Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.

Richmond.com ^ | 06/05/2007 | Donna Gregory

[SirLinksalot]

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.

"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.

On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.

"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.

Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."

Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.

Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.

"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."

Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.

[SirLinksalot]

According to Campbell and Reece, the authors of an introductory biology textbook, macroevolution is defined as change in allele frequencies at or above the species level.

Well, I’d say if you down-size the definition macro-evolution enough, then sure, it has happened! Where the sticking point is the development of new information: organs, proteins, cell types, body plans etc. What Campbell and Reece are referring to is more like “mini-evolution”.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Well, I’d say if you down-size the definition macro-evolution enough, then sure, it has happened!

Thanks. As you can see, there's nothing offensive about "change in allele frequencies at or above the species level."

You may think of it as mini-evolution, and that's fine as long as you remember that when biologists talk about macroevolution, they're just talking about the "down-sized" definition, that is,

change in allele frequencies at or above the species level

[js1138]

Not to butt in where I'm not wanted, but all change happens within reproducing populations. What on earth do you mean by change above the species level?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

In an editorial, Dr. Behe states that to certain people, common descent is often the first thing associated with evolution. He states that he has no problem with common descent, which he defines as "the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry." We can thus infer that Dr. Behe is not against macroevolution.

That paper you cited does not in any way show how novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans could be created by random mutation.

From the abstract

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function...Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes.

I forgot that you didn't include "protein features" in your list of things that lack empirical evidence. My fault.

This is what his book is about - what Darwinian evolution can do, and WHAT IT CANNOT. What it cannot is what I said — create NOVEL TISSUE TYPES, ORGANS OR BODY PARTS.

You're absolutely correct here. Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. He did not talk about mutations because he did not know about them. They were not synthesized into the theory of evolution until the twentieth century. Natural selection cannot create anything new. No biologist contests this. Mutations, though, can.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Don't worry. You're not butting in at all.

What on earth do you mean by change above the species level?

Change above the species level may mean the creation of new genuses^*, families, phylums^*, and so forth. For example, the manatee and the elephant are closely related to each other, but they belong to different genuses.

^* I may have incorrectly written these in their plural forms.

[js1138]

I still don’t know what is implied by “change above the species level.”

Evolution occurs in breeding or reproducing populations. All change occurs at the species level.

However, if populations become separated by some kind of barrier, the populations that were of the same species can diverge to the point that they would not interbreed, even if the barrier is removed.

Are you suggesting that this process cannot be cumulative?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I think it’s more accurate to say all change initially occurs at the species level.

Genetics, a field that Darwin did not have access to, shows that the manatee and the elephant have a common ancestor and are closely related. Yet, they belong to different families and genuses. From the common ancestor, change accumulated until eventually (read: millions of years), we have these two distinct animals. Change occurred above the species (common ancestor) level.

I am not in any way suggesting that evolution cannot be cumulative. I believe it is cumulative.

[SirLinksalot]

You may think of it as mini-evolution, and that's fine as long as you remember that when biologists talk about macroevolution, they're just talking about the "down-sized" definition, that is, change in allele frequencies at or above the species level

In order to avoid nitpickery over the defintion of species or precisely what separates micro and macroevolution I came up with four things that define a macroevolutionary event:

The creation of :

1)a novel cell type,

2)tissue type,

3) organ, or

4) body plan.

The story of evolution from free living cell to modern animals cannot have occured without all four novelties arising many times in many different ways. You can get from a mouse to a man without those novelties but you can’t get from a fish to a mouse without them (for instance).

I want THAT OBSERVED and REPLICATED via random mutation. Other than that, the rest are simply JUST SO stories.

[SirLinksalot]

Dr. Behe states that to certain people, common descent is often the first thing associated with evolution. He states that he has no problem with common descent, which he defines as "the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry." We can thus infer that Dr. Behe is not against macroevolution.

Well, if by "related" you can also mean we have THINGS SHARED IN COMMON, I don't have a problem with that either.

If a designer wants to use COMMON MATERIAL to build different species, It's par for the course.

For example, because my mother is a woman, she is more likely to be about 50% water (because fat binds less water than muscle does, and women store proportionately more fat).

But either way, half of her is the same stuff as Lake Michigan. But what does that mean? It means you can replicate that half by pouring yourself a glass of water. So that’s the half you don’t need to bother about. than muscle does, and women store proportionately more fat).

Similarly, the fact that our ancestors may have screamed in the trees millions of years ago is actually of vastly less significance than the events of the last ten thousand years. Just as the similarities of our DNA with that of chimpanzees mainly tells you that most of what you need to know about a human being is not in the DNA.

The real reason that most Americans simply don’t go along with elite opinion about the origin of human beings is that they are relatively freer than other peoples to dissent from their elite, and they know - as any sensible person who thinks about the matter must know - that the materialist view of human beings is nonsense. And they rightly reject everything connected with it.

All I know is that HISTORICALLY, Something did happen less than ten thousand years ago that forever separated us from Lake Michigan and from whatever screams in the trees. And I think the solid close to 70% on the poll question are trying to say that, even though they are forced to fund the propagandists of the elite through their taxes.

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function...Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes.

If you read Behe's latest book THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION (written much later than this paper ), you will see his point IN CONTEXT and why he is an ID proponent.

This is not an addition of information to the genome of the organism.

The Genome is “Front Loaded” with a search mechanism that searches for and finds the correct response to the infection.

Thus the Genetic entropy for the integrated whole of the organism is NOT being violated.

To violate the principle of genetic entropy for an existing organism you would have clearly demonstrate a gain in genetic information to the level of proteins above the probability bound, established by Dembski, of 10^150. Though the immune system is often used by evolutionists as proof of evolution this still does nothing to tell us how the “feedback control” originated in the genome in the first place since the DNA is proven to be much less tolerant to any point mutations. Indeed, with the “ENCODE” research revealing astonishing complexity in the genome, the problems for the evolutionists at the level of the Genome have become insurmountable!

In The Edge of Evolution, Behe makes an analogy of the effects of random mutation with the effects of monkeys editing Moby Dick using a modern word processor. The monkey might change letters and words, might even re-arrange sentences or paragraphs. He might even move chapters around.

But in the end, you would still have a book about Whales.

If people want to imagine that the monkey could change Moby Dick into Black Beauty. Keep they can keep on imagining.

I forgot that you didn't include "protein features" in your list of things that lack empirical evidence. My fault.

No problems, we all forget.

You're absolutely correct here. Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. He did not talk about mutations because he did not know about them. They were not synthesized into the theory of evolution until the twentieth century. Natural selection cannot create anything new. No biologist contests this. Mutations, though, can.

Let's see if we can clarify this a bit further ( but we seem to be coming to something close to an agreement ).

ID advocates say that the probability of random mutations adding anything but slight bits of complex specified information is almost nil. Not absolutely prohibited, but just improbable to the point of practical impossibility in the time available and with real populations.

The immune system has to generate tremendous antibody diversity in order to detect invaders, and then mass produce specialized antibodies. You can call this a hypermutation process using clonal selection, but it is vastly amplified and contrived for the purpose, over normal rates of mutation and selection in nature.

Behe ( the Professor you refered to ) has shown empirically from evidence that using normal rates of mutation even in organisms with huge populations and numbers of generations, the ability of Neo-Darwinian processes to produce complex new functioning structures is extremely limited. The Staphylococcus Aureus example cited by someone else above seems well within this “extemely limited” category.

The immune system B cell example is just part of an extremely intricate combination of other interlocked subsystems. There has to be a mechanism by which to signal the differential reproduction of more antibody-producing B cells, based on the detection of an antigen in a particular B cell antibody. There is the complement system. These each have to be explained as having been produced by a gradualistic random change-driven process. Certainly ultimately “random mutation” generates specific antibody binding to pathogens, but this is itself a very specialized biological system that demands a gradualistic Darwinian explanation.

[SirLinksalot]

We are not allowed to proselytize, certainly, but I'm not aware of any laws of that sort

And if there is any, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I believe it is important to have a common set of definitions. Otherwise, it is like the Sufi tale of the grapes – weary travelers purchase a bunch of grapes from a merchant and each argue that his food is the best. In actuality, they were all talking about wine, but they did not know it because each spoke a different native language.

Whenever possible, we should strive to use accepted definitions in biology.

For the record, microevolution is “change in the allele frequencies of a population.” Macroevolution is “change in the allele frequencies at or above the species level.”

Nevertheless, for this post, I’ll use your four-criteria definition. I stress that this is your definition.

The only way those four can be created is through mutation. You may or may not find this article, titled “Evidence that white-blood is a novel type of temperature-sensitive mutation resulting from temperature-dependent effects of a transposon insertion on formation of white transcripts,” useful.

[Bogtrotter52]

Hey, unlike fundamentalists, I don’t think I or science have all the answers have all the answers.....yet. What I really get a kick out of is when creationists quote scripture as a offer of evidence. The bible is a great guide, but the literal word, not really. Gotta like it, it’s a good read, but it is fiction.

[js1138]

I think it’s more accurate to say all change initially occurs at the species level.

I think it's more accurate to say that all change happens at the level of the reproducing individual. In the case of sexually reproducing organisms, the change is reflected in the population.

Change per se cannot happen above the species level, because the individual seldom, if ever, mates outside its species. But of course change is cumulative. How could it not be?

[taxesareforever]

Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

1 John 2:22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

And yes, this is evidence of God’s words.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Just to clarify, I have never stated that change is not cumulative. You may be confusing with someone else.

If you believe that change cannot occur above the species level, then how do you reconcile the relatedness of the manatee and the elephant?

[js1138]

You are misunderstanding me. Cumulative change produces the tree, which includes all levels, but change only occurs in the individual, and the change cannot be so large as to prevent successful mating.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I may be misunderstanding you. It looks like we don't really disagree; we just use different words to describe the same thing.

I stress that I have never written that change is not cumulative. Your last few posts indicate that you believe I previously made those remarks.

Cumulative change produces the tree, which includes all levels, but change only occurs in the individual, and the change cannot be so large as to prevent successful mating.

By all levels, I assume you mean domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. If so, I agree. Cumulative change does produce all levels. If I recall correctly, according to Campbell and Reece, the population - a collection of individuals - is the smallest unit that can evolve. They did not say that it is the only unit that can evolve.

The change actually can be so large as to prevent successful mating. The most novel example is that of a meiosis error in a plant resulting in polyploid offspring. They're phenotypically identical to the parent, but they cannot reproduce with other members of the parent species. They are thus different species.

[js1138]

They're phenotypically identical to the parent, but they cannot reproduce with other members of the parent species. They are thus different species.

This can only result in new species in populations where similar changes are frequent. apparently it is "common" in flowering plants.

[GourmetDan]

"There is nothing wrong with assigning a word to represent an occurrence (i.e. defining a word to be consistent with observations.)"

That is correct. The problem is when that usage is switched to refer to unobserved processes and events.

"Evolution is defined as “change in allele frequencies of a population over time.”

Again, this is consistent with a biology that was created with a broad ability to adapt. No unique evidence for evolution here.

"All the reasoned arguments, papers, and experiments in the world from persons far more intelligent than I cannot convince you that under the accepted definition of evolution, not your definition, evolution has occurred."

Again, the bait-and-switch tactic obviously works with those who lack critical-thinking skills.

"Lots of things do baffle me. I'm not ashamed to admit it. Are you?"

Your ability to constantly misrepresent what I'm telling you does indeed baffle me.

[GourmetDan]

"You claim that ID has nothing to do with the supernatural."

Not what I said. Please don't misrepresent me by taking quotes out-of-context. You must read my comments in context.

"Does ID, in any of its incarnations, admit that natural processes, including but not limited to Evolution, are quite capable of producing the complexity and variety of Earthly organisms?"

Don't know.

"Does ID suggest that any of the non-supernatural intelligent agents putatively responsible for Earthly life are less complex than Earth life?"

Don't know.