce, but essentially stay the same. Any new species that emerge (ie, that are observed AFTER the disruptive event) which are even better suited to the new environmental conditions would have to be designed by some intelligent agent, since "macro evolution" is not on the table.

As learned from your prior posts, any inconvenient observation is not required to be accounted for with the ID theory.

You see, what the original poster was getting to by asking about MASS EXTINCTIONS is the necessary RISE OF OTHER SPECIES after the extinction event. A complete phrasing of the question, as it pertains to ID would be the following:

"After mass extinction events (observable from the fossil record) there gives rise to new, previously non-existent species (also observable from the fossil record). How does ID account for the rise of these new species? Does an intelligent agent re-visit the Earth and re-arrange DNA? If not, then how does one distinguish between naturally selected speciation and those directed by ID? Can you give physical evidence for visits by an intelligent agent for the various mass extinction events, (spaced at roughly 50 to 100 million years apart)?"

That is a more complete question, with the tricky bits that touch on ID spelled out.

Well, your strawman is still intact I see.....

It is most clearly slobbered forth here: "Can you give physical evidence for visits by an intelligent agent for the various mass extinction events."

Why must I do so, except in service of your strawman for ID?

The problem here is that you seem to insist on an either/or basis for the discussion -- but there is no reason to do that. One can grant that a process of evolution occurs, and still defend the position that intelligent agents can explain certain phenomena.

Indeed, we pretty much have to take that position, given the FACT that ID explains some of what we can observe. After all, WE HUMANS are the intelligent agents responsible for them.

In the face of that, it is irrational to simply rule out the possibility that such events could have happened at least once in the past. And yet that's precisely what you're doing.

Now, it may in fact be the case that no ID events occurred prior to the advent of humanity. Or, it may be the case that some (not all!!) phenomena are best explained in terms of some previous intervention by an intelligent agent. I will not claim that intelligent agents are responsible for ALL of what we see (which is why your strawman is even less interesting than most).

Next we must deal with the "it's not science" assertion. The common complaint is that it's "not testable," but that's not correct. One can at least define the scientific questions that a theory of intelligent intervention must address. Namely, how would one detect intelligent intervention if it occurred? What sorts of characteristics would one use to reliably discriminate between "design" and "non-design?"

It's worth pointing out that the theory of evolution may not be well-suited to answer those questions either, even for cases where we know the right answer. Take dog breeds or strains of corn, for instance -- one could no doubt come up with some clever (albeit wrong) naturalistic explanation for them, with no need to invoke the human breeders who were actually responsible. It is not clear to me that the theory of evolution could produce an explanation that included them.

["Domestic dogs are not members of C. lupus."]

First, check wikipedia and do a search for both "dog" and "wolf". On the "wolf" page, let your eyes wander down to the right and notice the entry beside "Species:". Now let's read out loud together . . . "C. Lupus". Now, let's complete the lesson by doing the same on the "dog" page . . . Species: . . . what? . . . can it be? C. Lupus.. I'll bet that stands for Canis lupus - just like wolves.

Ooh, Wikipedia, that bastian of peer-reviewed scientific consensus...

Look, it's true that some sources (e.g. the author of the Wikipedia piece) prefer to list dogs as a *subspecies* of wolves (as does Wikipedia itself, something you "forgot" to mention), but most other sources classify dogs as their own distinct species (Canis familiaris) based on solid reasoning and evidence.

You're misrepresenting the state of the field when you just flat-out declare dogs as simply being "the same species" as wolves, when at best they're a distinct *sub*species, and even that is not a matter of consensus. And I've reviewed references in the primary literature just now, and found that Canis familiaris is still the preferred nomenclature. A PubMed search turns up *357* articles referring to domestic dogs as "Canis familiaris", and only *6* ("six") referring to them as "Canis lupus familiaris".

See for example:

Prion protein NMR structures of cats, dogs, pigs, and sheep, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 18;102(3):640-5. Epub 2005 Jan 12
Abstract: The NMR structures of the recombinant cellular form of the prion proteins (PrPC) of the cat (Felis catus), dog (Canis familiaris), and pig (Sus scrofa), and of two polymorphic forms of the prion protein from sheep (Ovis aries) are presented. In all of these species, PrPC consists of an N-terminal flexibly extended tail with approximately 100 amino acid residues and a C-terminal globular domain of approximately 100 residues with three alpha-helices and a short antiparallel beta-sheet. Although this global architecture coincides with the previously reported murine, Syrian hamster, bovine, and human PrPC structures, there are local differences between the globular domains of the different species. Because the five newly determined PrPC structures originate from species with widely different transmissible spongiform encephalopathy records, the present data indicate previously uncharacterized possible correlations between local features in PrPC three-dimensional structures and susceptibility of different mammalian species to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

Genomic sequence of the class II region of the canine MHC: comparison with the MHC of other mammalian species, Genomics. 2005 Jan;85(1):48-59
Abstract: The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, is an excellent model species in which to study complex inherited diseases, having over 200 recognized breeds, each of which represents a closed gene pool. Overlapping canine genomic BAC clones were sequenced to obtain 711,521 bp of the canine classical and extended MHC class II regions. Analysis and annotation of this sequence reveals that it contains 45 loci, of which 29 are predicted to be functionally expressed. Comparison of the DLA class II sequence with those of the cat, human, and mouse highlights regions of syntenic conservation and species-specific gene rearrangement and duplication and gives an insight into the evolution of the DR region in the order Carnivora. Elucidation of functionally important dog class II genes and the identification of 23 microsatellite markers spanning this region will contribute significantly to the study of canine diseases that have an immune component.

Modifications of serotonergic and adrenergic receptor concentrations in the brain of aggressive Canis familiaris, Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2004 Nov;139(3):343-50
Extensive and breed-specific linkage disequilibrium in Canis familiaris, Genome Res. 2004 Dec;14(12):2388-96. Epub 2004 Nov 15
Characterization of the dog Agouti gene and a nonagoutimutation in German Shepherd Dogs, Mamm Genome. 2004 Oct;15(10):798-808
Abstract: The interaction between two genes, Agouti and Melanocortin-1 receptor ( Mc1r), produces diverse pigment patterns in mammals by regulating the type, amount, and distribution pattern of the two pigment types found in mammalian hair: eumelanin (brown/black) and pheomelanin (yellow/red). In domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), there is a tremendous variation in coat color patterns between and within breeds; however, previous studies suggest that the molecular genetics of pigment-type switching in dogs may differ from that of other mammals. Here we report the identification and characterization of the Agouti gene from domestic dogs, predicted to encode a 131-amino-acid secreted protein 98% identical to the fox homolog, and which maps to chromosome CFA24 in a region of conserved linkage. Comparative analysis of the Doberman Pinscher Agouti cDNA, the fox cDNA, and 180 kb of Doberman Pinscher genomic DNA suggests that, as with laboratory mice, different pigment-type-switching patterns in the canine family are controlled by alternative usage of different promoters and untranslated first exons. A small survey of Labrador Retrievers, Greyhounds, Australian Shepherds, and German Shepherd Dogs did not uncover any polymorphisms, but we identified a single nucleotide variant in black German Shepherd Dogs predicted to cause an Arg-to-Cys substitution at codon 96, which is likely to account for recessive inheritance of a uniform black coat.

Isolation and molecular evolution of the selenocysteine tRNA (Cf TRSP) and RNase P RNA (Cf RPPH1) genes in the dog family, Canidae, Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Feb;22(2):347-59. Epub 2004 Oct 20
Abstract: In an effort to identify rapidly evolving nuclear sequences useful for phylogenetic analyses of closely related species, we isolated two genes transcribed by RNA polymerase III (pol III), the selenocysteine tRNA gene (TRSP) and an RNase P RNA (RPPH1) gene from the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). We focus on genes transcribed by pol III because their coding regions are small (generally 100-300 base pairs [bp]) and their essential promoter elements are located within a couple of hundred bps upstream of the coding region. Therefore, we predicted that regions flanking the coding region and outside of the promoter elements would be free of constraint and would evolve rapidly. We amplified TRSP from 23 canids and RPPH1 from 12 canids and analyzed the molecular evolution of these genes and their utility as phylogenetic markers for resolving relationships among species in Canidae. We compared the rate of evolution of the gene-flanking regions to other noncoding regions of nuclear DNA (introns) and to the mitochondrial encoded COII gene. Alignment of TRSP from 23 canids revealed that regions directly adjacent to the coding region display high sequence variability. We discuss this pattern in terms of functional mechanisms of transcription. Although the flanking regions evolve no faster than introns, both genes were found to be useful phylogenetic markers, in part, because of the synapomorphic indels found in the flanking regions. Gene trees generated from the TRSP and RPPH1 loci were generally in agreement with the published mtDNA phylogeny and are the first phylogeny of Canidae based on nuclear sequences.

Characterization and mapping of canine microsatellites isolated from BAC clones harbouring DNA sequences homologous to seven human genes, Anim Genet. 2004 Oct;35(5):404-7
Abstract: Human primers specific for the genes LEP, HBB, PAX3, ESR2, TPH1, ABCA4 and ATP2A2 were used to identify clones in a canine BAC library. Subcloning of the positive BACs in plasmids, screening with microsatellite motifs and subsequent sequencing allowed for the identification of eight novel microsatellites. The presence of the gene of interest was confirmed by sequencing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products amplified in the positive BACs. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using the positive BACs as probes allowed for the chromosomal localization of the insert DNAs in two canid species, dog (Canis familiaris) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). The use of gene-associated microsatellites may accelerate the identification of candidate genes for phenotypic traits in linkage studies.

Digging up the canine genome--a tale to wag about, Cytogenet Genome Res. 2003;102(1-4):244-8
Abstract: There is incredible morphological and behavioral diversity among the hundreds of breeds of the domestic dog, CANIS FAMILIARIS. Many of these breeds have come into existence within the last few hundred years. While there are obvious phenotypic differences among breeds, there is marked interbreed genetic homogeneity. Thus, study of canine genetics and genomics is of importance to comparative genomics, evolutionary biology and study of human hereditary diseases. The most recent version of the map of the canine genome is comprised of 3,270 markers mapped to 3,021 unique positions with an average intermarker distance of approximately 1 Mb. The markers include approximately 1,600 microsatellite markers, about 1,000 gene-based markers, and almost 700 bacterial artificial chromosome-end markers. Importantly, integration of radiation hybrid and linkage maps has greatly enhanced the utility of the map. Additionally, mapping the genome has led directly to characterization of microsatellite markers ideal for whole genome linkage scans. Thus, workers are now able to exploit the canine genome for a wide variety of genetic studies. Finally, the decision to sequence the canine genome highlights the dog's evolutionary and physiologic position between the mouse and human and its importance as a model for study of mammalian genetics and human hereditary diseases. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

Furthermore, the main institutes sequencing and studying the dog genome use the same classificiation (Canis familiaris), and I'll take their professional opinion on the matter over that of the contributor to Wikipedia. See:

NCBI Dog Genome Resources
Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research dog genome project
FHCRC Dog Genome Project
FHCRC dog genome project Werner et. al. 1999

And finally:

National History Museum, dog website

One species, many breeds

All of the nearly 400 domestic dog breeds belong to a single species, Canis familiaris

The domestic dog's closest kin is the gray wolf (Canis lupus). Study the phylogeny to see a short line connecting these two species.

Don't try to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, son.

I'll address your other points at my leisure but you do everyone a disservice by making trite "Strike one" comments and then proceed tell me a lie.

It's not a lie, and you're strongly encouraged to retract your slander. You're also strongly encouraged to not overestimate your actual knowledge on this subject.

[Try "ontogeny". You'll have a better chance of seeming like you know what you're talking about if you don't get the basic terminology wrong.]

Ah. The lovely condescending attitude of evolutionists.

I'd have been nicer if you hadn't been condescending yourself in your own reply -- you know, the one I was repling to. Look up the word "hypocrite" sometime.

My point, in case I haven't yet been clear enough, is that if you're going to attempt to be condescending, as you did, it's best not to f*** it up by blowing the easy stuff. And you hardly cover yourself in glory by getting petulantly defensive about your elementary error:

Yes, the word is ontogeny. Forgive me for not having my biology textbook at hand while writing it up. I assume you got 100% on every paper you ever wrote. I am truly humbled by your greatness.

Now you're just being childish.

The original poster's statement was that the tail on a human embryo was proof of macroevolution.

No it wasn't. Science does not deal in "proof", nor did he make the mistake of claiming it did. Are you sure you actually know what in the hell you're talking about?

That is the PRECISE and EXACT point made by the ontogeny argument; that the stages of embryonic development modeled the evolutionary history of that organism.

No, the recapitulation slogan claims (incorrectly) that embrylogy "walks through" in sequence each evolutionary step which led to the current organism. It does not. And as you correctly stated, this postulate was abandoned long ago.

HOWEVER, it is still true that due to the nature of both evolution and embryology, many vestiges of past evolutionary history occur during the development of the embryo (just not every one, and not necessarily in sequence) because evolution proceeds by modifying that which came before, including prior embryological development, and is not free to "undo" how things were done previously and start with a clean slate de novo -- as a designer would have done. See for example:

Mayr E. 1994. Recapitulation reinterpreted: the somatic program. The Quarterly Review of Biology (69): 223-232.
Gould, Stephen J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press
Gilbert, Scott F., The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology, Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47: 467-477 (2003)

For example, humans descended from tailed ancestral primates, and evolution "de-tailed" us (and the other great apes) by simply absorbing the proto-tail (late in fetal development) which was already part of primate embryological development, rather than preventing it from forming early in the embryo in the first place (presumably because being a much earlier stage of development, that would have had negative consequences for other aspects of spinal development).

that I did address his argument by pointing out that the science he so boldly proclaims is at the very core of evolution has abandoned that argument.

And you were, in short, wrong and ignorant and condescending.

To turn your argument back on you, I might claim that using valid scientific examples would give him a better chance of seeming like he knows what he's talking about.

He did, actually. You however fell on your face by failing to understand his actual point, and by invoking an irrelevant side issue that was (due to your ignorance) only tangentially related in a historical sense.

But that would be rude, so I instead politely pointed out that the theory was discredited.

Again, you are in error. His point does not rest in any way on the recapitulation concept being correct, contrary to your misunderstanding.

To repeat something I must unfortunately post several times in these threads: Before one attempts to critique a field of science, it really helps to actually be pretty familiar with that field.

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.