When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools,
That's not an accurate description of the ruling -- as written it sounds as if the court ruled that "intelligent design" in its broad sense could not be taught in public school, period. That is not the case. Instead, the judge ruled that "intelligent design" could not be taught in public schools in a way that constituted a thinly-veiled attempt to promote a particular religious view.
It left open the possibility that there could be an "intelligent design" curriculum which, absent the "stealth creationism" agenda, *would* pass muster as a non-sectarian topic suitable for addressing in public schools.
Unfortunately (and this is my own comment now, not something from the ruling itself), the whole *point* of the "ID" movement is to "bring back God", and few would have any interest in promoting or teaching it if it were merely an objective investigation into the topic of "design". So for the forseeable future, "ID" is going to be inextricably intertwined with attempts to sneak God back into the classroom under another name.
opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country.
Say what? Where is Colson getting *this* claim? I've been following this debate for over thirty years, and the Dover trial and all its commentators (on both sides) with a great deal of attention, and I can't recall *any* "opponents of intelligent design" who actually were so rash as to "think the issue had been settled", especially "across the entire country". It's true that many people have, correctly, stated that the Dover decision is a landmark and one that the IDers will have to deal with like an albatross from now on, but none of ID's critics are so foolish as to think that the debate is in any way "settled" or over.
Well, their celebrations may have been premature,
There's nothing wrong with celebrating an excellent, well-written, correctly decided, precedent-setting court ruling, but again contrary to Colson's false impression, no one was "celebrating" it as the final word or one that would "settle" the issue once and for all.
unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.
I regret to be the one to have to inform Colson that "democracy" doesn't trump Constitutional restrictions, unless he's talking about the passage of an amendment over-riding the First Amendment, which doesn't seem at all likely. Nor are scientific standards set by "democracy" -- if it were, astrology would probably be voted in as a "real" science, given its popularity.
Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.” By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.
Yeah, so? The findings of science are not determined by a public poll. Furthermore, the *majority* of American evolutionists are also Christians (and thus obviously are in the "God was involved" side of the poll answer), so most evolutionists have no beef with the results either.
Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.
I have no problem with "exposing students to various explanations", and I don't know anyone else who does either (and yes, that includes the large number of ID critics I know). Unfortunately, that's not *all* that the "ID" folks attempt to shove into the classroom. Their idea of "teaching the controversy" involves an enormous load of gross misrepresentations about both science, and the "ID" hypothesis, in order to dishonestly raise false doubts about scientific explanations, while making false claims about the validity of the arguments and evidence for "design". *THAT* is what ID's critics object to -- not the idea itself, but the great loads of BS and propaganda that have been piled upon it which the ID advocates are trying to truck into the classrooms (many of them unwittingly).
These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans.
Nonsense! As noted above, the majority of "Darwinists" are themselves Christians, so they're hardly likely to take a belief in God's involvement as "evidence of irrationality". Even most of the non-Christian evolutionists I know aren't so foolish as to take a belief in God as "evidence of irrationality and superstition" in the way that Colson describes it. And even if they did, so what? What would that have to do with teaching science? Oh, right, nothing.
Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes. Nonsense!
The only thing that's "nonsense" is Colson's misrepresentation of the actual basis for the concerns.
No, belief in the involvement of God is *not* the thing that leads a great many people to conclude that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened. It's not belief in God itself that's "unscientific", as Colson is attempting to incorrectly put into the mouths of those he sees as his opponents, it's the actual *attacks* on science which lead to these serious concerns. Read any of the "crevo" threads for countless examples of people actually attacking science, science education, the methods of science, etc. Usually (but not always) these attacks are religiously motivated, due to some peoples' misguided notions about a supposed incompatibility between their religious beliefs and the findings of science. But it's not belief in God *itself* that's the problem, as (again) pointed out by the fact that *most* Americans who accept the validity of evolutionary biology are *also* Christians, not to mention The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science, signed by over 10,000 Christian clergy, stating in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei.
Colson's right when he says that a poll result indicating that 80% of respondents belief in God is "not irrationality or disdain for science" -- but then, that's not the argument that's being made by ID critics (not the vast majority of them, anyway). But contrary to Colson's implication, there *is* "irrationality and disdain for science" on display in the way that far too many "ID" proponents attack science in irrational ways, and express their constant disdain for it. One need go no farther than the nearest FreeRepublic "crevo" thread to find innumerable examples. Science and science education *is* under attack by a great many misguided people, and Colson does no service to the truth to try to deny it.
Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.
What "propaganda" is Colson alluding to here?
Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of First Things. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge’s opinion
I'll agree with the statement up to this point.
or by the Darwinists’ propaganda.
What "propaganda" would that be? If anyone wants to try to answer, be very careful -- to date the vast majority of the "Darwinist propaganda" I've seen has actually been misrepresentations of the actual science by the *anti-evolutionists*. So if you attempt to answer the question, be careful not to stick your foot in your mouth -- lots of people have "learned" most of what they "know" about evolution from what the anti-evolution propaganda mills tell them the "Darwinists" are saying, and not from first-hand knowledge.
People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.
Unfortunately, as I've learned from over thirty years debating this topic, "people" in general do *not* "simply know better" when it comes to complex issues like evolutionary biology or other scientific topics. They know too little about the subject to critique it in an informed manner, and (as already pointed out above) what little they do "know" about the subject is polluted to a large degree by misinformation and disinformation from the anti-evolutionists. People have every right to have a say in how their children are educated, but unfortunately most people do *not* have enough knowledge on this subject to be able to fiddle with a good science curriculum without making it worse rather than better. If the school is teaching blatant nonsense (as in the examples we're all familiar with concerning liberal proselytizing), fine, hold their feet to the fire to get them to straighten up, but it's unfortunately the case that all too many people "see" a liberal agenda or other "offenses" to their sensibilities even in a proper and unbiased presentation of science itself, especially but not limited to biology. There are parents who insist that science class teach what they (the parents) "know" about science, even though what they "know" about science itself is highly inaccurate. And so on.
I'm not suggesting that we bar anyone from having a say in how science is taught, I'm just saying that I wish people would make sure that they really *know* the subject before they start beating on their school boards about it. And if you *don't* know the topic up, down, and sideways, how about leaving it to the people who do (which includes some of the other parents)? The number of people who have appointed themselves "experts" on evolution, sufficient to "instruct" everyone about its strengths and weaknesses and insist on shaping school policy on it, based on nothing more than having read a Philip Johnson book on the topic or somesuch, is mindboggling... For some reason people who wouldn't presume to argue quantum physics after having just read a few mass-market essays about it see nothing incongruous in telling everyone in sight what's "wrong" with evolutionary biology after having read a few creationist books...
Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society.”
How exactly should research "pay attention to moral values"? Is Colson asking for the researchers to bias their research results in favor of the prevailing "moral values"? Hint: Research is just that -- research. It's a search for more knowledge. Morals should be involved in deciding how to *apply* that knowledge, of course, but not in the "research" itself (other than via ethics, such as for example not experimenting on humans without their consent, etc.) But morals should not *shape* research in the way that Colson implies -- that's the very sort of bias that science is tasked with *avoiding*.
Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions.
The *application* of knowledge gained by research, perhaps, but not the research *itself*.
For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.
Say what? I don't know any scientists who "aspire to god-like status". Now Colson is just being obnoxious, or expressing his own prejudices against scientists.
But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy.
Yet again, Colson is sounding suspiciously like he wants science to shape its *findings* towards the "will of society". That didn't work very well for the Soviets and Lysenko, did it?
Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth.
Yet again, Colson is revealing more about his own negative biases about science or its practitioners than he is about science itself. I don't know anyone at all, in science or out of it, who "regards science as the only way to the truth".
And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.
Wow, Colson reads an awful lot into the answers given to two very specific questions -- he stretches them to fit any other aspect of science he wants to try to manufacture a "public disaproval" of, apparently because he's not confident enough of his own (thin) argument to let it stand or fall on its own merits, so he has to pretend that a poll result on another kind of question "shows" public support for the answer (on another question) Colson wants to have a cheering section for.
That’s why debates over science and culture will continue.
...because folks like Colson continue to denigrate it through popularity polls and vague aspersions which misrepresent the majority of the practitioners of science?
They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us,
The "scientific establishment" understands and acknowledges the limits -- and the extent -- of science far better than Colson has demonstrated a grasp of. Perhaps before he attempts to critique their position again, he should make an attempt to actually know what it is for a change instead of stating his own biases about what he *thinks* they believe.
and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.
No one's stopping them. Have all the say you want. But don't be surprised when other people in the society disagree with you, vigorously, if you say that you want non-science (or worse, anti-science) taught *as* science, when it's not, or your religious beliefs put into the classroom dressed up in a Trojan Horse with "this isn't religion, really" scrawled on the side in violation of the Constitutional restrictions against preaching in public schools. (And before anyone yet again tries to argue that that's not what the Framers had in mind, let me say that I've got plenty of quotes from Madison and Jefferson showing that it *was*). If it bothers you to have your own notions of education balanced against those of the other folks in society, feel free to move them to a private school or homeschool them and then teach them anything at all that you want, while hiding from them whatever findings of science you might find offensive to your personal preconceptions about how reality "must" operate. (And yes, I support vouchers.)
But it's just goofy to try to argue that it's somehow not "democracy" when you can't get most of the public to agree to pretend that your religious beliefs are actually science itself and thus deserve to be taught in science class *as* science, or that following the Constitution is somehow "undemocratic" (last time I checked, the Bill of Rights was democratically ratified).
If Colson wants to try to argue that a) "ID" is actually science after all, contrary to the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of those who have looked into it, or b) there's something wrong with evolutionary biology, or c) science is not a valid subject for school study, fine, he's welcome to try to make his case, but this kind of "many people believe in God, and have various kinds of doubts about science" hand-waving just doesn't even rise to the level of a good argument, much less a valid reason to drag "ID" into the classroom or drag evolution out of it, or whatever change Colson is vaguely trying to lobby for here. Or if he's *not* lobbying for some kind of change, this essay is even more pointless, as it just casts vague asperions on science and scientists while presenting a few items that everyone already knows (lots of people believe in God, etc.)
So I'm going to have to disagree with those who dubbed this a good article -- it just states several obvious things that few, if anyone, disagrees with (e.g. "this controversy will continue"), casts some inaccurate insults in the direction of science and the "science establishment", falsley implies that having standards or not catering to every faction's wishes is "undemocratic", and takes a swipe at a very good court decision which followed the evidence, the law, and the Constitution because, well, Colson doesn't say why exactly. His complaint appears to be with the fact that court decisions are "undemocratic", presumably because they actually follow rules and evidence instead of popular opinion and polls (which I'm sure Colson only considers the Final Word when it agrees with *his* view -- how many popular liberal notions would he like to override the courts?) Come to think of it, that appears to be Colson's core gripe with *science* too...
Thus endeth the article which started this thread. But wait, there's more! Mr. Silverback added the comment, "There are links to further information at the source document." So of course I went and checked them out to see whether they support Colson's argument better than his actual text. And no, they don't. But I did find the following gem (also personally written by Colson, as is made clear by his name appearing twice in the header):
Chuck Colson’s Ten Questions about OriginsLet's check it out, shall we? This should be fun!
By Charles Colson
In the page that links to this piece, Colson describes it as:
Chuck Colson’s “Ten Questions about Origins” is a great resource for students to use in raising questions in science class.
Well, yeah -- if you want your kids to make fools of themselves in class. Because Colson meant these as "hard" questions the kids could use to play "stump the teacher", so of course any student using this list is going to smugly ask them with a "hey Mr. Smartypants teacher, I know you can't answer this, so here I go shooting you down" attitude, and then look like an idiot when there are perfectly good answers for them... It's amazing how much the critics of evolution *don't* know about the subject they attempt to critique. Colson could have looked up the answers to these in a few minutes on the internet, but apparently didn't bother.
1. What fossil record is there of any transitional fossils indicating that one order evolved into another order?
A huge one, thanks for asking:
Let's take a closer look at just one of the high-order transitional fossil sequences, shall we?Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...
Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life
What Is A Transitional Fossil?
More Evidence for Transitional Fossils
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth
Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation
Evolution and the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
...and that's just the *fossil* record of the reptile-to-mammal transition -- the DNA evidence for it is overwhelming, and provide independent cross-confirmation of the fossil evidence.Evolutionary theory predicted that there should be transitional forms between the reptilian-style jaw joint and the mammalian-style jaw joint (the earliest mammals evolved from reptiles). For years creationists crowed about the "missing links", and made their own predictions that not only would there be no such transitional fossils found, but that any creature with a jaw that was transitional between that of reptiles and mammals would die of starvation, since such a "half and half" jaw joint was "obviously" mechanically unworkable. Nonetheless, biologists kept searching for the fossils predicted by evolution, and not only found one or two, but found a *wealth* of them which provide a *very* complete and smooth transitional sequence -- exactly as evolution predicted. Oddly enough, I never hear the creationists bring that one up...
Reptile -> Mammal evolutionary transition:
The above is from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which compiles several hundred transitional fossils, which is itself just a *SMALL* sampling of the ENORMOUS numbers of fine transitional sequences found in the fossil record and well known to anyone who has bothered to CRACK OPEN A BOOK -- or even do a websearch -- in the past 25 years or so... So what's the anti-evolutionists' excuse for remaining abysmally ignorant of such things, and repeatedly making the false claim that there are "no" transitional fossils, etc.?Example 2: reptile-mammals
We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). As mentioned above, the standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals—even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes) (see Figure 1.4.1).
Early in the 20th century, developmental biologists discovered something that further complicates the picture. In the reptilian fetus, two developing bones from the head eventually form two bones in the reptilian lower jaw, the quadrate and the articular (see the Pelycosaur in Figure 1.4.1). Surprisingly, the corresponding developing bones in the mammalian fetus eventually form the anvil and hammer of the unique mammalian middle ear (also known more formally as the incus and malleus, respectively; see Figure 1.4.2) (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896). These facts strongly indicated that the hammer and anvil had evolved from these reptilian jawbones—that is, if common descent was in fact true. This result was so striking, and the required intermediates so outlandish, that many anatomists had extreme trouble imagining how transitional forms bridging these morphologies could have existed while retaining function. Young-earth creationist Duane Gish stated the problem this way:
"All mammals, living or fossil, have a single bone, the dentary, on each side of the lower jaw, and all mammals, living or fossil, have three auditory ossicles or ear bones, the malleus, incus and stapes. ... Every reptile, living or fossil, however, has at least four bones in the lower jaw and only one auditory ossicle, the stapes. ... There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his jaw bones up into his ear." (Gish 1978, p. 80)
Gish was incorrect in stating that there were no transitional fossil forms, and he has been corrected on this gaff numerous times since he wrote these words. However, Gish's statements nicely delineate the morphological conundrum at hand. Let's review the required evolutionary conclusion. During their evolution, two mammalian middle ear bones (the hammer and anvil, aka malleus and incus) were derived from two reptilian jawbones. Thus there was a major evolutionary transition in which several reptilian jawbones (the quadrate, articular, and angular) were extensively reduced and modified gradually to form the modern mammalian middle ear. At the same time, the dentary bone, a part of the reptilian jaw, was expanded to form the major mammalian lower jawbone. During the course of this change, the bones that form the hinge joint of the jaw changed identity. Importantly, the reptilian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the quadrate and articular whereas the mammalian jaw joint is formed at the intersection of the squamosal and dentary (see Figure 1.4.1).
How could hearing and jaw articulation be preserved during this transition? As clearly shown from the many transitional fossils that have been found (see Figure 1.4.3), the bones that transfer sound in the reptilian and mammalian ear were in contact with each other throughout the evolution of this transition. In reptiles, the stapes contacts the quadrate, which in turn contacts the articular. In mammals, the stapes contacts the incus, which in turn contacts the malleus (see Figure 1.4.2). Since the quadrate evolved into the incus, and the articular evolved into the malleus, these three bones were in constant contact during this impressive evolutionary change. Furthermore, a functional jaw joint was maintained by redundancy—several of the intermediate fossils have both a reptilian jaw joint (from the quadrate and articular) and a mammalian jaw joint (from the dentary and squamosal). Several late cynodonts and Morganucodon clearly have a double-jointed jaw. In this way, the reptilian-style jaw joint was freed to evolve a new specialized function in the middle ear. It is worthy of note that some modern species of snakes have a double-jointed jaw involving different bones, so such a mechanical arrangement is certainly possible and functional.
Since Figure 1.4.3 was made, several important intermediate fossils have been discovered that fit between Morganucodon and the earliest mammals. These new discoveries include a complete skull of Hadrocodium wui (Luo et al. 2001) and cranial and jaw material from Repenomamus and Gobiconodon (Wang et al. 2001). These new fossil finds clarify exactly when and how the malleus, incus, and angular completely detached from the lower jaw and became solely auditory ear ossicles.
Recall that Gish stated: "There are no transitional fossil forms showing, for instance, three or two jawbones, or two ear bones" (Gish 1978, p. 80). Gish simply does not understand how gradual transitions happen (something he should understand, obviously, if he intends to criticize evolutionary theory). These fossil intermediates illustrate why Gish's statement is a gross mischaracterization of how a transitional form should look. In several of the known intermediates, the bones have overlapping functions, and one bone can be called both an ear bone and a jaw bone; these bones serve two functions. Thus, there is no reason to expect transitional forms with intermediate numbers of jaw bones or ear bones. For example, in Morganucodon, the quadrate (anvil) and the articular (hammer) serve as mammalian-style ear bones and reptilian jaw bones simultaneously. In fact, even in modern reptiles the quadrate and articular serve to transmit sound to the stapes and the inner ear (see Figure 1.4.2). The relevant transition, then, is a process where the ear bones, initially located in the lower jaw, become specialized in function by eventually detaching from the lower jaw and moving closer to the inner ear.
Here's another look:
(The above is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation", which is yet ANOTHER source the anti-evolutionists are obviously completely ignorant of -- not that that stops them from spouting off falsehoods about the subject anyway...Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
![[Fig. 1b]](http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_b.gif)
Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic.
TAXONOMY LATERAL TEMPORAL FENESTRA LOWER JAW DENTARY TEETH LOWER JAW: POST- DENTARY BONES MIDDLE EAR & JAW ARTICULATION M: Early Placental mammals
Asioryctes
Upper CretaceousMerged with eye socket; cheek arch bowed out laterally 100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process in contact with squamosal Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement No post-dentary bones 3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint L: "Pantothere" mammals
Amphitherium
Middle/Upper JurassicX 100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process contacts squamosal Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement Post-dentary bones migrated to middle ear Probably 3 middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) + tympanic; squamosal-dentary jaw joint K: Morganucodontid mammals
Morganucodon Upper Triassic & Lower JurassicMerged with eye socket; cheeck arch bowed out laterally 100% of jaw length is the den- tary; condylar process expanded posteriorly to make contact with squamosal Fully differentiated teeth; incisors, canines, premolars; one tooth replacement 20% of jaw length; reflected lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; both quadrate-articular and squamosal-dentary jaw joints J: Chiniquodontid cynodonts
Probainognathus
Middle TriassicMuch larger than eye socket; 40- 45% of skull length; expanded posterioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally 95% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded posteriorly; condylar process expanded posteriorly Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced 20% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of main part of angular decreased; reflec - ted lamina decreased to narrow ribbon-like horseshoe Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate tiny; quadrate-articular joint I:Galesaurid cynodonts
Thrinaxodon
Lower TriassicMuch larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally 85% of jaw length is the dentary; large coronoid process expanded to top of eye socket and pos- teriorly; jaw muscles attached to most of coronoid process Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped; tooth replacement reduced 25% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflec- ted lamina decreased; width of main part of angular decreased Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint H: Procynosuchid cynodonts
Procynosuchus
upper Upper PermianMuch larger than eye socket; 40% of skull length; expanded pos- terioirly, medially, & laterally; midline of skull narrow sagittal crest; chek arch bowed out laterally 75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; coronoid process expanded to near top of eye socket and posteriorly; jaw muscles attached to dorsal part of coronoid process Large single canine; cheek teeth multicusped 30% of jaw length; angular notch widened ventrally; width of reflected lamina decreased Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint G: Early Therocephalians
Pristerognathus
lower Upper PermianLarger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially; 30% of skull length 75-80% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary expanded posteriorly and dorsally into narrow blade-like coronoid process; rises to middle of eye socket Large single canine; other teeth simple cones. 35% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate small; quadrate-articular jaw joint F: Early Gorgonopsians
Eoarctops
lower Upper PermianSlightly larger than eye socket; expanded posteriorly and medially (minimal); 20-25% of skull length 65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterior end of dentary slightly expanded posteriorly and dorsally as incipient coronoid process Large single canine; other teeth simple cones. 40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint E: Eotitanosuchians
Sphenacodon
Lower PermianSmall; slightly smaller than eye socket; slightly expanded posteriorly and medially 65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row Large single canine; other teeth simple cones. 40% of jaw length; angular notch deepened into a cleft; reflected lamina large, broad, blade-like Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint D: Late sphenacodonts
Sphenacodon
Upper PennsylvanianSmall; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull 65% of jaw length is the dentary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above the tooth row Enlarged incipient canines; other teeth simple cones 60% of jaw length; venntral edge of angular notched ("angular notch") offsetting a short pro- tusion (reflected lamina) Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate large and plate-like; quadrate- articular jaw joint C: Early spenacodonts
Haptodus
Upper PennsylvanianTiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull 65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares 70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular with shallow indentation Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint B: Early ophiacodonts
Archaothyris
upper Middle PennsylvanianTiny; smaller than eye socket; confined to one side of skull x Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares x Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint A: Protorothyrids
Hylonomus
lower Middle PennsylvanianAbsent 65-75% of jaw length is the den- tary; posterodorsal edge rises broadly but slightly above tooth row Undifferentiated; slightly enlarged incipient canines just behind nares 70% of jaw length; ventral edge of angular continuous Stapes extends from inner ear capsule to quadrate; quadrate- articular jaw joint
Table 1: Morphology of synapsid reptiles and mammals (Note that Hylonomus is a protothyrid, not a synapsid). Data from references cited in text.
Modern reptiles and mammals are very distinctive, easily diagnosable, and do not intergrade. Reptiles are covered by scales, mammals by hair; reptiles are cold-blooded, mammals warm-blooded; reptiles do not suckle their young, mammals have mammary glands; reptiles have sprawling posture, mammals have upright posture. Most of these features are soft part anatomy or physiology that very rarely fossilize (although dinosaur skin impressions are known from Cretaceous sediments, and imprints of mammal hair are known from Eocene bats from Germany; Franzen, 1990). In the fossil record, we must look to skeletal features.
There are many skeletal features which allow us to distinguish the reptiles from the mammals (Carroll, 1988; Table 1, rows A, M). The single most important defining characteristic is the nature of the articulation of the lower jaw to the skull (Simpson, 1959). In reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988). In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988).
From comparative anatomy studies, it is certain that most of the bones of the reptiles and mammals are homologous (Crompton & Parker, 1978; Carroll, 1988). Of greatest importance, the middle ear bones of mammals (stapes, incus, malleus, and tympanic) are homologous with several of the skull and jaw bones of reptiles (stapes, quadrate, articular, and angular, respectively; Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopso n, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988). One group of reptiles, the synapsids (Subclass Synapsida), share with the mammals an additional homologous structure: the lateral temporal fenestra, which is an opening in the skull behind the eye socket at the triple junction between the squamosal, jugal , and post orbital bones (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). A band of bone composed of the jugal and the squamosal is adjacent to the lateral temporal fenestra (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). This is the cheek arch so characteristic of mammal skulls (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Therefore, synapsids are commonly named the “mammal-like reptiles.”
The presence of diagnosable morphologic differences between reptiles (including the oldest reptiles and the oldest synapsids) and mammals distinguishes them as distinct taxa. This allows us to test evolution by looking for transitional forms between the two. Because many of the bones are homologous, we should find evidence illustrating how these bones were modified over time to become the new bones. Furthermore, these morphologic changes should happen in parallel and in geochronologic succession.
Synapsid reptiles inhabited Pangea from the Middle Pennsylvanian through the Early Jurassic (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1969, 1987, 1994; Hopson & Crompton, 1969; Hotton, et al., 1986; Crompton & Jenkins, 1973; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Romer & Price, 1940; Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Tchudinov, 1983; Olson, 1944; Tatarinov, 1974; Vyushkov, 1955; Efremov, 1954). From the Early Permian through the Early Triassic, they were the largest and most abundant land animals (Sloan, 1983; Colbert, 1965). Though much less well known to the general public than dinosaurs, one of the “cereal box dinosaurs,” Dimetrodon (the sail-backed reptile), is a synapsid, not a dinosaur (Romer & Price, 1940; Carroll, 1988). The oldest mammals are Late Triassic (Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Below is a discussion of the geochronologic succession linking synapsids and mammals. The oldest reptiles (named protorothyrids; Carroll, 1964, 1988, p. 192-199) are from the lower Middle Pennsylvanian, and the oldest synapsids (Reisz, 1972) are from the upper Middle Pennsylvanian, both of Nova Scotia. Upper Pennsylvanian and Lower Permian forms are known primarily from the midcontinent and Permian Basin region of the United States (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The basal Upper Permian forms are known from Russia (Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997). Most of the Upper Permian and Lower Triassic succession is known from southern Africa, especially the Great Karoo of South Africa (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Hopson & Kitching, 1972; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983). The Middle Triassic forms are from South America (Romer, 1969a, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Romer & Lewis, 1973; Bonaparte & Barbarena, 1975), and the Upper Triassic and Lower Jurassic mammals are known from Eurasia (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1982). Subsequent Mesozoic mammals are known from all over the world (Simpson, 1928; Lillegraven et al., 1979).
When placed in proper geochronologic succession, the synapsids naturally form a succession of taxa (genera and families) that progressively become more mammal-like and less reptile-like (Kemp, 1982, 1985; Sloan, 1983; Sidor & Hopson, 1998; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Morphologic changes, summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1, affect the entire skeletal anatomy of these animals, but are most clearly displayed in their skulls.
The lateral temporal fenestra increased in size from a tiny opening smaller than the eye socket to a giant opening occupying nearly half the length of the skull. Ultimately, it merged with the eye socket, thus producing the full development of the cheek arch so characteristic of mammals (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988).
Successively, the relative proportion of the lower jaw comprised of the dentary bone (teeth-bearing bone) gradually increased until the entire lower jaw consisted of the dentary (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In Pennsylvanian and Lower and basal Upper Permian synapsids, the postero-dorsal edge of the lower jaw rose broadly but only slightly above the level of the tooth row (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Hopson, 1987, 1994). In succeeding forms, the posterior part of the dentary expanded dorsally and posteriorly as a blade-like process, and progressively became larger (Broom, 1932; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971; Sigogneau, 1970; Brink, 1963; Kemp, 1979; Hopson, 1987, 1994), forming the coronoid process (Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Hopson, 1987, 1994) to which the mammalian-type jaw musculature is attached (Barghusen, 1968; Bramble, 1978; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Concomitantly, the post-dentary bones progressively reduced in size (Allin, 1975; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1987, 1994).
Beginning with the Upper Pennsylvanian sphenacodonts, a notch developed in the angular bone that offsets a projection, the reflected lamina (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The reflected lamina first became a large blade-like flange (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Ivakhnenko et al., 1997; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972; Broom, 1932; Sigogneau, 1970; Boonstra, 1963, 1969, 1971), and then was progressively reduced to a delicate horseshoe-shaped bone (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Brink, 1963; Parrington, 1946; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Kemp, 1979, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).
Simultaneously, the quadrate progressively decreased in size (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). The articular did not decrease in size much, being small initially, but developed a downward-pointing prong (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). In the synapsids, the lower jaw was hinged to the skull by the articular and quadrate bones (Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Thus they are classified as reptiles (Simpson, 1959; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). As the quadrate and articular became smaller, they were relieved of their solid suture to the dentary and skull (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). A projection of the dentary extended posteriorly and made contact with the squamosal. Morganucodon possessed the mammalian dentary-squamosal jaw joint adjacent to the reptilian articular-quadrate jaw joint (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). It is classified as the first mammal, but it is a perfect intermediate. Now that a new jaw joint was established, the quadrate and articular were subsequently relieved of that function (Crompton, 1972; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988). Ultimately, in Middle and Upper Jurassic mammals, the tiny quadrate, articular, and ring-like angular migrated as a unit to the middle ear where they joined the stapes and became the incus, malleus, and tympanic bones (Allin, 197 5, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988).
Progressively, the teeth became differentiated. The large canines developed first, followed by the development of multicusped cheek teeth, reduced tooth replacement (Osborn & Crompton, 1973; Crompton & Parker, 1978), and finally full y differentiated incisors, canines, premolars, and molars with one tooth replacement during life (Kemp, 1982; Hopson, 1994).
Many other morphologic changes are documented in the fossil record. These demonstrate the morphologic and geochronologic succession from sprawling limb posture to upright limb posture of mammals (Jenkins, 1971; Romer & Lewis, 197 3; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). As Jenkins (1971, p. 210) stated, “In details of morphology and function, the cynodont post-cranial skeleton should be regarded as neither ‘reptilian’ nor ‘mammalian’ but as transitional between the two classes .” Other changes have been adequately summarized elsewhere (Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983; Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994). Obviously, fundamental physiologic changes must have taken place as well, many of which are not directly preserved in the fossil record, though some can be inferred from the skeletal anatomy (Findlay, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Sloan, 1983, Carroll, 1988; Hopson, 1994).
This is well documented in the fossil record by a massive volume of incontrovertible data that cannot be explained away. Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.
![[Figure1.4.1 (cartoon of vertebrate jaws)]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws2.gif)
![[Figure1.4.2a (cartoon of vertebrate ears)]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/reptile_ear.gif)
![[Figure1.4.2b (cartoon of vertebrate ears)]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/human_ear.gif)
![[Figure1.4.3 (cartoon of vertebrate jaws)]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif)
![[Fig. 1a]](http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_a.gif)
For an example of how this works, consider the cross-validating fossil and DNA evidence for the transition from land-dwelling mammals to modern whales:
The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQThe Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
SINE Evolution, Missing Data, and the Origin of Whales
Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls
Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus±whale clade
A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales
Mysticete (Baleen Whale) Relationships Based upon the Sequence of the Common Cetacean DNA Satellite1
Eocene evolution of whale hearing
Novel Phylogeny of Whales Revisited but Not Revised
New Morphological Evidence for the Phylogeny of Artiodactyla, Cetacea, and Mesonychidae
2. Is there any evidence of a order that was at one time a different order? I recognize that there is adaptation within an order, different breeds of dogs for example, but I don't know of any case where there is any evidence of a dog becoming a horse.
See above. Why is Colson asking redundant questions in the first two tries at the plate?
And is Colson really dense enough to think that anyone has claimed that horses evolved from dogs?
3. What scientific evidence is there to support a natural origin of life?
So... Colson never thought of checking a library?
Also, does Colson advise students to pester their physics teachers with questions like, "what scientific evidence is there to support quantum theory", or does he reserve such annoyances for the biology teachers?
(The evolutionist may point to the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953, much celebrated at the time.
...and Colson "may" point to a pioneering experiment over half a century ago, while trying to falsely imply that this is about as good as it gets and that abiogenesis research hasn't made any further progress in the subsequent 53 years... Colson seems to have "forgotten" about such works as (some of the following links have expired since I originally saved them, sorry, but the titles may help you find them via Google or in the library):
A mechanism for the association of amino acids with their codons and the origin of the genetic code
Universality in intermediary metabolism
On Hydrothermal Convection Systems and the Emergence of Life
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?
Ammonia From The Earth's Deep Oceans A Key Step In The Search For Life's Origins
A supersymmetric model for the evolution of the genetic code.
The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cellsHow many more shall we assign to the student to read when he asks to see the underlying science?
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.
They initially said they had reproduced the precise conditions under which in the primordial soup life could have arisen.
No, they didn't, but thanks for the misrepresentation, Mr. Colson...
But after experts looked at it, it turned out that there was frequent human intervention and had the process been left to itself, it could not have worked.
Colson sort of "forgets" to mention that contrary to the false claims of anti-evolution propagandists (like Wells, who Colson is clearly cribbing from here), organic compounds are produced successfully by a very wide range of chemical conditions, including those matching the best modern reconstructions of the early Earth's conditions, as well as being produced to this day in such wildly disparate conditions as on Titan (one of the moons of Saturn), in comets, in interstellar clouds, and so on. See for example Table 1 in http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icons1.pdf, as well as many of the papers listed above. Also see more complex analyses such as for example FROM GEOCHEMISTRY TO BIOCHEMISTRY: Chemiosmotic coupling and transition element clusters in the onset of life and photosynthesis. It almost seems to be harder to find conditions where the chemical building blocks of life are *not* formed than one in which it is.
In short, there is no evidence.)
"In short", Colson doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and he's misinforming students.
4. How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological Teachers that evolution is “unsupervised, impersonal and random?” What scientific (as opposed to philosophical) basis is there for this statement?
By understanding what they meant, instead of how the anti-evolutionists try to mispresent it. Evolution *is* a process which proceeds without supervision, and is impersonal. That is *not* to say that there may not be *other* factors at work as well which are "supervised and personal" -- it's simply a statement describing the properties of the evolutionary process. It's no more a controversial statement than to say that, for example, evaporation is due to molecular kinetics which proceed without supervision and is impersonal.
Meanwhile, it's interesting to note that Colson can't even get the easy stuff right -- it's not the "American [sic] Society [sic] of Biological [sic] Teachers" which issued this statement, it's the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). Amazingly, Colson got three of the words wrong in a four-word name. And he mangles the quote -- the word "random" appears nowhere in the statement, although Colson quotes them to that effect. Instead, what they actually said was that evolution was "an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments". This is an accurate description of the process of evolution. It is *not* however what the anti-science folks have tried to paint it as -- they've tried to claim it's a declaration that any "supervised, personal, etc." involvement in the history of life has been somehow ruled out. That's not what the NABT is saying. It's just saying that the process of evolution *itself* works even when unsupervised, is not a personified process, does not work towards a specific goal, etc.
Furthermore, after being misunderstood several times, the NABT revised the statement in 1997 to drop the words which were the primary source of the misunderstanding. So why is Colson still harping about something that was revised to avoid objections almost a decade ago, and continuing to whine about the obsolete phrasing which hasn't even been used for many years? And why is he sending students out to quiz teachers on an outdated statement which Colson has misunderstood in the first place?
5. (A follow-up question for 4) Is this not inconsistent with discoveries about DNA, which indicate that there is a mathematical formula determining the complexity of human beings? Do mathematical formulas have naturalistic origins?
No, it isn't inconsistent, because a) Colson is confused about DNA "indicating that there is a mathematical formula determining the complexity of human beings" (DNA is a molecule, not a formula), and b) mathematical formulas are what humans construct to *describe* natural things, but should not be confused with the natural thing itself, as Colson appears to be doing here.
6. How do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the universe as we know it? If the universe is indeed winding down, does that not presuppose that sometime and by some means it was being wound up? By what means?
First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical effect, not some sort of unbreakable limitation. It can and is "broken" frequently on small scales and over short time periods, and less frequently at larger scales. Think of it like the "law of averages" which causes the "house odds" in a gambling games like roulette or blackjack -- over time the casino will steadily take away your money as you continue to play, at a rate of X% per play (where "X" is the odds favoring the house for that particular game). Nonetheless, you can still manage to come out ahead on any given play, or even across any given session of gambling. However, over long-range playing, you'll amost certainly give all your money to the casino eventually at the expected rate. Yet, it's still possible (although highly unlikely) to "break the bank" and walk away with all the casino's money.
Similarly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in large scale processes (involving lots of quantum events -- analogous to playing a lot of rounds of roulette) you'll keep losing workable energy (entropy will inexorably increase), just as you'll keep losing money if you keep gambling. But again, just as you always have a (very) slim chance of breaking the bank and getting rich gambling, the Second Law of Thermodynamics leaves open the possibility of large-scale decreases in entropy (or in layman's terms, "winding up the universe" again, or "winding up" enough entropy for a new universe).
Additionally, there's no reason to assume that the laws of *this* universe even apply at all to whatever processes *made* our universe -- many of the properties of this universe came into existence *with* this universe (including perhaps the ones responsible for the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The wellspring of this universe may well have operated under different laws altogether, ones under which there were no restrictions or impediments to "winding things up" (i.e. generating configurations with low entropy).
7. What is your answer to Dr. Michael Behe’s findings (Darwin’s Black Box) about the irreducible complexity of the cell structure, that is, his mousetrap example? All the parts of a cell had to work at once otherwise the cell doesn't work.Thus evolution of one part at a time is not reasonable.
That's an easy one -- Behe's argument contains several fatal flaws. And furthermore, his claims about "IC" are not "findings" -- he did not actually test or establish that any of the structures he asserts might be "IC" really *are* "IC". He merely asserts it without actually doing the legwork necessary to establish the validity of his assertions. Furthermore, even if he *had*, this would *still* not establish that such structures could not have evolved (see link for explanation).
8. What caused the Big Bang?
No one knows at this point. For that matter, it may not have required a "cause" in any sense -- see the earlier answer concerning thermodyanmics. There's no reason to presume that causality, as we know it, even applies outside this universe. Nor, as Colson seems to believe, does claiming "God did it" provide any better "explanation", because that begs the equally unanswered (in fact, the even more thorny) question, "what caused God"?
What's that you say, God doesn't need a cause? Fine, neither does the Universe. And if it doesn't need a cause, then it doesn't need a personified "causer" to be invoked as a potential explanation.
9. What did Einstein mean when he said, “God does not play dice with the cosmos?”
He meant that he didn't believe that the laws of the Universe had a stochastic component to them. However, he said that a long time ago, and more and more research has indicated that he was wrong on that point.
If he considered evidence of intelligence in the universe, why shouldn’t we?
He didn't consider "evidence of intelligence in the universe", not in the way Colson mistakenly presumes. Einstein's writings on the topic of god(s) makes this quite clear. For example:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter dated 24 March 1954, included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein the Human Side
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."And:
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."And:
-- Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."And:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all."Now that we find what Einstein *actually* believed, let's see if Colson likes his "argument by authority" as much when the shoe's on the other foot: "If Einstein considered evidence of lack of intelligence behind the universe, why shouldn’t we?" I'll bet Colson suddenly does an about-face and says something to the effect of, "who cares what *he* thinks?"
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
10. What evidence is there for genetic mutations that increase the biologically useful information of the genome? Or to put it another way: What evidence is there for genetic mutations facilitating macroevolutionary change?
here you go. See also most of the links in this post having to do with tracing evolutionary change in DNA -- the stepwise mutations which went into forming various biochemical systems can and are traced across evolutionary lineages.
When you ask these questions, beware. Aggressive evolutionists will attempt to intimidate you,
Only in the sense that folks so ignorant of biology as to try to attack it or make false claims about it without knowing what they're talking about will find quite "intimidating" the amount of evidence and research findings they're faced with when they talk to someone who *does* know the topic.
dismiss the questions, laugh at them, claim that they’re ridiculous, or say that you’re basing it on your faith.
Well, when the shoe fits... Many such attempted "gotcha" questions *are* laughable, ridiculous, based on faith instead of knowledge, etc.
Stand your ground. This is not based on your faith.
...except when it is. And a lot of other times they're based on false disinformation from the anti-evolution propganda mills.
These are common sense inquiries that anybody in an academically free environment ought to pursue.
Go right ahead and pursue them -- you'll find just how poorly the anti-evolution folks have served you and how badly they've led you astray. Colson himself should have "pursued" the answers to these questions before he put them out there and instructed countless students to go "challenge" their teachers with them, and unwittingly set them up for a fall.
They are not unreasonable questions, even though that is what your adversary will say.
They're not unreasonable questions (except maybe the goofy one about the NABT statement). What *is* unreasonable is the fact that Colson didn't go look up the answers himself first. There's nothing wrong with asking questions out of a genuine motivation to learn. But that's *not* what Colson is advocating here. If he really wanted to promote learning, he'd have answered his own questions and provided them to students himself, or pointed them towards sources where they could be found. Instead, he's advising students to try to play "gotcha" with their teachers because Colson falsely presumes that science doesn't have answers for them.
Note especially how Colson calls the teacher "your adversary" in this sentence... He's not interested in helping the student learn, he wants the student to pick a fight, and to see the science teacher as the student's "adversary"... Ironically, Colson tries to deny that some people are "anti-science", while he calls science teachers the "adversary", clearly indicating that he sees himself helping the students to do battle against their science teachers.
Or he will tell you that you really don’t understand
Again, if the shoe fits...
or that you have to be more into science to grasp this,
Often you do have to have a heavier science background to really understand the answers. I'm sure Colson would enjoy having junior high students ask these questions, despite the fact that many of the answers will require knowledge of fields (including quantum physics, statistics, population dynamics, biochemistry, etc.) which the students are years away from learning yet, if ever. There's a good reason why many school subjects are covered in a "here's what you need to know, remember it, we don't have time to prove everything all over again from the ground up for you" manner -- it's because it would take more than a lifetime to do that for every single bit of information imparted in the course of even a basic education. Try pulling endless "gotcha" questions like Colson's list for, say, every little thing taught in chemistry class and see how long it is before you (rightly) get sent to detention for being a time-wasting troublemaker.
It would be nice if schools had endless amounts of time, and if every student could be presented with every "here's how we know this" explanation for every little thing that comes up in class. If nothing else, the students would certainly have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the topic. But we barely have enough time just to cover the *basic* "should know" materials, much less spend days at a time diverting into the kinds of tangents Colson wants to try to get students to "challenge" teachers with (including, ludicrously, nitpicking over word choice in an old NABT statement).
or it’s too complex a concept to explain. If it’s too complex to explain, how could anyone teach it?
Sigh -- is Colson really this dense? The *concepts* aren't too complex to explain. The *concepts* are what are usually taught in classrooms anyway. But that's *not* what Colson's list of questions is intended to elicit. He wants students to demand of teachers that they show the students the nitty-gritty details of how and why the concepts were developed, how they were validated, all the evidence for them, etc. etc. etc. And *that* material, as the volume of material I've included in this post should make clear (and that's just a *very* tiny tip of the iceberg on each issue) is *not* trivial to cover in class, especially to a student who is just starting out learning the topic in the first place and hasn't even finished learning the "ABC's" of it yet.
The one you must never let evolutionists run away from is Einstein.
ROFL!! See the Einstein quotes above. If anyone needs to try to run away from Einstein's actual position, it's Colson, not the "evolutionists". Colson *really* needs to make sure he knows what he's talking about before he goes off on these screeds.
Naturalists in the evolutionist lobby do not allow anybody to talk about intelligent design because they say it comes from faith.
Horse manure. See above. "Talking about" intelligent design isn't the problem. Neither is faith. The problem is *misrepresenting* "ID" as science when it's not, and misrepresenting science itself.
[...] they say it [ID] comes from faith. It doesn’t.
It does, actually -- try disagreeing with "ID" on purely scientific grounds and see how soon someone attacks you for being "anti-God"... Colson *himself* started out his essay talking about "ID" then immediately produced poll results about *faith* (people's belief in God) in order to show "support for ID"... Yes, it *is* about faith after all, no matter how often (and how disingenuously) the ID folks claim it isn't.
There is a respectable school of science
Sorry, no. "ID" isn't science, and it's not getting very much respect at all, except among the True Believers(tm).
and Einstein raised these questions.
See above -- Einstein was more on the side of the "godless materialists", not the "ID" folks.
So why should they be stricken out of inquiry?
They aren't. Go right ahead and inquire into them. No one's stopping you. You can't, however, misrepresent things without expecting to get caught at it and thrown out on your butt by people who value honesty more than you do.
If you can get a naturalist to acknowledge that they can be discussed, he’s finished, which is why he’ll fight so hard to reject the questions.
Colson's being a complete idiot here. Naturalists discuss these things all the time. What planet is Colson living on? Nor do naturalists "reject the questions". They do, however, reject (and rightly so) the bogus answers that the "ID" folks try to give as substitutes for the real answers. For example, Colson tried to dishonestly claim that there is "no evidence" for abiogenesis just because he tried to dismiss the Miller experiment from 1953 and "forgot" to mention the vast amount of other research which exists. Note that this is the kind of gross falsehoods and misrepresentations which the "ID" folks try to force into classrooms to misinform students.
He’s finished because there is much more scientific evidence for design than there is for natural origin.
ROFL! Okay, this should be fun! Let's see it! I keep asking "ID" folks to show me some of this alleged "scientific evidence for design", and to date they keep mumbling about having an urgent appointment elsewhere.
For extra credit, attempt to demonstrate that Colson isn't being a complete moron when he says that there is "much more" scientific evidence for design than for natural origins. In your response, remember that the amount of evidence for evolutionary biology alone fills several floors of any good research library, so be sure you can produce literally a few hundred million pages of "scientific evidence for design" to top that in order to prove Colson right on his claim. We'll wait.
Also in your reply, remember that alleged evidence *against* evolution is not evidence *for* design -- epistemology doesn't work that way.
So again I ask -- why is Colson telling lies to students like this?
Everything we say about natural origin is speculation,
Wow, Colson *really* doesn't have a clue, does he? No, sorry, it's not all just "speculation". He needs to read this until he begins to grasp just how little he understands about how science is done: Explaining the Scientific Method.
just as the God hypothesis that we believe in is speculation because nobody was there at the creation.
Okay.
But we can look at the character of the universe and draw certain conclusions.
Some of us prefer to actually validate our conclusions against reality (see above link), but Colson apparently skips that step.
Because of a prior philosophical commitment to naturalism this is precisely what the naturalist refuses to do.
Utter bollocks. Thanks for the false slander, Mr. Colson! Again, see the prior link to learn what Colson fails to grasp. Also, Colson's goofy assertion about "a prior philosophical commitment to naturalism" reveals further depths to his failure to actually understand the topic he's attempting to critique. Science has no "prior philosophical commitment to naturalism" -- like all too many anti-science folks, Colson confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.