Posted on 04/21/2006 9:17:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Immunology had an unexpected and decisive part in challenging the claims of 'Intelligent Design' proponents at the US trial on the teaching of evolution in public schools in Dover, Pennsylvania.
The latest skirmish in the ongoing controversy about the teaching of evolution in US schools ended decisively on 20 December 2005, when the introduction of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in a public school biology class was struck down by US Federal Judge John E. Jones as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The case, 'Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District', was brought by 11 parents from Dover, Pennsylvania, represented pro bono by the Philadelphia law firm Pepper-Hamilton, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and assisted with scientific support by the National Center for Science Education, the Oakland, California–based nonprofit organization devoted to combating creationism. The parents challenged the school district's requirement that administrators read to ninth graders a disclaimer raising doubts about evolution, suggesting ID as a better alternative explanation for life's diversity and referring students to the ID supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People, 60 copies of which had been donated to the school library.
Although the magnitude of the win for science education was a surprise to some, the actual outcome of the trial was in very little doubt, for many reasons. Board members had made clear, through public declarations at board meetings and to the media, their intention to have some form of religious creationism taught in biology classes alongside evolution, which they considered akin to atheism. US Supreme Court rulings have established and repeatedly reaffirmed that governmental policies with the purpose or effect of establishing religion are inadmissible because they violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. It also did not help their cause that Judge Jones found that some of the board members "either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath" about some statements and about the source of the donated Of Pandas and People books, the money for which was raised by one of the board members at his own church.
The most important and far-reaching aspect of the decision, however, was that the judge went beyond the narrow issue of the school board's actions and ruled broadly on the nature of ID and its scientific claims. After a 6-week trial that included extensive expert testimony from both sides on science, philosophy and the history of creationism, Jones ruled that ID is not science but "creationism re-labeled." Coming from the George W. Bush–appointed, lifelong Republican and church-going Judge Jones, the ruling was all the more stinging for ID advocates and made the predictable charge of 'judicial activism' harder to sustain. The ruling is likely to have a substantial effect on many other ongoing cases (and possibly future court decisions) regarding ID and evolution in science curricula from Georgia to Kansas to Ohio.
More fundamentally, the decision represents a considerable setback for ID advocates, who claim that some examples of biological complexity could only have originated by intelligent mechanisms, and for their movement's now almost-20-year-old effort to gain a foothold in school curricula and project an aura of scientific respectability. The ruling is also of great interest to scientists, not only because of its importance for science education but also because much of the trial's extensive expert testimony, both for and opposed to ID, focused directly on weighty scientific topics. Judge Jones analyzed and dismissed the core 'scientific' assertions of the ID movement—immunology had an unexpectedly large and relevant part in his reaching those conclusions.
Although the field of evolutionary and comparative immunology has a long and rich history, dating back at least to 1891 (ref. 1), and remains an exciting and rapidly progressing area of research, its direct involvement in the controversies about evolution in schools can be attributed mainly to Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania), leading ID advocate and star expert witness for the defense at this trial. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, a commonly cited example of ID-based 'science', Behe devotes an entire chapter to the immune system, pointing to several of its features as being particularly refractory to evolutionary explanations. Behe's antievolutionary argument relies on a characteristic he calls "irreducible complexity": the requirement for the presence of multiple components of certain complex systems (such as a multiprotein complex or biochemical cascade) for the system to accomplish its function. As such irreducibly complex systems by definition work only when all components are present; Behe claims they cannot arise by the sequential addition and modification of individual elements from simpler pre-existing systems, thus defying 'darwinian' evolutionary explanations.
By analogy with human 'machines', ID advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems are most likely the product of an intelligent, teleological activity. Several scientists, including ourselves, have criticized Behe's argument, pointing out how irreducibly complex systems can arise through known evolutionary mechanisms, such as exaptation, 'scaffolding' and so on. Nevertheless, with few exceptions, the topic has been explicitly addressed mostly in book reviews, philosophy journals and on the internet, rather than in peer-reviewed scientific publications, which may have allowed it to mostly escape the critical scrutiny of scientists while gaining considerable popularity with the lay public and, in particular, with creationists.
In chapter 6 of Darwin's Black Box, Behe claims that the vertebrate adaptive immune system fulfills the definition of irreducible complexity and hence cannot have evolved. Some of his arguments will seem rather naive and misguided to immunologists. For example, Behe argues that working antibodies must exist in both soluble and membrane form, which therefore must have appeared simultaneously because one form would be useless without the other. He also claims that antibodies are completely functionless without secondary effector mechanisms (such as the complement system), which in turn require antibodies for activation. These putative 'chicken-and-egg' conundrums are easily belied by existing evidence (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html).
Behe also spends considerable time on what he alleges is a hopelessly intractable problem in evolutionary immunology: the origin of the mechanism of somatic recombination of antigen receptor genes. He argues that because variable-diversity-joining recombination is dependent on the coexistence of proteins encoded by recombination-activating genes (RAG proteins), recombination signal sequences and antigen receptor gene segments, it is ultimately too complex to have arisen by naturalistic, undirected evolutionary means because the three components could not have come together in a 'fell swoop' and would have been useless individually. In fact, Behe confidently declares that the complexity of the immune system "dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration". About the scientific literature, Behe claims it has "no answers" as to how the adaptive immune system may have originated2.
In particular, Behe criticizes a 1994 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper advancing the hypothesis that the RAG system evolved by lateral transfer of a prokaryotic transposon, an idea initially suggested in a 1979 paper and expanded in 1992. Behe ridicules the idea as a "jump in the box of Calvin and Hobbes," with reference to the comic strip in which a child and his stuffed tiger imaginary friend use a large cardboard box for fantasy trips and amazing physical transformations.
The timing for the criticism could not have been worse, as soon after publication of Darwin's Black Box, solid evidence for the transposon hypothesis began accumulating with the demonstration of similarities between the variable-diversity-joining recombination and transposition mechanisms and also between shark RAG1 and certain bacterial integrases. Since then, a steady stream of findings has continued to add more substance to the model, as RAG proteins have been shown to be capable of catalyzing transposition reactions, first in vitro and then in vivo, and to have even closer structural and mechanistic similarities with specific transposases. Finally, in 2005, the original key prediction of the transposon hypothesis was fulfilled with the identification of a large invertebrate transposon family bearing both recombination signal sequence–like integration sequences and a RAG1 homolog. When faced with that evidence during an exchange on the internet, Behe simply 'shrugged' and said that evidence was not sufficient, asking instead for an infinitely detailed, step-by-step mutation account (including population sizes, relevant selective pressures and so on) for the events leading to the appearance of the adaptive immune system (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/behes_meaningle.html).
That background set the stage for the crucial face-off at the trial. Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a cell biologist and textbook author who has written extensively on evolution and creationism, was the lead witness for the plaintiffs. Over the course of his testimony, Miller did his best to explain to the nonscientist audience the mechanisms of antibody gene rearrangement and the evidence corroborating the transposon hypothesis. Then, 10 days later, Behe took the stand. During cross-examination by the plaintiffs' lead counsel Eric Rothschild, Behe reiterated his claim about the scientific literature on the evolution of the immune system, testifying that "the scientific literature has no detailed testable answers on how the immune system could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection." Rothschild then presented Behe with a thick file of publications on immune system evolution, dating from 1971 to 2006, plus several books and textbook chapters. Asked for his response, Behe admitted he had not read many of the publications presented (a small fraction of all the literature on evolutionary immunology of the past 35 years), but summarily rejected them as unsatisfactory and dismissed the idea of doing research on the topic as "unfruitful."
This exchange clearly made an impression on Judge Jones, who specifically described it in his opinion:
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.
Other important scientific points stood out during trial relating to other purported irreducibly complex systems such as the flagellum and the clotting cascade, the nature of science itself and the lack of experimental tests and supporting peer-reviewed publications for ID. But the stark contrast between the lively and productive field of evolutionary immunology and the stubborn refusal by ID advocates such as Behe to even consider the evidence was undoubtedly crucial in convincing the judge that the ID movement has little to do with science. As Rothschild remarked in his closing argument,
Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. It's the immune system. It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books and articles toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother.
Evolutionary immunologists should be pleasantly surprised by and proud of the effect their scientific accomplishments have had in this landmark judicial case. This commentary is meant to acknowledge their contribution on behalf of the Dover families, their lawyers and all the activists for rigorous science education who have participated in these proceedings. Most importantly, however, the Dover case shows that no scientific field is too remote from the hotly debated topics of the day and that no community is too small and removed from the great urban and scientific centers to be relevant. Immunologists must engage their communities and society at large in events related to public perceptions about science. Now more than ever, the participation of scientists is essential for the crafting of rational policies on scientific research and science education.
I don't, but you apparently do. I was being sarcastic.
How is it apparent I do? I have said nothing to indicate that. I find your derangement for reality here bizarre.
That's because I'm repeating what you said in post 46,
I wrote nothing even vaguely similar to this in 46. Again, you seem delusional.
Keep in mind the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science.
As far as being a critic of it, I don;t think that's what you mean and in terms of what you mean I am in no way a critic.
As far as alternatives to evolution, why do you think someone should present an alternative?
Thanks for the honest upfront answer on your scientific background.
Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?
If I may offer a few comments.
tallhappy writes: "the greatest critics of evolution should be evolutionists themselves, if it is a real science".
They are. In grad school I had 2 or 3 semesters (been a while) in a seminar titled "Problems in Evolution." The professor and students all battled every point imaginable, from paleontology to genetics and back--but not religious belief. You are dissing evolutionary scientists as "not real scientists" because they do not include your particular religious belief in their work. Not a very valid argument.
You also note: "why do you think someone should present an alternative?" Are you going to overturn a scientific theory for no reason? Theories change when better alternatives come along. If you have one, present it. But you don't. What you have is a religious belief, not a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.
You attack js1138 thusly: "Why do you believe so strongly in evolution if you are scientifically unlearned, as you have honestly and graciously admitted?"
Not a very nice comment. Try me instead, if you find js1138 so "unlearned" (which is incorrect). I did half my Ph.D. work in human osteology, human races, and fossil man (read evolution). I have kept up a bit since then. Don't know the new genetics stuff (which by itself is evidence enough to "prove" the theory), but I know my way around a bone on a good day.
You are wrong.
To the extent that one can follow your non-technical description I agree with those ideas. In fact I think this is the major finding of recent biology -- the importance of chromosomal structure and its structure.
It did not come from evolutionists. In fact it is another perfect example where basic science is driving evolutionary understanding, not the other way. Barbara Mcclintock doing purely classical genetic type experiments made the first discoveries that eventually lead to this understanding. The recent genome projects, which were not done by evolutionists provided the information to analyze chromosomal structure at the molecular level.
I'm curious where you read what you read and relate that puts this 180 degree spin on things.
PS, this new understanding also greatly impacts very negatively on the conventional darwinian synthesis that looked, understandably and logically, at gene similarities.
It's an exciting time and I am glad to see at least one person here actually is joining the 21st century in terms of current knowledge and emerging understanding of evolutionary theory.
This is an absurd statement.
You interest me in what you talk about in your post concerning 'fragile breakage', chromosomal rearrangements being non random, and how this fragile breakage theory has implications in medicine...
It interests me specifically, as my older son had a disease, which was at the time(20yrs ago), partially diagnosed on the appearance of a chromosomal breakage, and a chromosomal translocation...at that time, it was not understood, whether the disease caused the genetic chromosomal abnormality , or if the genetic abnormality of the chromosomes, caused the disease...today, the doctors believe that it is the abnormality which causes the disease...that knowlegdge, along with the understanding of other criteria of the disease, cause there to come about a difference in the treatment of that disease...with greatly added benefits to the patient...
Dont know how exactly this ties into evolution, but the understanding of the mechanism of how and why chromosomes break apart, and rearrange themselves, is a huge step forward in the curing of certain diseases....
In the context of this discussion, the understanding of the significance of chromosomal re-arranem,ents also owes a lot to hematologists studying leukemia.
In no way did the evolutionists drive this field or area of understanding.
I will always remember the derision (in terms of simply asking questions he obviously wouldn't know at his seminars) one of the older professors who studied evolution got from a younger plant molecular biologist.
I'm left with the sense you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
No, I don't really think you do. You've destroyed any credibility you would have otherwise had with me.
I have no way of knowing with any certainty, who did or did not contribute to the understanding of and significance of chromosomal breakages, rearrangements, or translocations...
Certainly within the field of medical research, there are strides being made every day, in understanding the importance of shifts in chomosomes...But I have no way of knowing, if evolution plays a part in this understanding...I am just grateful, that the doctors, and the scientists are doing this research, as it will undoubtedly prove productive now and for the future...
I dont know that most leukemias, are due to chromosomal translocations...some are definitely known, that is for sure...this is why patients, newly diagnosed with leukemia, have a genetic profile done, while they are first diagnosed, and the cancer is present and also a genetic profile done, once they are in remission...and then if the relapse, the genetic profile is done again...and so on...
What surprised me, was that I thought once a genetic abnormality was present, within an individual, that genetic abnormality, stayed as it was...surprisingly, that is not the case, as my sons own case showed...when newly diagnosed, he had two chromosomal abnormalities...upon remission, and a further genetic test, he showed absolutely no abnormalities...when he relapsed, the abnormalities were again present...that surprised me greatly...
I dont know and cannot say, whether or not, scientists used their knowledge of evolution, in an understanding of this process...
Put up or shut up.
What accomplishments have been made by evolutionists that match those of:
Mendel,
Sutton
Hunt
Avery/Hershey/Chase
McClintock
Pauling
Watson/Crick
None of the above were evolutionists or specifically studying evolution. But their findings have done more to futher evolutionary understanding than anything done by evolutionists.
Now your turn.
Remember when grinding your axe, not to let the metal get too hot. It may become brittle.
Thanks for the ping!
Cells can become abnormal. They will pass on this abnormality (or even more so) to their progeny cells upon cell division.
But, this does not mean all cells in the body have the abnormality. Normal cells can increase in number compared to abnormal ones which would be a remission.
If you don't mind saying, what was the disease?
Typical. All hot air.
I worked on the Human Genome Project. You're full of it.
It was acute promyelocytic leukemia...translocation between chromosome #15 and #17, and a trisomy-monosomy between chromosomes #7 and #8...visible upon diagnosis, not visible in remission, again, visible on relapse...
I would think this would be worthwhile information to include in your profile, especially one given to verbosity, yet I see not even at hint of this.
In what capacity did you work on the Human Genome Project?
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.