Scrub jays too weird for Wired mag?

Curly Cue, we are 100% certain that you are an insipid troll. All you can do is attack people with ideas because you don't have any. You are a bane and an embarrassment to humans. Joe

Joey, I am 100% certain that if you had actually read or done any of those things, you wouldn't have understood a single thing. You are the worst type of keyboard warrior; one that knows absolutely nothing about what you are taking about. The best part is, apparently you think that the things you say are actually intelligent. It's quite funny. In fact, you're probably my favorite commenter here! Unfortunately I have to start breaking this habit I've developed of arguing with the idiots here on UD, so see ya! Curly Howard

Curly Cue, you are a clueless loser- I used the same language. I read the books, took the courses, read the papers- there isn't anything that supports unguided evolution. The premise doesn't have any entailments. Now how about a link to that alleged theory of evolution- unless you are too much of a coward to post it. Joe

Well I'm glad you've changed your wording, Joey. You're learning at least! I already told you to take a look at the thousands of research articles and hundreds of books, or maybe take a course somewhere. Yeah, right, when pigs fly right? Curly Howard

Curly Cue, you can't link to the alleged theory of evolution. Dawkins, Mayr, Darwin, Coyne, et al.- they all know/ knew what is meant by unguided evolution. Why are you such a blathering troll? Joe

Well Joey, I told you about the evidence behind the regular ol' theory of evolution. Nobody but your friends here at UD know what you are talking about when you say "unguided evolution," but its safe to assume it's something you've concocted in that peabrain of yours that has no basis in reality. Curly Howard

Oh wittle curly cue, I asked for papers that support UNGUIDED evolution. Do you think that your ignorance means something? Do you think your equivocation means something? You are just another clueless troll. You have no idea what ID says nor what it is arguing against yet you feel compelled to spew away. Pathetically priceless. Joe

Oh little Joey, there are thousands of research papers behind evolution, hundreds of books to read; pick any of them. The problem is, you won't understand a word of it. But I'm sure that won't stop you! Bye bye Joe! Curly Howard

Hey Curly Cue, how about a paper, one that supports unguided evolution. We cannot find a mistake in non-existent research. Joe

Hey Timey, how bout that paper/mistake combo? It didn't actually happen, huh. Curly Howard

Zachriel:

Darwin’s been dead more than century, and the scientific understanding of evolution has advanced considerably.

True, now we know that natural selection and drift are impotent. Joe

Timaeus: Other modern evolutionary theory is also quite speculative, but the broadly Darwinian approach is speculation taken to the point of wishful thinking, or even drug-induced fantasy. Seems that the common descent of people and pufferfish is a non-trivial finding. Zachriel

Zachriel: Original Darwinian and later neo-Darwinian theory alike, plus all later versions of evolutionary theory which are heavily dependent upon their basic notions, are highly speculative. To put this in terms of examples, evolutionary theory as advocated by Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Eugenie Scott, Nick Matzke, Robert Pennock, Richard Dawkins, and Ken Miller is highly speculative. Other modern evolutionary theory is also quite speculative, but the broadly Darwinian approach is speculation taken to the point of wishful thinking, or even drug-induced fantasy. Nothing wrong with speculation, of course, as long as it is recognized for what it is. A dose of speculation plays a positive role in good science. But when a science is almost all speculation, it can't claim the same kind of intellectual authority that more rigorously empirical sciences can claim. Thus, evolutionary biology and cosmology are at the bottom of my hierarchy of scientific studies. Which does not mean that these things should not be studied, but that their practitioners should be more modest in what they claim as "known." Ironically, however, you find more intellectual modesty among organic chemists, solid-state physicists, professors of civil engineering, etc. -- practitioners of sciences with amazing track records -- than among either evolutionary theorists or cosmologists. I suppose the psychological/sociological explanation for this is something like the explanation for why little dogs often bark louder and are more aggressive than larger dogs. Timaeus

No, really Timaeus, what errors were you supposedly able to pick out of this scientific paper? Instead of all the question dodging, wouldn't it be easier to actually answer the question? Curly Howard

Curly (285): It was toilet paper, and what was wrong with it was that it had the biological and pedagogical ideas of the NCSE smeared all over it. But I flushed out all the errors. Timaeus

Hey Timaeus, what was the paper and what was wrong with it again? Curly Howard

Timaeus: I said “*Darwinian* evolutionary theory”. Yes. Timaeus: Do you not understand the limiting character of adjectives? Darwin's been dead more than century, and the scientific understanding of evolution has advanced considerably. The term has multiple meanings. If you mean evolution by natural selection, natural selection is still considered a primary mechanism of adaptation. If you mean neodarwinism, it too has multiple meanings. The synthesis of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian genetics happened eighty years ago. If you mean variation and selection, then that is still considered a primary mechanism of evolution. None of this is "highly speculative". There are also mechanisms of speciation, such as allopatry. Then there is contingency, such as the occasional cosmic impact. Zachriel

Zachriel (279): I said "*Darwinian* evolutionary theory". Do you not understand the limiting character of adjectives? I would say that before improving the American biology curriculum, we need to improve the American English curriculum. The number of sloppily-reading and/or badly-reasoning science grads that I meet on the internet is astounding. Timaeus

Zachriel the lying loser strikes again- There isn't any theory of evolution and nested hierarchies are the anti-hero of evolutionism. Darwin, Mayr, Denton and Wagner all say evolutionism is too messy to produce a pristine nested hierarchy. Zachriel is just a little liar and nothing more. Joe

Silver Asiatic: Feel free to offer your subjective opinions here any time. There is substantial objective support for the Theory of Evolution. You might start with the nested hierarchy. Zachriel

Z

Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.

Feel free to offer your subjective opinions here any time. Silver Asiatic

Timaeus: Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Evolutionary theory is strongly supported by the scientific evidence. Zachriel

Shouldn't be too hard to name a paper and say how it supports unguided evolution, Curly. Joe

Presumably if you’re going to teach it to children, there should be at least tentative empirical support, so a citation would be in order.

That is exactly what we say about evolutionism. Joe

That turned out well velikovskys

Shouldn't be too hard to just name the paper and what was wrong with it Timaeus, no? Curly Howard

Curly: Beat it. I've already said I've quit. I don't care whether you believe my story or not. I don't get my self-esteem from what people on the internet think of me. Timaeus

Zachriel: Stuff yourself. I said I was done. I've given you far more time than you deserve. And it's time wasted, as even when I get specific, and cite you references and exact page numbers from the writings of a man who knows 100 times as much about evolution as you ever will know (Shapiro), you just take cheap shots (without understanding) at his thought. Why should I subject Newman and Wagner and others to more treatment of the same kind, from someone who isn't fit to polish their boots? Good-bye. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Timaeus

Timaeus: And they have explained such dramatic evolutionary changes in terms of different approaches, such as evo-devo. And evo-devo is often discussed in introductory biology, certainly by the second year. Timaeus: One such mechanism would be the self-engineering of the genome by the organism. Be specific. Presumably if you're going to teach it to children, there should be at least tentative empirical support, so a citation would be in order. Timaeus: I cannot give you instant article citations, which I don’t have at my fingertips It's been nearly two weeks, and in the interim, you've posted thousands of words, while we've read an entire book at your suggestion; but you can't dig up a single scientific citation concerning a phenomenon that's so important to biology that it needs to be taught to children in their first year of biology. Zachriel

What paper supports your claim and what was that support, Curly? Joe

Why paper did you find mistakes in and what were the mistakes Timaeus? Curly Howard

Zachriel: One such mechanism would be the self-engineering of the genome by the organism. Others would be found in the "structuralist" biological literature; I cannot give you instant article citations, which I don't have at my fingertips, but there are many books and articles out there by Stuart Newman, Gunter Wagner and their associates which lay out some "functionalist" possibilities, related to innate mathematico-physical-chemical structures within living nature. You are intelligent enough to use a university library to find both books and articles by these authors, and if you have free access to the journals you can download and read the articles at will. And of course it goes without saying that any presentation of evolutionary theory, like any presentation of physics or chemistry, has to be written at a level appropriate to the student, so please don't bother making your point about material that is "too hard" again. The technical articles of Ernst Mayr on neo-Darwinism are also "too hard" for ninth-grade students, but that doesn't stop simplified versions of his neo-Darwinism from appearing on the curriculum; the same is true of any evolutionary mechanism; all can be put in simplified layman's terms for younger students. I don't intend to go into more detail than that here, as I'm terminating my overly-long involvement with this thread. But if you are interested in some high-level discussion of evolutionary theory that is somewhat different in orientation from what you are accustomed to, you will look up the authors I've suggested (and the sources which stimulated them), and learn what they have to say. I think people should read books and articles about evolution (or any subject) to learn, to expand their understanding, to take intellectual risks (including the risk of having to abandon or reformulate many cherished theories and notions), not to find ammunition to use in arguments. Unfortunately, too often, when the subject is evolution, the only reason why people read anything beyond their immediate "camp" is to find a way of refuting someone else. Thus, debates over evolution tend to be not explorations where different points of view are discussed with an open mind and then synthesized, but are more like a form of trench warfare, with each person "dug in" and holding the line at all costs. This is very sad. Timaeus

Piotr: Yes, that is a good discussion, and I see your point about the term "body plans." Really the major point I was raising could be made without the reference to "body plans" -- it was only because Curly claimed that I had made an error that we have let the terminology derail the discussion. The question I was raising was whether neo-Darwinian mechanisms alone could account for the remarkably quick transformation between artiodactyl and whale. Many evolutionary biologists have answered: "No." And they have explained such dramatic evolutionary changes in terms of different approaches, such as evo-devo. But the popular mind still has a primarily neo-Darwinian conception of evolution, and that includes many big-time champions of evolution such as Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins. If the popular conception changes, due to the writings of people like Carroll, so much the better. And there are others to be considered as well. Of course I recognize that it doesn't have to be all or nothing; neo-Darwinian explanation may have a place alongside other kinds of explanation. Indeed, even Michael Behe thinks that neo-Darwinian explanation is perfectly valid in some cases: antibiotic resistance, finch beaks, etc. He just doesn't think it's the whole story, or even nearly the whole story. My complaint about popular and textbook descriptions of evolution, even where they grant some non-Darwinian types of explanation, is that the Darwinian is still seen as the main engine of evolution, with the "other mechanisms" as ancillary (as if the army of Nazi Germany were aided by the army of Liechtenstein and of Moldova); but there are biologists who would tend to reverse that weighting, with the neo-Darwinian mechanisms in the back seat, doing bits of detail work here and there, and other mechanisms in the driver's seat, driving the major changes. Of course I would not expect an introductory high school course to go into this kind of material in any detail. I just don't want the students to come away with the invalid argument that if the giraffe's neck can be explained by neo-Darwinian mechanisms, so can the transition from artiodactyl to whale. That simply doesn't follow. All I want the students to hear is that plenty of evolutionary biologists -- including atheists -- have said that macroevolution cannot be explained simply by neo-Darwinian micro-stuff extended over a longer period of time, but involves other ways -- many debated, and many unknown -- of generating new biological form. But of course, as I've granted all along, that has to be said at a vocabulary level suitable to the high school grade being taught. And now I want to let this subject go. We've been at it too long. Let's find something else to talk about. Timaeus

Piotr:

I don’t personally attach any particular importance to the concept of “body plan” or “body pattern”, simply because it can’t be defined in an objective way.

That isn't true. Just look at Linnaean Classification. Also there isn't any evidence nor way to test the claim for changes in regulatory sequences can produce the changes required. Everything points to the contrary. Strange that Piotr talks about objectiveness from one side of his mouth but disregards it when it comes to universal common descent. Joe

Timaeus, I don't personally attach any particular importance to the concept of "body plan" or "body pattern", simply because it can't be defined in an objective way. Whether it's "major" or "minor" is a matter of taste. In metazoans, body plans are shaped by the Hox genes, but modifications appearing in different animal lineages (as the Hox family grew and their regulatory activity became more and more complicated) have been gradual, accumulating over time. Imagine two modern organisms, lets say a dog and a starfish. Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that their evolutionary histories separated some 600 million years ago, and that the separation was accompanied (or perhaps even caused) by some homeotic innovation. So 550 million years ago you have a proto-dog looking like a small fish, about an inch long, still with no bones, no jaws, and no paired fins, but otherwise with a general "vertebrate body plan" (a head with a tiny brain inside, gills, a notochord, etc.). At the same time you have a proto-starfish, a seafloor-crawling critter a few milimetres long with a bilateral body plan (unlike starfish proper, except in their larval stage), with an anterior mouth and gill slits not found in their later descendants. In a way, it already had the "echinoderm body plan" consisting of parts homologous to those found in starfish, but it wasn't all that different from the "vertebrate" plan -- not surprisingly, since both were derived from a common ancestral "deuterostome body plan". There were early deuterostomes such as vetulicolians and vetulocystids, which looked both like primitive chordates and like primitive echinoderms (so that their exact relationship to both phyla is hard to resolve). Piotr

What is surprising is that small changes in the genome can drive development of appendages nowhere near normal development sites.

That isn't surprising at all given what we know of regulatory circuits in our designs.

It was just an example of the drastic consequences on body plan that small genomic changes can have.

That was never in doubt. Look, your claims cannot be measured. No one knows how many mutations it would take or if any genetic change can do it. All you can do is hide behind Father Time as if that helps you. The problem is there aren't any known microevolutionary events, those small changes, that can be extrapolated into the large changes required. And thanks for ignoring the peer-reviewed paper that refutes your position. Joe

Timaeus: Does the standard curriculum include the kind of “other mechanisms” proposed by Shapiro, Newman, and Wagner? What specific mechanism did you have in mind? A scientific citation would be helpful. Zachriel

You mean highly inbred farm animals often have defective abnormalities? Is that a surprise? No. What is surprising is that small changes in the genome can drive development of appendages nowhere near normal development sites. The animal does have a different body plan, and whether it is no good or good is up to the environment. The legs/antenna example doesn't have a specific evolutionary significance as far as what has happened in the history of life. It was just an example of the drastic consequences on body plan that small genomic changes can have. Now you want a stepwise molecular-genetic explanation of the evolution of whales over millennia. This is the underlying problem that you and creationists have: you're not satisfied until every single step has been spelled out for you. You can use "body plan" however you want, but that doesn't mean you understand the idea. You're ignoring the fact that everything in biology exists along a spectrum. Rarely is there a definite cutoff point for anything, and therefore your use of "body plan" to mean ONLY large scale changes on evolutionary timescales, was wrong. What paper did you find mistakes in and what were the mistakes? I'm curious. Curly Howard

Zachriel: Does the standard curriculum include the kind of "other mechanisms" proposed by Shapiro, Newman, and Wagner? If so, then I have no problem with it. But I doubt very much that it does. Link me to some pages of state-accepted biology texts online, if you know of any, and I'll have a look. Timaeus

Curly: You say a number of foolish things. "and the studies I mentioned showed that these smaller changes in body plan are easier to come by than had been originally thought." I gather you are a city slicker. Farmers who raise thousands of animals during their careers quite often see defective offspring. So one doesn't need studies conducted by Ph.D.s in biology to know that such things can occur. Nobody but Curly "originally thought" that such changes were hard to come by. At the same time, the farmer, on seeing his two-headed cow or three-legged lamb, doesn't say: "Oh, how interesting; this animal has a different body plan from its parents!" He says: "This one's no good!" He thinks of it as the failure of execution of an existing body plan, not the success in execution of a new one. You say: "I did not claim that the legs/antenna example has any specific evolutionary significance." Well if such freak changes don't have any *evolutionary* significance, then why did you introduce them into my discussion of the *evolution* of new body plans??? Obviously I was talking about the body plans which are arrived at *by an evolutionary process*, not bodily deformities arrived by a reproductive error. But your more basic problem is the typical problem of the internet Darwinist. You try to "catch out" the other person on a point of vocabulary or by citing some isolated point of fact, while avoiding the big issue the other person is discussing. Instead of getting hung up on precisely when the term "body plan" becomes appropriate, why not focus on the obvious meaning of what I was getting at? I gave a very clear example: primitive artiodactyl to whale. I said that no one could explain in stepwise neo-Darwinian terms, *at the molecular-genetic level*, how that transition occurred. I don't need the term "body plan" at all to express that point. (I used "body plan" because I thought you would use the same definition that most people use, but since you don't, let's leave it out.) So, what is your claim, then? Are you saying that freaks like antennapedia have evolutionary significance (contrary to what you've just indicated) or not? If you say yes, then are you saying that it is thousands of little changes like antennapedia that turn artiodactyls to whales over time? And if you say no, then why introduce antennapedia to explain artiodactyl to whale? Why not talk about other, non-freak types of change? You aren't being very clear at all. All this started, of course, because you accused me of an error. In fact, what you call an "error" turns out to be nothing more than a disagreement over the meaning of "body plan." According to you, any visible distinction means a different body plan. But of course, very clearly the context of my discussion concerned major changes, not trivial changes, to the body. The various species of deer are visibly different, but most of them have the same basic body plan. The African and Indian elephant are visibly different, but both have the same basic body plan. The fruit fly with the leg in the wrong place is visibly different from his non-freak brother, but both have the same basic body plan. That's how I'm using the term. I made no error. You merely cavilled over my usage, and called it an error, and then decided, based on my alleged error, that I knew nothing about biology. By the way, I don't claim to be a professional biologist, and never have; but I've shown from the level of my discussions on this site for over 6 years now that I do have some knowledge of evolutionary theory; whether or not you acknowledge this is no concern of mine. I once found some biological and chemical errors in a work of evolutionary theory by a molecular geneticist; I wrote to the man in question, and he said I read very carefully and that I was indeed correct about the errors. So I know what I'm doing, at least in some areas of biology, and if you don't think I know what I'm doing, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Timaeus

Piotr: Your remarks about starfish and Hox genes, which I don't object to, pertain to the sort of discussion we get in evo-devo; classical neo-Darwinism knew nothing of such things. I already mentioned that evo-devo discoveries provide much more plausible evolutionary scenarios than classical neo-Darwinism. But of course, the question where all these handy kingdom-wide and phylum-wide and class-wide modules come from needs to be asked. Timaeus

Piotr: Thanks for the references. Only one of them seems to directly claim that a single deviation automatically makes a new body plan. The others seem to make statements that imply that single deviations *can contribute to* new body plans -- which is what most evolutionary biologists in my experience normally say. But never mind what others say. I want to know what *you* would say. Suppose you had never heard of me or UD or this argument we are having. Suppose a stranger on the street walked up to you and asked you the following questions. What would you naturally and spontaneously answer, using words as you would normally use them, not guarding yourself in any way?: A fruit fly grows a leg where normally an antenna would be. Nothing else is different about the fruit fly. All the rest of the anatomy, physiology, habits, etc. are identical to those of other fruit flies. Would you say that this fruit fly has *a different body plan* from a normal fruit fly? If the same fruit fly had five legs instead of six, i.e., if one leg failed to grow in, would you say it had *a different body plan* from a normal fruit fly? If a cow was born with two heads, would you say it had *a different body plan* from a normal cow? If someone had no wisdom teeth, would you say that person had *a different body plan* from someone with wisdom teeth? If a man was born missing an arm, would you say that he had *a different body plan* from two-armed people? For that matter, if a man had his arm cut off in an accident, would he from then on have *a different body plan* from two-armed people? If you would answer the last two questions differently, why? What is the difference whether an accident is internal and developmental or external and induced by violence, if the end result is a body with one limb less? Timaeus

So supporting my claims is deluding myself? How does that work? Anyway, coming from an ignorant ass like yourself, that is a compliment. Joe

Did you have a point?

Yep. You are good at deluding yourself. Piotr

Piotr:

Dogs and starfish, by the way, are not so distant from each other in terms of their Hox gene clusters and their functions.

Their Hox genes share a common design so that explains it. Joe

Piotr chimes in:

Here’s an idea. Bet Curly Howard $10,000 that you know more about biology than he does. You know what to do next; you’ve rehearsed it before.

Yes, I won the bet by supporting my claims and my opponent won't pay. Did you have a point? Joe

#250 Joe, Here's an idea. Bet Curly Howard $10,000 that you know more about biology than he does. You know what to do next; you've rehearsed it before. Piotr

If I am wrong, please quote me the evolutionary biologists who regard the fruit fly with the antennae or legs in the wrong place as having a “new body plan.” Otherwise, yield the point that Curly has confused two different things.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v325/n6107/abs/325816a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7345/full/nature09977.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/full/nature716.html Dogs and starfish, by the way, are not so distant from each other in terms of their Hox gene clusters and their functions. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/hoxgenes/ Piotr

insipid troll:

I did not claim that the legs/antenna example has any specific evolutionary significance. What this research showed is that small changes in the genome can alter body plan.

That was never in doubt. You need to be able to alter it in a way that helps the claims of your position. You FAILed. What you did was provide evidence for John McDonald. As we have said you are one desperate and deluded TARD. You walk around with your head up your arse but that also is not a good example for evolutionary change to existing body plans. Evo provides evidence that changes in regulatory sequences can cause deformations in body plans that would never get advanced in a population and calls us names for pointing that out. Typical, but still pathetic. Joe

"There is no change in basic animal structure" that is your opinion, Timaeus. I would argue the exact opposite. Apparently you think that someone born with legs growing out of their head is not significantly different from someone we would consider normal. I did not claim that the legs/antenna example has any specific evolutionary significance. What this research showed is that small changes in the genome can alter body plan. You may think it's an insignificant change, but that doesn't make it so. The large differences in body plans that we now see between distantly related species did not happen over night. Smaller changes to body plan occurred over time and the studies I mentioned showed that these smaller changes in body plan are easier to come by than had been originally thought. Both these one-shot changes and the changes that occur over millions of years are important in evolution and both alter the body plan. You had to throw in "which is dysfunctional" and you had to add "basic" onto "body plan" when you characterized my argument, but you shouldn't have. The antenna/leg example was not meant to model an evolutionary event that has occurred, it was simply meant to show how small changes in the genome can alter body plan. "Basic" or not, it is an alteration to the body plan. There is no small mutational change that will produce "a whale from a hippo-like creature." Those changes happen through smaller changes to body plan on evolutionary timescales. Again, just because you say the smaller changes are not actually changes to body plan, doesn't make it so. Generally speaking, a "body plan" is anything you can see just by looking at the organism. As usual, you are wrong on pretty much all counts. And Joe, you're an idiot. Curly Howard

Curly, I know more about biology than you ever will. And I am more than ready, willing and able to prove it. However that would mean that we are in the same classroom taking the same test at the same time. And I know you are too chicken to do that. Joe

As the standard high school curriculum already includes “factors other than random mutations and natural selection”, your concern has already been addressed.

Natural selection includes random mutations. And they have been found to be impotent. Perhaps the teachers should let the students know that. Joe

Piotr:

What about a dog and a human, or a sparrow and a snake, or an elephant and a goldfish? Do all vertebrates have a common “major body plan”?

Your position cannot account for any of them. Nice job. AGAIN:

Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

Evidence, we haz it, you do not. Joe

Timaeus: “Evolution takes place due to random mutations and natural selection” yet say that they are incapable of understanding “Some biologists think there are factors other than random mutations and natural selection are involved.” As the standard high school curriculum already includes "factors other than random mutations and natural selection", your concern has already been addressed. Zachriel

Evos are so desperate. Putting a leg where an antenna goes does not help you. It is a deformity that would not happen in the wild and if it did it would not stay around. Joe

Piotr: Thanks for your answer. You ask the question about the boundary between major and minor body plan change. I don't see that this is any conceptually harder to handle than any other gradual change. A little boy changes into a man. The change is gradual. Yet only a fool would say there is no difference between a pre-adolescent boy and a fully grown man. Of course, I am not equating evolutionary change with changes in maturity in a developing organism. I am merely giving an illustration to make a point. My point is that one can legitimately declare that a final state Z is very different from an initial state A, even when one cannot pinpoint any particular spot (B, F, N, etc.) where one can say: "We no longer have an A but now have a Z." So if whales evolved from a hippo-like animal, even if we knew all the stages and all the causes, nonetheless we could see that the body plan has been drastically altered (albeit still within the vertebrate framework) in the transition. I call this drastic alteration a "change in body plan." So I don't see what objection you are raising to anything I've said. By contrast, look at what happens in antennapedia. Everything is identical between offspring and parent, except for the misplaced appendage. There is no change in basic animal structure; there is only an error which deforms the given structure. And unlike the changes in the mammalian body we are discussing in the case of whales, which on your account are all functional, the error in the fruit fly case is non-functional. At the very best it is neutral to the creature's survival; more likely it is harmful. And unless it is inherited, i.e., if it is merely a developmental error and not due to an altered genome, it will have no evolutionary significance. If someone were to play a Kuhlau piano sonatina incorrectly in two places, with a measure played in the key of C that should have been played in the key of F, and elsewhere with a measure played in the key of F that that should have been played in the key of C, with the effect of jarring the listener's ear in both places, would you say that the basic structure of the sonatina had been changed? Not if you know anything about the musical structure of the sonatina form! The sonatina form would remain in place, but its execution would be marred by two errors. So I am still right to say that Curly has things mixed up. He is equating an evolutionary process of stepwise but always functional changes which leads, over millions of years, to a new body plan, with a one-shot change which is dysfunctional and does not alter the basic body plan. If I am wrong, please quote me the evolutionary biologists who regard the fruit fly with the antennae or legs in the wrong place as having a "new body plan." Otherwise, yield the point that Curly has confused two different things. Regarding science education, I am fully aware that high school science simplifies things. I was a star student in science and went to university on a science scholarship. But you cannot have things both ways. You cannot say that ninth-grade science students are perfectly capable of understanding: "Evolution takes place due to random mutations and natural selection" yet say that they are incapable of understanding "Some biologists think there are factors other than random mutations and natural selection are involved." The two statements are on the same level of epistemological difficulty. All that I am asking is for the second sentence to be included in the ninth-grade curriculum, along with the first. One sentence! But Curly and Zachriel don't want even that one sentence in there. And they are making up all kinds of sheer B.S. for why they don't want it in there. But the real reason they don't want it in there is because they don't agree with it, because they think that all evolution *can* be explained purely by random mutations filtered by natural selection. If they would have the moral courage to be honest, instead of making up all kinds of crap about there not being time on the curriculum (how much time does it take to utter one sentence? or even one paragraph?), or by implying that alternate mechanisms would be too advanced for ninth-grade students to understand (when they are in principle no more complex than what neo-Darwinism proposes), I could at least respect them for honesty. I'm done with this subject, Piotr. I reject the excuses of Curly and Zachriel as motivated by a fundamental dishonesty, a dishonesty I have found in 95% of the internet Darwinists I have debated with. I will now accept no answer from them other than: "You are right; it would be possible, without adding substantially to the ninth-grade curriculum, to indicate that some biologists think there are factors other than random mutation and natural selection that operate in evolution; and if the names of Shapiro, Newman, etc. were mentioned in a footnote in the textbook, that would not harm any ninth-grade student in the slightest." But they are not man enough to concede even that. And that's because Darwinists are not men, but weasels. Speaking of changes in body plans! Timaeus

Questions to Wieschaus - fruit fly researcher - at the 1982 meeting of the AAAS:

Another questioner then asked Wieschaus about the implications of his findings for evolutionary theory. Here Wieschaus responded more soberly, wondering aloud about whether his collection of mutants offered any insights into how the evolutionary process could have constructed novel body plans. “The problem is, we think we’ve hit all the genes required to specify the body plan of Drosophila,” he said, “and yet these results are obviously not promising as raw materials for macroevolution. The next question then, I guess, is what are—or what would be—the right mutations for major evolutionary change? And we don’t know the answer to that.”4 Thirty years later, developmental and evolutionary biologists still don’t know the answer to that question. At the same time, mutagenesis experiments—on fruit flies as well as on other organisms such as nematodes (roundworms), mice, frogs, and sea urchins—have raised troubling questions about the role of mutations in the origin of animal body plans. If mutating the genes that regulate body-plan construction destroy animal forms as they develop from an embryonic state, then how do mutations and selection build animal body plans in the first place? [S.Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, Ch.13 - The Origin of Body Plans]

Box

Timaeus,

Abandoning legs for fins, changing the shape and proportions of most of the bones in the body for aquatic life — those I call major modifications.

And yet they took place gradually. The forelimbs of protowhales were not "abandoned" and replaced with flippers overnight, nor did their hind limbs simply disappear. We have skeletons of early whales such as remingtonocetids, already adapted to a marine habitat, but still resembling modern otters anatomically. Modern cetaceans still have the same forelimb structures as their ancestors: the shoulder blade, the humerus, the forearm and palm bones, and four digits. The clavicle has disappeared and the fingers have some extra phalanges, but I don't tink you would regard these differences as "major". At what point would you say that a new "body plan" appeared? The evolutionary importance of saltational changes (as in the "hopeful monster" scenario) involving homeotic mutations, chromosomal aberrations, polyploidy, stable hybridisation, endosymbiont capture, etc., is the subject of debate, but some major transitions may well have been of this kind. When they happen in a relatively simple and unspecialised organism, they may occasionally result in sudden speciation without rendering the mutant inviable (to a lay observer, it would not even have looked dramatically different from the parent species despite carrying the seeds of a new "body plan"). As for telling students openly that nothing in science is settled forever and that there is much disagreement about the mechanisms of evolution -- I'm all for it. Handbooks are not catechisms, and differences of opinion are among those things that make science exciting. But to appreciate that, the students must first be able to understand what the controversies are about. And they are often about highly technical stuff that even professional biologists may not grasp fully. So one should go through the basic curriculum first, and then discuss examples of controversies. Those who are genuinely interested in the subject will probably be eager to read more on their own. (I'm saying this as the father of a biology student working for his MSc degree and doing research on some little-known marine phyla and the evolution of their enigmatic body plans.) Biology is not different from the rest of science. High-school physics does not prepare students for a meaningful discussion of the relative merits of superstrings and quantum gravity (but they are aware of the controversy if they watch "Big Bang Theory"). Piotr

Piotr: I'm fully aware of everything you said in your summary of evolutionary theory. None of it was new to me. I've been round this park many, many times. Remember that I am not contesting common descent, so lists of intermediate fossils, etc. bore me. Send them to Ken Ham. I'm more interested in talking about alleged mechanisms. I do not consider number of legs to be a major modification. 32 or 36 legs, what's the difference to a millipede? Abandoning legs for fins, changing the shape and proportions of most of the bones in the body for aquatic life -- those I call major modifications. The discussion could get complicated unless we distinguish between classical neo-Darwinism and later notions such as those entertained in evo-devo. My critique is focused on neo-Darwinism because that has been the main public presentation of evolution until very recently, and is still the main conception of evolution in the minds of most of the lay public. I believe it is the conception held by Curly as well. Evo-devo is a different matter, because the discovery of universal genomic "switches" means that larger changes can manifest themselves more quickly. In classical neo-Darwinism things had to be built up from scratch, one new protein by one new protein, and unless islands of fitness could be demonstrated whereby partial eyes, partial wings, etc. were of some use in the struggle for existence, neo-Darwinism was simply not credible. Yet it was taught in the schools anyway, because *some* materialistic, reductionistic account of origins had to be given in the public schools; better an implausible materialistic account than any account, no matter how rational and in accord with evidence, involving design! (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know the difference between ID and creationism; if you don't, see my explanation to Aurelio Smith above.) Anyhow, I see the creation of a new pair of legs (and a body section to go with them) as Dawkins sees it: merely a command to "do it again!", i.e. do once more what has already been done in all the other segments. The "software" for segments and legs has already been written, so it's simply a question of activating it an extra time; nothing new has to be built from scratch. But that is more an evo-devo than a classical Darwinian perspective. (And I'm not at this point rejecting evo-devo; in fact, I would add Sean Carroll to my list of people who could be mentioned by a biology teacher or in a textbook, even in states where evo-devo is not yet on the prescribed ninth-grade curriculum.) Piotr, from what I have heard of you on the internet, you make claim (or others claim for you) to be a professional evolutionary biologist, actually researching and publishing in the field. Is that correct? Or if not, what background are you speaking out of? If you are in the field, and if you go regularly to conferences, read journals, etc., e.g., you will know of the annual Evolution conference which has thousands of attendees. If you go there, you will know that some of the biologists I have mentioned, e.g., Altenberg people such as Wagner and Jablonka, sometimes present research there. You will also know of their papers in legitimate scientific journals. You will know, then, that they are legitimate scientists and legitimate evolutionary biologists. You will also know that they differ in some respects with classical neo-Darwinism and even with some of the later developments in evolutionary biology. My contention *here* (on this page) has not been against evolution, or even against neo-Darwinism (though I have said elsewhere that in my view it is a weak theory), but only that high school science students should be made aware that, while there is consensus regarding common descent, there is not consensus regarding evolutionary mechanisms, and that there is lively debate among evolutionary biologists about mechanisms. I have not said that a huge amount of time can be spent on these mechanisms in introductory biology. I have not said that teachers should say neo-Darwinism is wrong. I have not said that textbooks should teach that Shapiro, Newman, etc. are right. I have said that students should be given an indication that there is debate over mechanisms. Curly and Zachriel have opposed my view on this. Do not be misled by their words (especially if you have come into this late and have not read the whole discussion prior to the point where you came in) into thinking I am arguing something more than I am arguing. Do you agree that at *some* point in high school biology (maybe not in ninth grade, but at some point) it is proper to inform students that there is disagreement among evolutionary biologists over evolutionary mechanisms? And to give at least a sketch outline of some of the different views held by evolutionary biologists on the question of mechanism? And would you be against a *footnote* in a ninth-grade text indicating the existence of differences over mechanism, with one or two references that a bright student could follow up on? Would you be against a teacher mentioning the existence of some differences over mechanisms? This is what I have been trying to focus on, but without success. But back to Curly: I am not contesting the claim that, according to neo-Darwinian theory, small genetic changes can eventually lead to major body plan changes. If you read the precise *original* statements of Curly that I objected to, and if you read my objection with care, you will see that what I was objected to was his implication: "See! An antenna appeared where a foot should have been! Darwinian processes produced a major new body plan!" This is simply a mischaracterization of what evolutionary biologists think. No evolutionary biologist on this planet would say that a fruitfly with a leg in the wrong place has evolved a major new body plan. They would say that a genetic copying error or a developmental error has occurred, and that, unless that error has found its way into the genome, it will not be replicated in future generations; there is no "major new body plan" in that case; only a defective fruit fly due to a biological error. Now, Curly later modified his claim to the claim that small genetic changes can *lead to* body plan changes (presumably after thousands of generations of cumulative small changes); but he originally introduced antennapedia itself, and other similar reproductive blunders, as examples of major body plan changes; and that is not how any evolutionary biologist I have read has used the term. If you think otherwise, please provide me with quotations and page numbers from evolutionary biologists who think that such freaks constitute major body plan changes. Timaeus

Piotr: Curly gave a good and valid example of how major modifications (e.g. the number and location of legs — arguably part of the definition of a body plan) can be caused by small genetic changes.

Unresponsive. No one disputes that. What is been disputed is that an extra set of non-functional useless wings - without muscles and nerves attached to it - on a fruit fly constitutes a "new body plan" rather than a mechanical error. Box

But Piotr, I’m unwilling to be attacked by a third party

Does joining the discussion and asking a question deserve to be called an attack?

unless that party demonstrates intellectual fairness first. Do you agree that Curly made a blunder when he equated the occurrence of errors such as antennapedia with the generation of new body plans? Do you agree with me that when evolutionary biologists talk about the development of new body plans, they don’t mean freaks like that?

No, I don't think Curly made a blunder. You have already admitted that body plans are not sharply distinct but form a hierarchy (from "general" to "local"). We have a pretty complete chain of intermediate "body plans" between early artiodactyls and modern cetaceans, or prom sarcopterygian "fish" and terrestrial tetrapods. The common ancestor of dogs and starfish was some sort of primitive deuterostome whose body plan you would probably regard as "worm-like". Early Cambrian echinoderms and chordates were still relatively unspecialised and not all that different from the common ancestor. Now, half a billion years later, the differences are of course enormous, and half a billion years of evolution leading to "really new" body plans would be hard to replay in a lab. Curly gave a good and valid example of how major modifications (e.g. the number and location of legs -- arguably part of the definition of a body plan) can be caused by small genetic changes. Piotr

Timaeus, we have direct evidence that small changes to DNA can result in changes to body plan. I gave you a couple examples. It is not under debate. Just because Timaeus says the anatomical changes aren't significant enough to call it a change in body plan doesn't make it so. Curly Howard

Piotr: Vertebrate body plans vary in detail, so we have to distinguish between very large and general features of layout, and smaller or more "local" features. The very large and general layout is close in a dog and a human, but different in a starfish. That is obvious. Still, there are significant "local" body plan differences between a dog and a human, differences which it would be foolish to ignore; and there are significant differences between the arrangements of a whale and of a primitive wolf-like creature such as Mesonyx or between a whale and a primitive hypothetical hippo-like animal. (And of course, in speaking only of anatomical differences related to body plan, we are abstracting and oversimplifying, because there are many important physiological differences to be taken into account as well.) So the question arises whether the classical neo-Darwinian mechanism (random mutation plus natural selection) is sufficient to bridge such gaps. Whether one answers yes or no to that question, the evidence that needs to be debated is, so to speak, on the same epistemological plane, and there is no reason, as two people here are suggesting, to say that one side only should be mentioned in ninth grade, whereas the other side should be deferred to a later (always unspecified) grade. (The grade is always unspecified because what Zachriel and Curly *really mean* is that the views of Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. should not be discussed in high school *at all*. And if Zachriel and Curly had their way, those views would be driven out of the university as well, by not giving tenure to people who publish such ideas.) But Piotr, I'm unwilling to be attacked by a third party unless that party demonstrates intellectual fairness first. Do you agree that Curly made a blunder when he equated the occurrence of errors such as antennapedia with the generation of new body plans? Do you agree with me that when evolutionary biologists talk about the development of new body plans, they don't mean freaks like that? That was the point I was making to Curly regarding body plans. He said that I had made an error regarding new body plans, and then gave an example of a phenomenon which is not actually an example of developing a new body plan, and is never cited by evolutionary biologists as such. Would you agree that his reference to antennapedia in this context was erroneous? Timaeus

Definition Deficit Disorder

Definition Deficit Disorder (“DDD”), also known as the “me no speaka the English distraction” and “definition derby” is a form of sophistry by obfuscation that demands that one’s opponent fulfil unreasonable or even impossible definitional criteria, not to advance the debate but to avoid the debate by claiming one’s opponent cannot adequately define their terms.

Box

Curly, you endorse this proposition: (taken from your own words) "small changes in the genome can lead to differences in body plan." That is the assertion of classic neo-Darwinism (in its post-Crick/Watson form). That is exactly what is disputed by many leading evolutionary biologists today, biologists whose work you appear, based on your comments, not to have read, and whose names, based on your comments, appear to be entirely unfamiliar to you. Yet, not having read these biologists or even recognizing their names, you are sure that their ideas have no place in an introductory biology course -- while remaining equally sure that the view that *you* endorse remains part of that course, by state law and court decision. Put in terms of formal logic, you think that proposition X is "established science" which should be taught on the curriculum, whereas proposition "not-X" is speculative science for which there is no time on the curriculum. But X and not-X are on the same logical and epistemological plane, and appeal to the same body of empirical evidence, and therefore belong on the same curriculum. To insist that X be made a mandatory part of the curriculum, but to ban not-X because "there isn't enough time to fit it in," is epistemologically entirely unjustified. Presumably in the 1800s you would have opposed allowing the claim "there is no luminiferous ether" into the school physics program, and would have given monopoly status to "there is a luminiferous ether." And perhaps in another era you would have insisted that the schools teach only phlogiston theory because there "wasn't time" to teach all this newfangled stuff of Priestley et al. about combustion having something to do with oxygen gas. Indeed, in early 1860, just a few months after Darwin's *Origin* came out, presumably you would have opposed his notions of evolution being mentioned for five minutes by zoology teachers, on the grounds that there "wasn't time in an introductory course" to introduce new ideas when there was so much "settled science" (settled science like the direct divine creation of new species) that had to be covered in a limited time. If you cannot see the intellectual bias in your approach to school curriculum and classroom teaching, then you are not the sort of person with whom one can have a profitable intellectual conversation. As for your self-estimation of how much biology you know, you are entitled to your own opinion. But the only "Curly Howard" I ever knew didn't know much biology, and the words you've added here don't augment his knowledge by much. Perhaps you would like to take off your mask and tell us which department of evolutionary biology you currently teach in? Or which government lab you serve in as lead geneticist? Timaeus

#234 Timaeus, What about a dog and a human, or a sparrow and a snake, or an elephant and a goldfish? Do all vertebrates have a common "major body plan"? Piotr

Zachriel: "You forgot to define body plan." And you "forgot" to respond to 90% of my answers to you in my last few posts. Why should I keep humoring you with answers, when you don't reciprocate? Are you going to respond to my question whether a high school physics teacher in an introductory physics class would be wrong to spend some class time discussing the moon landings? And that's just an example of many points I've made that you've not responded to. I gave you a clear example of a "major body plan" difference -- between starfish and dog, for example. Do you need a formal definition to get the big picture? Timaeus

Timaeus: And it remains true that Curly is mixed up about the term “body plan.” You forgot to define body plan. Zachriel

Yes that is exactly what someone who knows nothing about biology would think, Joe. Curly Howard

Curly, Shut up, your desperation is showing. The experiment shows that changes in regulatory sequences have nasty consequences. There isn't anything with that experiment that helps your position. Joe

Is that what I claimed, Timaeus? No, it's not. It was an experiment that shows how small changes in the genome can lead to differences in body plan. And no, I am not confused about what "body plan" means, you just like to use your own definitions to suit your own needs. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Curly Howard

Zachriel (225): Even if your statement is true, my statement was precisely worded and, as worded, also remains true. There is no evolutionary theorist who would make the statement I gave. And it remains true that Curly is mixed up about the term "body plan." I didn't see "we" in your answer, and I want to congratulate you for temporarily adopting adult social behavior. Timaeus

AS

I think Michael Denton has distanced himself from the ID movement.

I purchased this film from the DI recently - (along with an excellent film, it's a good way to give some financial support).

Privileged Species is a 33-minute documentary by Discovery Institute that explores growing evidence from physics, chemistry, biology, and related fields that our universe was designed for large multi-cellular beings like ourselves. Featuring geneticist and author Michael Denton

Michael Denton is impressive, as always. I wouldn't say he distanced himself from ID. His "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" was a tremendous work - which actually inspired Michael Behe to take a harder look at his own evolutionary assumptions (which he didn't really question that deeply at the time). Silver Asiatic

Aurelio Smith: You asked me for a definition of ID, and I provided it. You are free to criticize ID for not having done enough to defend its position. I didn't undertake to prove to you that ID was a true account of the origin of things. I was responding to your challenge that ID is inadequately defined. I don't know how you think there is "no useful distinction" between ID and creationism when I just laid out several major distinctions! Which of those distinctions did you not understand? Have you tried reading something by Ken Ham and something by Behe, side by side? Do you not think there are "useful" distinctions between Behe and Ham? (Ham certainly thinks so; indeed, on his website he has attacked Behe and other ID proponents.) "Creationism" in the discourse of creation/evolution/design debates does not mean "belief that the world was created by God." If that were the case, then Darwinians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be "creationists." Indeed, by that definition all believing Jews, Christians and Muslims are "creationists." But the actual definition of creationism in these US culture-war debates is narrower. It refers to a particular way of employing the Bible in origins debates, to restrict the conclusions that natural science is allowed to come to. ID per se makes no such use of the Bible; nor do I. Your statement about Michael Denton shows that you rely on very old news. Denton some years ago distanced himself, not from the idea of design in nature, but only from the Discovery Institute. However, he has been back again as a Discovery Fellow for quite some time, and publishes articles in ID venues such as BioComplexity. At no point did he ever go back on his arguments for design in nature. He merely refrains from getting involved in culture-war quarrels over Christianity versus atheism, debates over the relationship between Nazi science and Darwinism, etc. He sticks to the scientific data pertinent to the question of origins. Behe is not the only ID supporter to accept common descent. Vincent Torley here on UD seems to accept it, as also Denyse O'Leary. Former UD moderator Dave Scot accepted it as well. I think that StephenB accepts common descent, last I heard. And of course if ID were intrinsically anti-common-descent, there is no way that Discovery would have Behe and Denton as Fellows or promote their books. The issue for ID is not common descent versus non-common descent. ID proponents fall on both sides of that divide. The issue for ID is design versus chance. All ID proponents, whatever they may think about common descent, agree that chance alone, or chance plus natural laws alone, cannot explain what we observer in nature. They think that design has to brought in as a cause. They differ over how, where, or when design comes into play, as is evident in the writings of Denton, Meyer, etc. But they all think that design is involved. In sum, if "creationist" means "anti-evolutionist" then ID itself is not creationist, though individual ID proponents might incidentally, as a matter of personal biography, also be creationists. ID is a "big tent" organized around a different principle than "evolution versus creation," and therefore it is not surprising that it includes both "evolutionists" and "creationists" (in the narrow sense) in its embrace. Nor is it surprising that it includes Jews and Muslims and Hindus and agnostics and Deists in its embrace. That's in the very nature of its claims, that it doesn't recognize those differences as important for its purposes. So I stand here arguing alongside YECs, OECs, and evolutionists. I don't agree with the YECs and OECs on a number of religious points, and a number of scientific points, but that doesn't matter, because I'm not here to debate theology, or the age of the earth, or the Big Bang. I'm here to discuss Darwinism versus design. On other sites, where the subject is the age of the earth, or the proper way of reading the Bible, I might well (and have) criticized certain creationist positions. But this is an ID site, and so my differences with creationism aren't of any concern. Timaeus

Actually, the conventional view in evolutionary biology is that insect legs and antennae are each specializations of body segmentation.

And that is true unless some intelligent agency messes with the developmental process. Joe

Timaeus: No evolutionary biologist in the world thinks that important new insect classes evolved because an ancient insect’s antenna once appeared where its leg was supposed to be, or vice versa. Actually, the conventional view in evolutionary biology is that insect legs and antennae are each specializations of body segmentation. Zachriel

You might want to define what you mean by body plan, because number of limbs is generally considered part of a bauplan.

Only a fool would think what happened to the fruit flies is an example of producing new body plans. Enter Zachriel and curly... Joe

I am still unconvinced there is any useful distinction to be made between ID and Evangelical Christian worldviews.

That is due to your willful ignorance and inability to assess the evidence. The simple fact is there isn't any evolutionary theory. Unguided evolution doesn't posit any entailments, predictions nor testable hypotheses. Joe

Curly: You're an ignoramus. No evolutionary biologist in the world thinks that important new insect classes evolved because an ancient insect's antenna once appeared where its leg was supposed to be, or vice versa. The origin of new basic body plans is an ongoing area of research in evolutionary biology. It's clear you don't know much about the debates in that area. Timaeus

Zachriel: To take an extreme difference, there is the difference between the basic body plan of a starfish and that of a dog. There are less extreme differences as well. But I would not say that, e.g., (hypothetical example) a millipede species with 36 pairs of legs has a different *basic* body plan from one with 32 pairs of legs -- if that is the *only* difference between the two species. However, as I think you well know, errors such as antennapedia are considered just that -- errors, freaks, etc. -- not systematic alterations in body plan such as we see between different phyla, and sometimes in different classes or orders. Curly's "correction" of my "error" was itself based on a misunderstanding of the usage of the term. Regarding curriculum, it would not be necessary to eliminate *any* of the units you have specified in order for a creative, knowledgeable teacher to slip in a brief discussion or mention, lasting from as little as one minute to as long as half an hour, depending on time available "between the cracks" of the units, concerning recent disputes over evolutionary mechanism. By your reasoning, and Curly's, if the Large Hadron Collider discovered evidence of a parallel universe tomorrow, a physics teacher would not be allowed to mention it in introductory physics class because "there isn't time in an introductory course without sacrificing some important element of the curriculum"; but that is just stupid. Do you think that no introductory physics teacher in America took any time at all to discuss the NASA space program in 1969 in the lead-up to the moon landing, on the grounds that it wasn't officially in the introductory physics curriculum? If you were a parent, would you have been angry at the physics teacher for spending 15 minutes talking about the space program at that time? You and Curly are being ridiculous. You know perfectly well, as I've said umpteen times, that I'm talking about something very small -- maybe only a sentence in the textbook in a footnote, maybe only a ten-minute discussion of "current unknowns" at the very end of the unit on evolutionary theory. You and Curly don't want to allow even that, and despite your phony arguments, your motivation *is not* that "there isn't enough time in the curriculum." There certainly is enough time for what I've indicated. The fact is, you and Curly don't want the dissenting views even *mentioned*; everything else you have said is just smokescreen to cover up that political aim. I have to laugh at your continued rhetorical appeal against "modern speculation"; the entire neo-Darwinian theory, as articulated by Mayr, Dobzhansky, Gaylord Simpson and Huxley, was a "modern speculation" (e.g., Dobzhansky specifically admitted that the continuity of mechanism between micro- and macroevolution had to be assumed and was not something he or anyone could demonstrate) and yet this speculation was taught in introductory biology class from about the time of Sputnik onward. The speculations you personally happen to agree with, you want taught in the curriculum; the speculations you don't like, you want kept out of the curriculum. If I'm wrong about your motivation, then why, during this entire discussion, have you not said even once that while you wouldn't mention Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. or their ideas in ninth-grade biology, you think they *should* be mentioned in the next grade of biology? You could easily have said at the beginning. But of course, your remarks against Shapiro (whose book I am not convinced you've done more than skim for 5 minutes) indicated that it has nothing to do with instructional time, or with beginning versus advanced concepts; you just don't like Shapiro and don't want his ideas presented in high school. And you refuse to even discuss the ideas of Newman, Wagner, etc. I guess you aren't familiar with them. But I suppose if you were, you'd be against them, too. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Timaeus

Timaeus: First, your condescending attitude toward an earlier generation of evolutionary biologists is noted. The fact is, had you lived then, you would have been just as sure of yourself about the evidence as you are now. The issue wasn't whether there were open questions in evolutionary biology — there certainly are! —, but what should be taught to children in introductory biology. Here's a typical curriculum:

characteristics of cells and cell structure, classification, tissues and organs, mitosis and meiosis, biochemistry, genes to proteins, photosynthesis and respiration, Mendelian genetics, common descent, history of life, natural selection, ecology, studies of specific taxa: bacteria, viruses, humans, lab work.

One doesn't generally teach modern speculations in introductory science classes. But if you did, what would you replace? Cell structure? The history of life? Timaeus: Someone who doesn’t even know what is meant by a “body plan” is in no position to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about! You might want to define what you mean by body plan, because number of limbs is generally considered part of a bauplan. Zachriel

Are you trying to say that the examples of homeotic mutations that I gave, don’t represent changes in body plan?

They don't represent changes in body plans. You are a deluded and desperate moron. Joe

I can tell how much you know about biology just by how you talk about it, Timaeus. Are you trying to say that the examples of homeotic mutations that I gave, don't represent changes in body plan? I hope not, because both examples I gave are mutations that lead to large differences in body plan. But hey, if you want to ignore those examples, then be my guest. It doesn't matter to me. I'm just a "Darwin groupie." Curly Howard

what marbles? Mung

Curly: How can you guarantee that you know more about biology than I do, when you know NOTHING about my educational and personal background? Second, even if you knew more about "biology in general" than I did, it would not follow that you knew more about *evolutionary theory specifically* than I do. Lots of people with even Ph.D.s in one area or another of biology know very little about evolutionary theory, and the typical B.S. grad in biology knows nothing about evolutionary theory, beyond one compulsory sophomore course in "genetics and evolution" or the like. An intelligent general reader can easily catch up to and surpass a typical biology grad in knowledge of evolutionary theory, just by general diligence and rigorous thought. In any case, who knows more in the abstract isn't important here. The point is that many in the readership here are evolution-followers, and they all *know* what is meant by "development of new body plans" in evolutionary theory. You obviously don't, since you think that a *mechanical error* which puts an eye where a leg should be is the design of a "new body plan." This shows your complete ignorance of the basic terminology of evolutionary discussion. If you don't understand "body plan," how can we trust that you understand "selection" or "microevolution" or any of the other terms that you throw around? So I couldn't care less what you think, even if you have a degree in biology (which is very unlikely); you're a clod when it comes to evolutionary theory. I know it, and Joe spotted it, and everyone else here who knows anything will have spotted it from that stupid foot-in-mouth of yours. Give it up, Curly. You're out of your depth here. Nobody will believe you after that blunder (which is ironical, because you made the blunder believing you had caught me in a blunder); everyone has marked you as another typical internet Darwin groupie, and there is now nothing you can say or do to escape that label. I'd suggest you pick up your marbles and go home. Timaeus

reading and writing is two different things. remember, you heard it here first. Mung

Timaeus,how many times do I have to say it, reading the material and understanding the material is two entirely different things. You can claim to have read tens of thousands of pages all you want, but the fact remains that you have not demonstrated an understanding. Like I said, legs arising from tissue that normally would produce antenna isn't an example of a change in body plan? Get real. I can guarantee that I know much more about biology than you. The fact that you can't even realize this is quite telling. Curly Howard

Curly: I've read literally tens of thousands of pages of evolutionary theory, general biology, ID, TE and related material over the past 10 years. I know this material. You don't. You don't know what is meant by "new body plan" in the literature. And your science background is clearly zilch. At least Zachriel has some science knowledge -- much less than he thinks he has, but some. You have none. You're just another "Darwin groupie" chiming in on what you imagine will be the winning side. Learn some basic evolutionary biology before you talk here again. At the moment, your contributions are not useful. Timaeus

No Curly, the fruit flies are not an example of a new body plan. It's an example of what mutations to regulatory sequences do, ie cause hopeless deformities, like you. Joe

Oh right Timaeus, new body plans has nothing to do with mutations that cause legs to arise where antenna usually are or wings arise where there usually aren't wings. I deal with people who say they "read the book" all the time and yet they still manage to fail exams. There's a difference between reading the material and actually understanding it. It's funny because you strike me as the person who "reads science blogs" and probably plenty of non-science blogs, and then offers uninformed ideas. Curly Howard

Curly: Someone who doesn't even know what is meant by a "body plan" is in no position to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about! Antennapedia and the other phenomena you name are not what is meant by evolutionary biologists when they talk about the origin of new body plans. It's clear you don't know the literature, but are just another "I read science blogs" sort of person, offering uninformed ideas about evolution. Since I spend my time reading major theoretical books by everyone from Darwin through Simpson and Monod to Gould and Shapiro, I'm a wee bit more familiar than you with what evolutionary theory actually says. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, because your tone was a little nicer than Zachriel's, but in the end, you're just another Darwinian thug, toeing the party line. My arguments are extremely clear and well-organized, but you are so blinded by your ideology that you aren't listening to what I'm saying. Also, you don't know the material well enough to recognize what I'm talking about, half the time. I'm giving it up, Curly. I'll just say this: if you don't believe that criticisms of current evolutionary theory, written by atheists and agnostics from a scientific and not a religious point of view, and published in peer-reviewed journals, should be allowed to be presented (in simplified, summarized, age-appropriate form) in high school science class, then you are a tyrant and an ideologue, who wants to rule over young minds rather than stimulate them to greater learning. Timaeus

Curly, You are confused as ID is nit anti-evolution. Buy a vowel.

Random mutations most certainly can create radically new body plans.

Evidence please.

Take a look at drosophila: chromosomal inversions that bring genes under the control of other gene’s promoters can alter the expression of antennapedia, and produces flies with legs growing out of their heads.

Idiot. That is not a change in body plan. That is taking a body part and putting it in a different location. It is useless and would never happen in the wild. Unguided evolution can't explain fruit flies. It doesn't have a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and that is given starting populations of prokaryotes. YOU simply don't know what you are talking about. Joe

Ah there it is, Timaeus. When we start to actually talk about the biology, the misconceptions that you (and the anti-evolution extremists here at UD) have, rears its ugly head. Random mutations most certainly can create radically new body plans. You don’t even need natural selection. Take a look at drosophila: chromosomal inversions that bring genes under the control of other gene’s promoters can alter the expression of antennapedia, and produces flies with legs growing out of their heads. Mutation of certain enhancer sequences alters the expression of ultrabithorax in drosophila embryos, and is able convert segment 3 into segment 2, resulting in flies with four wings instead of two. Small changes to the genome can certainly cause huge changes to body plan. I certainly hope none of your “full-time, professional biologists” are denying this. Goodluck trying to “explain why” there is disagreement among scientists on complex topics to a bunch of high school students. Bottom line: what is taught to high school students in biology class is the basics, it is not in disagreement within the field, and there is no reason to change the curriculum. What you call “Darwinian mechanisms” are the simplest example of evolution in action and therefore that is what is taught to students at the introductory level. My response is that you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Curly Howard

Intelligent Design theory is the only testable explanation we have for our existence. ;) Joe

Aurelio Smith (202): You ain't seen nothing yet! The repetitions will increase each time Zachriel replies, until they have reached the number of times that Zachriel has pompously spoken of himself as "we." Timaeus

Aurelio Smith (201): I see that your misreading of plain English is an ingrained habit. I never said that I was not an Intelligent Design proponent. I said that I was not a creationist. I explained all of that -- in a post to which you never replied. But explicit statements seem to be of no use. You ignore them, anyway. Regarding the definition of ID: Intelligent design (on the biological side) holds that the basic structure and organization of living things did not arise by chance alone, or by chance combined with natural laws, but required in addition intelligent design. ID investigates the structures and nature and tries to establish the designed character of various systems, organs, and organisms. ID rests on no assumptions derived from the Bible or any other revealed literature, or from any religious tradition. ID makes no a priori assumption regarding the existence of God or gods. ID reasons to design from the facts of nature, not from religion. ID is not per se opposed to "evolution" in the sense of ancestor-descendant relationships between species. It is opposed to various versions of Darwinian thinking in which the evolutionary process has absolutely no designed aspect. ID does not require miracles or divine interventions. It infers design, not miracles. From all of this, ID is obviously different from creationism, since creationism in principle rejects evolution, since creationism *assumes* the existence of a God, since creationism *requires* miracles, and since creationism rests on a particular reading of a particular religious text. If want to see examples of the aforementioned features of ID, read Behe's *Darwin's Black Box* and Denton's *Nature's Destiny*. Not a single religious assumption is appealed to in either book. The arguments for design in the books are all based on known facts of nature. No opposition to evolution is stated; indeed, both books assume the truth of evolution, with the latter arguing for it very strongly. And the target of criticism in both books is Darwinian theory, and more generally, theories of origins which rest heavily on chance, accident, etc. Timaeus

Curly: You're still not getting it. I did not mean literally that the name of Dawkins was currently mentioned in science class. I was using the names as a shorthand for the ideas associated with the names. I meant that the *ideas* expressed by Dawkins (and others) are taught in science class. E.g., evolution proceeds by mutations that are filtered by natural selection. That *is* taught in science class, whether any scientist's name is attached to it or not. I can strip my example of names easily: Claim 1: "Random mutations filtered by natural selection can create new body plans (e.g., can turn an amoeba into an elephant or a hippo into a whale)." Claim 2: "Random mutations filtered by natural selection are insufficient to create radically new body plans." What students are taught in biology class is Claim 1. (Whether it is put in exactly those words does not matter; that is the essence of the claim.) All that I am asking is for students to be *aware* that some *full-time, professional, evolutionary biologists who teach at good universities and research institutes and who publish many articles and books on evolutionary theory* support Claim 2 rather than Claim 1. I.e., I want students to know that there are people who reject Claim 1 *not* for religious reasons, not for "creationist" reasons, but because they think Claim 1 is bad science and that better science supports Claim 2. I am not asking for the textbook or curriculum to *agree with* Claim 2 over Claim 1. I am not asking for much time to be spent on Claim 2. (I have suggested maybe 20 minutes: do you find that unreasonable?) I am asking that the *existence* of Claim 2 not be suppressed. Also, you did not read what I wrote carefully. You say "telling students that “this scientist says one thing and this one says another,” is useless." Did you not see that in the very same post I said: "Of course, one would explain *why* the two scientists in question hold their respective views. That would be the whole point of the exercise — to show students how scientific disagreements are expressed and debated. Not to settle the question, but simply to make them aware of the scientific process." How could you have missed that? Your final statement is confused. "What's unsettled in evolution" is: *how much Darwinian mechanisms can accomplish*. That point therefore *must* be mentioned in even an introductory class on evolution. And you also seem to have missed the point that there is nothing intrinsically harder for a ninth-grade student to understand in non-Darwinian than in Darwinian approaches. So your argument about difficulty level goes out the window. I've given you your example. I want both the affirmation and the denial of the competence of Darwinian mechanisms to be mentioned in introductory evolution class. I've been specific. So what is your reply? Do you say that only the affirmation should be taught, and that the denial should be suppressed? Timaeus

Timaeus, there is a huge disconnect between what you think is taught, and what is actually taught in early biology classes. None of that sentence which you claim is taught to students, is actually taught to students. Like I already said, microevolution is taught by looking at genes/proteins and macroevolution is taught by looking at lineages/descent. Overall the basic idea of variation in offspring and natural selection produces change in a population, is the focus. Do you really think a high school student is going to remember specific names of scientists? I don't think I'd ever even heard Dawkins' name until after I came to this site. And that was after taking a college evolutionary biology class. And no, what I asked for was a BIOLOGICAL example of what you would add. I think telling students that "this scientist says one thing and this one says another," is useless. If we are going to tell them about disagreement between the scientific community, it should be for by presenting them with the evidence for both sides. The problem is that what's unsettled in evolution requires a decent amount of background knowledge to understand. Curly Howard

Zachriel: First, your condescending attitude toward an earlier generation of evolutionary biologists is noted. The fact is, had you lived then, you would have been just as sure of yourself about the evidence as you are now. Only your specific opinion is different; your cocky attitude -- "our scientific generation has it figured out, unlike those earlier incompetent generations" -- is the same. But of course that is exactly the attitude that I think the school system should *oppose*. Students should learn that the consensus science of today may be the junk science of tomorrow. And the *only* way to teach them that truth *with sincerity* (i.e., as something really *believed* by the teacher or textbook writer, and not merely as a mandatory "motherhood" statement to give arrogant, know-it-all scientists a surface patina of humility) is to give students *examples* (even if not taught in great depth) of people who disagree with the *current* consensus. Otherwise, the take-home message is hypocritical, and amounts to: "Science is an ever-changing, self-correcting field -- BUT you can take it from us, the textbook writers, that in *this* area no self-correction will ever by necessary, and that is why we are justified in suppressing not only the views but even the names of Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. We don't want you to know even where to *look* for alternatives to what we are teaching you. There is no possibility that *those* views will ever be vindicated, and no possibility that the view your are being taught (the view of Coyne, etc.) will ever be overthrown. So just trust us, we are teaching you reliable stuff about evolution, and you don't need to think critically about it -- just learn it." Second, I did not say *simple* mutation, but "random" mutation, which can include non-simple changes. Stop putting words in my mouth. Third, in answer to your question, population genetics in itself cannot demonstrate that random mutations filtered by natural selection (even with "drift" thrown in) are enough to create radically new body plans. Neo-Darwinism, however, asserts exactly that. And that is precisely what an increasing number of talented young and mid-career evolutionary biologists dispute. But you want their views never to reach student ears. Your view of science education is ideological and totalitarian. To repeat: Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Timaeus

Curly: If the students have enough basic biology to be taught neo-Darwinism (which is what they are taught now), they have enough basic biology to be taught some of the criticisms of neo-Darwinism. If you can teach the students: "Richard Dawkins believes that random mutations, filtered by natural selection, can turn a hippo into a whale in 9 million years, you can also teach them "Stuart Newman does not believe that random mutations, filtered by natural selection, can turn a hippo into a whale in 9 million years." Of course, one would explain *why* the two scientists in question hold their respective views. That would be the whole point of the exercise -- to show students how scientific disagreements are expressed and debated. Not to settle the question, but simply to make them aware of the scientific process. There is your example. I could provided hundreds of the same type. But one should be adequate. How many total minutes of class time, do you suppose, would it take to express the disagreement I've given in my example? 5 minutes might be enough! But even if it took 20 minutes, can 20 minutes not be spared out of an entire biology course to give students an idea of the range of opinion within a scientific field? The real reason for suppressing such disagreements has nothing to do with shortage of time. The real reason is neo-Darwinian bullying. Timaeus

Too much happened in too little a time period. That’s the point. The problem isn’t the “survival of the fittest,” but the “arrival of the fittest.”

Nobody knows at present what genetic modifications made the valve possible. And until we don't know, you can't claim that "too much happened". Would a point mutation in a regulatory region be "too much", for example? By the way, the valve immediately falsifies BA77's argument from another thread that even an advantageous feature can't be fixed in an entire population quickly. In those lizards it happened very quickly. Piotr

If there were an answer to this, wd400 would have provided it. He hasn’t.

To get an answer you'd have to ask a (well posed) question. To get the wating time for a mutation you'd need know the type of mutation, the rate for that type of mutation, the effective population size of the population and the census population size (since both matter for selection). The series of mistakes you've made in referring to this paper suggests you have no idea about any of those.. wd400

Among many mechanisms, there’s substitution, indels, changes in copy number, translocation, inversion, and chromosome rearrangements.

Which of those mechanisms are blind watchmaker mechanisms and how did you determine that? Joe

Piotr: Just ran across this open page:

I beg your pardon? In a tiny population an innovation can be fixed very quickly, even by drift alone, but especially if it confers any kind of advantage.

Fixation can occur quickly. But the 'mutation' that's supposed to happen will take forever to happen. Neutral drift is subject to the exact same problem, with the further problem of 'fixing' slower. If there were an answer to this, wd400 would have provided it. He hasn't. As to the quote, this is from a paper quoting an experiment that took place in 1971. The original paper appears to have been written in 1982. There were a series of experiments that took place. The quote you're using may, or may not apply to what we're talking about. I'm not going to take the time to sort it out. If it is true that there was another species already on the island, matters very little to the underlying genetics. Too much happened in too little a time period. That's the point. The problem isn't the "survival of the fittest," but the "arrival of the fittest." PaV

Ok Timaeus, I like your idea of teachers spending some time on current unanswered questions in the sciences to get students thinking, instead of just cramming as much info in knowing only a small fraction will stick. Now the problem is that when you say I should go read certain authors to hear about their version of evolution. I'll be able to understand it, but the question is: can it be taught to high school students who have only a very basic understanding of biology? That is why I originally asked for a specific biological example of what you would add to the curriculum. Curly Howard

Timaeus: You are trying to convince *me* of something. Actually, we're pointing out to the reader why your requirements are not requirements of science. Timaeus: To convince *me* that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can do what you say they can do, you will have to provide stepwise descriptions. As we already stated, simple mutation and selection are not sufficient to explain mammalian diversity. Timaeus: The belief that mesonychids were ancestral to whales was derived from teeth etc., not molecular evidence. And that tenuous fossil evidence was wrong. There was a contradiction between the fossil evidence and the molecular evidence. The molecular evidence was confirmed by new fossil discoveries. Hence, there are two lines of evidence that point to evolution of whales from artiodactyls. Timaeus: Neo-Darwinism employs population genetics, but makes assertions that go beyond what population genetics can establish. What assertions are those? Zachriel

Zachriel: You are trying to convince *me* of something. Therefore, what is important is what is required by *me*, not what is required by *you*. To convince *me* that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can do what you say they can do, you will have to provide stepwise descriptions. Otherwise, I will continue to use the word "speculative." And if the word offends you, I assure you I take the greatest pleasure in offending you, even if -- no, *especially if* -- you are a full-time evolutionary biologist. Your statement about molecular evidence predating fossil evidence is sheer assertion, at least in relation to my example. The belief that mesonychids were ancestral to whales was derived from teeth etc., not molecular evidence. Neo-Darwinism employs population genetics, but makes assertions that go beyond what population genetics can establish. It is those assertions, not population genetics per se, which I call speculative, and will continue to call speculative, until you give me the stepwise accounts. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. If you want more of the same, keep replying. Timaeus

Timaeus: “Unless you can give *a fair number* of the *hypothetical* (I won’t insist on actual) steps at the genetic/molecular level, and relate those to corresponding phenotypical changes, your account of the mechanism is *largely* speculative.” That still isn't required. We have independent evidence of genetic change, which in this case includes everything from simple mutation to chromosome rearrangements, we have evidence of how those genetic changes cause changes in phenotype, and we have evidence of the transition molecular and fossil, then that is evidence supporting the hypothesis, even if we can't determine the exact history of those genetic changes in a particular lineage. Timaeus: What I meant by “chronology” was that the evolutionary theorists of the 1950s cannot possibly have read articles written in the late 1990s. Nonetheless, the molecular date predicted the fossil evidence, contrary to your statement that the only evidence was fossil evidence. Instead, we have independent lines of evidence supporting the transition. It is this type of confirmation, from molecules in living organisms to rocks that provides scientific support. This is contrary to your insistent that only a particular type of evidence is suitable. Timaeus: As for your last point, neo-Darwinism is just as much a “modern speculation” as the writings of the biologists I mentioned. No. Neodarwinism, meaning here population genetics, is strongly supported, and an important mechanism of evolutionary change. Timaeus: But by the way, at least *some* modern speculations *should* be taught, in physics, and in all sciences, if they come from *serious practitioners in the field*. Again, they primarily teach Newtonian Mechanics, and usually only touch on Relativity, even though Relativity is a century old. Teaching the controversy in physics would not be productive for an introductory course on physics. Mung: point mutations are not sufficient to explain anything. That is incorrect. There is substantial evidence of evolution by point mutation. Mung: What other mechanisms are there that are sufficient to explain mammalian diversity? Among many mechanisms, there's substitution, indels, changes in copy number, translocation, inversion, and chromosome rearrangements. There's natural selection, of course. There are mechanisms of speciation, such as allopatry. Then there is contingency, such as the occasional cosmic impact. Zachriel

Zachriel:

No one thinks that point mutations are sufficient to explain mammalian diversity, if that is what you mean.

By extension, point mutations are not sufficient to explain anything. Or, if you're simple minded, point mutations are sufficient to explain what point mutations are sufficient to explain. What other mechanisms are there that are sufficient to explain mammalian diversity? How can you possibly know? Mung

Zachriel: Originally my term here was "speculative" not "only speculative." However, I see that in one later post I said "only speculative." Fine; I will rephrase: "Unless you can give *a fair number* of the *hypothetical* (I won't insist on actual) steps at the genetic/molecular level, and relate those to corresponding phenotypical changes, your account of the mechanism is *largely* speculative." What I meant by "chronology" was that the evolutionary theorists of the 1950s cannot possibly have read articles written in the late 1990s. (And by the way, in the 1950s, the data used was *almost entirely* the fossil data, comparative anatomy, and geographical distribution. Not nearly enough was known about molecular biology then to make much use of it.) As for your last point, neo-Darwinism is just as much a "modern speculation" as the writings of the biologists I mentioned. All of the theorists are in the game of *postulating hypothetical mechanisms that could account for evolutionary change*. You have no *principled* reason for excluding from consideration the mechanisms proposed by the people I've mentioned. To exclude them merely because they were proposed in 1995 or 2005 rather than 1935 or 1945 or 1955 is idiotic. They are just as theoretically plausible as, and in many cases more empirically sound than, the neo-Darwinian speculations they are opposing. You just don't like them. But by the way, at least *some* modern speculations *should* be taught, in physics, and in all sciences, if they come from *serious practitioners in the field*. I don't say they should be taught in depth, but they should be mentioned. Any *good* science teacher, any science teacher who is more than a wind-up mechanical doll spitting out prescribed curriculum, but actually an *educator*, will from time to time mention, if only as a tag-end to a lesson to interest some of the keener students, some new development in science which might catch their fancy. So if a science teacher, having taught a lesson on "the universe," throws in some remarks about a Harvard professor and a Stanford professor who have speculated about multiple universes, indicating that this is a speculation that is out there, not confirmed, but an interesting avenue for future research, not only is no harm done to a high school student; quite the contrary, that remark might be the spark that launches the career of the next Hawking or Einstein. The insistence that you and Curly seem to have, on hiring science teachers who are automatons who never exercise any pedagogical judgment, never do anything to spark student interest, and on using textbooks that teach only the "standard" views and never mention any loose ends or open questions, is revolting to me. Whatever it is that you and Curly are pushing, it isn't science; it's some form of indoctrination. I might have expected such a model of teaching (science instruction as spoon-feeding) to come from scientists in Communist China or Stalin's Russia; that it comes from Americans is shocking. Timaeus

Timaeus: I did not say that molecular biology had provided no “support” for evolutionary accounts. What you claimed was that unless we can provide a step-by-step scenario, then the mechanism is only speculative. That is not correct. It's not only speculation if we have supporting evidence. Timaeus: You continue, like almost all the critics here, to confuse evidence for common descent with evidence for a particular mechanism, e.g., the neo-Darwinian. No one thinks that point mutations are sufficient to explain mammalian diversity, if that is what you mean. Timaeus: Finally, your chronology is a bit out of whack, to say the least. Evolutionary theorists were arguing, based not on molecular evidence but on anatomical evidence, that whales descended from Mesonychids (currently regarded by many as ancestral to hippos and other artiodactyls), as far back as the 1950s. No. Our chronology is obviously correct. Paleontologists, based on very tenuous data, though that whales descended from primitive Mesonychids. It was the molecular data which predicted the fossil data. You suggested the only data was the fossil data, when that is far from the fact of the matter. Timaeus: The reason that relativity is taught later than Newtonian physics is not because relativity is less true, or more speculative, or more dubious, than Newtonian physics; it’s because it requires greater sophistication and training to grasp than Newtonian physics. But modern speculations are generally not taught, even though physics is in a great deal of flux. Only established physics are taught in introductory classes. Similarly in biology. Zachriel

Zachriel: I did not say that molecular biology had provided no "support" for evolutionary accounts. The presence of a certain gene or protein in two creatures far apart in time may "support" a hypothesis in the sense of "being compatible with" the hypothesis. I was asking for more than that. What I wrote was: "utterly lacking in a detailed account of the alleged molecular-genetic changes and their corresponding phenotypical changes" So if you hypothesize that there were, say, 500 significant phenotypical changes between the putative artiodactyl ancestor and the whale, you should be able to give a molecular-genetic account running in parallel to the morphological account, with about 500 suggested molecular/genetic changes. If you really understand the mechanism you are appealing to, this should be no problem. But of course, if you have only a vague understanding of the mechanism, e.g., "Given millions of years, lots of small changes add up," then you won't be able to specify anything. You continue, like almost all the critics here, to confuse evidence for common descent with evidence for a particular mechanism, e.g., the neo-Darwinian. The molecular evidence you refer to supports common descent; it does not necessarily follow that the Darwinian mechanism was the main mechanism involved in the transformations. The molecular evidence would be there even if neo-Darwinism is largely wrong about evolutionary mechanisms and some other modern account (e.g., that of Newman or Wagner) is largely correct. As long as you keep muddling common descent with mechanism, you will be driving around in circles, never getting anywhere in these discussions. Again and again I have to tell you clowns that ID is not anti-evolutionary per se. There are plenty of ID proponents who accept "evolution": Behe, Denton, Torley, O'Leary (last I heard, anyway) and many others. The ID criticism is aimed at the neo-Darwinian mechanism. (Or, if at other proposed mechanisms, those mechanisms which are equally "stochastic," as they say in fashionable jargon.) Thus, posting endless arguments for common descent doesn't address the ID challenge. Of course, some ID proponents, in addition to being ID proponents, are *also* creationists; and they will be against common descent itself. But as I've repeated here -- not often enough, apparently, maybe only a million times -- I'm not a creationist and I'm not arguing against common descent per se. Finally, your chronology is a bit out of whack, to say the least. Evolutionary theorists were arguing, based not on molecular evidence but on anatomical evidence, that whales descended from Mesonychids (currently regarded by many as ancestral to hippos and other artiodactyls), as far back as the 1950s. Yet note that all but one of your "predictions" from molecular data are from the 1990s. Neo-Darwinians had already committed themselves on whale evolution long before that. It wasn't primarily molecular evidence that inspired their evolutionary trees. Your justification for wanting to exclude alternate views of evolutionary mechanisms from high school science classes, based on your physics analogy, is unacceptable. The reason that relativity is taught later than Newtonian physics is not because relativity is less true, or more speculative, or more dubious, than Newtonian physics; it's because it requires greater sophistication and training to grasp than Newtonian physics. This is not the case regarding the evolutionary theories that I'm discussing. The evolutionary theories I'm discussing don't require any more biological training to grasp than the theories of Coyne, Dawkins and Miller do; there is no reason of *intellectual difficulty* to postpone their teaching until later. The reason they are excluded is purely political: the neo-Darwinians have had their amour propre badly wounded by the past 25 or 30 years of evolutionary theory, and they cannot hold out much longer in the academy proper; but because textbooks tend to be several years behind in the science they present, the Darwinians, as long as they can continue to write the textbooks (and the curriculum), can sustain themselves at the high school level even as the university slips away from them. It's no accident that one of the writers of a textbook that figured big in the discussions around the Dover trial was Ken Miller, as doctrinaire a neo-Darwinian as you are ever likely to find (after Dawkins). Give it up, Zachriel. Your partisanship is quite obvious to everyone here. All of here eat, drink, and breathe books and articles on evolution; we know the positions of the various writers, and we know the politics of these debates. You can't conceal your biases with a patina of objectivity. You resent Shapiro and anyone else who criticizes your beloved neo-Darwinism, and you don't want the views of any of those people to reach high school students in any form. You are so resentful you would try to block them from appearing even in a deprecatory footnote. Well, your petty partisan academic resentments don't deserve any public consideration in the question of high school curriculum. If you want to keep defending a dying paradigm at the university level, go to it; but don't try to hold back bright young high school students from gaining a broader perspective on the subject matter. Timaeus

There aren't any known mechanisms that can produce the changes required in order to get a whale from a land mammal. The evidence supports whales giving rise to whales. Joe

Timaeus: You take me to task for not being specific enough with references to the primary literature that support Shapiro, and then, at the end, you dump a claim on me about molecular data and fossils without explaining *which* fossils and *which* evolutionary transitions you are talking about, and without telling me the source (book? periodical?) of the particular claims you are making. Your claim about whale evolution concerned "utter lack" of molecular support when it was the molecular evidence that predicted the fossil evidence. In any case, we're more than happy to support our claim.

Boyden & Gemeroy, The relative position of the Cetacea among the orders of Mammalia as indicated by precipitin tests, Zoologica, New York Zoological Society 1950. Gatesy et al., Evidence from milk casein genes that cetaceans are close relatives of hippopotamid artiodactyls, Molecular Biology and Evolution 1996. Shimamura et al., Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates, Nature 1997. Ursing & Arnason, Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus-whale clade, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 1998. Gingerich et al., Origin of whales from early artiodactyls: hands and feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan, Science 2001.

So, the fossil data was a late-comer and acted as independent confirmation. Timaeus: If your purported causal mechanism cannot show even hypothetical steps between one form and another quite different form, then the causal mechanism you propose is only speculative. Whales transition is supported by molecular evidence, and more recently by fossil evidence. Timaeus: You have to demonstrate that the neo-Darwinian mechanism by which finch beaks are elongated is fully adequate to change an artiodactyl into a whale; and you have not demonstrated that. No one is claiming to know all the details of the molecular evolution of whales. Timaeus: Further, many competent evolutionary biologists deny that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of microevolution in the way that both Darwin and the neo-Darwinists imagine. The evidence supports incremental change. Timaeus: The job of an educational system is to represent the science as it is found today; and today, whether you like it or not, evolutionary theory is in great flux, with fundamental debate over mechanisms and their relative weight. So is the theory of gravity, but introductory courses in physics generally teach Newtonian mechanics. If they touch on non-Newtonian mechanics, they might mention century-old General Relativity, but probably not the various speculations that are current in physics. Zachriel

Zachriel: You take me to task for not being specific enough with references to the primary literature that support Shapiro, and then, at the end, you dump a claim on me about molecular data and fossils without explaining *which* fossils and *which* evolutionary transitions you are talking about, and without telling me the source (book? periodical?) of the particular claims you are making. How about applying the same standard to yourself that you do to me? I don't need your lectures on "the scientific method"; it is likely I've read more of Kuhn, Feyerabend, Burtt, Descartes, Bacon, Galileo, Darwin, etc. than you have. But I wasn't speaking about "the scientific method"; I was speaking about speculation as opposed to empirical demonstration. If your purported causal mechanism cannot show even hypothetical steps between one form and another quite different form, then the causal mechanism you propose is only speculative. You have to demonstrate that the neo-Darwinian mechanism by which finch beaks are elongated is fully adequate to change an artiodactyl into a whale; and you have not demonstrated that. Further, many competent evolutionary biologists deny that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of microevolution in the way that both Darwin and the neo-Darwinists imagine. This denial is what high school students need to be made aware of. I gave you page references where you can find many of Shapiro's examples regarding natural genetic engineering. I told you that the links to the original data are on his website. If you are too lazy to look them up, don't blame me, and don't blame Shapiro. It's nice to hear that biology students are taught that "even strongly supported theories are modified or discarded over time." That should, in principle, make them very wary of claims in any field that "the science is settled" and everyone has to shut up and defer to "the experts." I like that! So can we expect that these graduates of your marvelous ninth-grade biology program, which you defend so uncritically, will be duly critical of the AGW advocates, who claim that "the science is in" and that everyone has to shut up and stop debating the degree of human influence on greenhouse gases and global warming? I haven't yet seen this wave of critical young minds of which you are speaking. Indeed, what I see is that science grads are taught to defer to expert consensus by an almost Pavlovian reflex, and to scorn the maverick or independent thinker who questions the consensus. Finally, you impute to me support for the phrase "teach the controversy." The phrase is not mine. It means -- as you should know if you follow the public discussions at all -- teach the controversy *over whether or not evolution even happened*. I have not asked for the biology curriculum to teach any controversy over whether or not evolution happened. I have asked for it to make students more aware about the controversy over mechanisms. So you are either using the phrase incorrectly, ignorant of what it means, or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent my position -- which you know is not anti-evolution -- to readers here. It's quite clear to me that you -- and whether you are a third-rate biology prof teaching at a third-rate satellite campus like (to name one at random) the University of Minnesota at Morris, or just some computer science geek who reads Scientific American a lot and thinks he knows all about evolution from that, I don't know, and don't care -- dislike Shapiro and anyone else who challenges what you deem to be the "mainstream" account of evolutionary biology. You therefore don't want these people even mentioned in the schools. But your prejudices shouldn't determine the biology program. The job of an educational system is to represent the science as it is found today; and today, whether you like it or not, evolutionary theory is in great flux, with fundamental debate over mechanisms and their relative weight. To conceal this from high school students is to give them an overly polished and artificial representation of what science is all about. Because of your prejudice in favor of the status quo, you are willing to see the necessary concealments performed in the high school biology curriculum (just as some climatologists are quite willing to conceal temperature data to get the public to see things their way); I want a more honest presentation of science, uncertainties and all. I have the greatest respect for the scientific enterprise when it is properly carried out. I don't have respect for those who want to "package" science so neatly that its essentially provisional nature is masked, and who want to use the school curriculum (or the courtrooms of the nation) as a propaganda tool to enforce adherence to one particular theory of evolutionary mechanism, or one particular theory of climate change, or one particular theory of anything. Timaeus

Zachriel again tells us why unguided evolution is not science and should not be taught as such:

What is required in science are testable entailments.

Zachriel never does say what unguided evolution's testable entailments are. Most likely because there aren't any but Zachriel likes to sound like it knows what it is talking about.

Actually, it was the molecular data (e.g. precipitin 1950, casein in 1996, retroposons 1997, mitochondria in 1998) that predicted the fossils (2001).

Yes, the molecular data that supports a common design. Well done. Joe

Curly: I gave you a specific example! I said that, *in addition to* teaching the view that "random mutations plus natural selection" is the main motor of evolution, with other mechanisms being very much ancillary, it should also be mentioned that a number of very competent evolutionary theorists think that "random mutations plus natural selection" explains only a small part of evolution and has been a misleading path. I named you names: Shapiro, Newman, Wagner. All you have to do now is go and read a bit about their evolutionary theory, and you will know what I want to add to the curriculum. No large dose of anything in ninth-grade biology; just a few balancing statements. In upper years of biology, a more extensive coverage of the debates. Timaeus

Timaeus: I’ve now indicated where they can be found. I’ve therefore met your repeated demand. So I’m off the hook. The point of naming one was to discuss whether it met the definition of "engineering". You've shown no interest in such a discussion, but want to "teach the controversy" to children anyway. Timaeus: I’m asking only for a line or two, a footnote or two, a broad allusion to a loyal opposition within evolutionary biology. Introductory biology usually includes an historical component so students can see how science progresses, how even strongly supported theories are modified or discarded over time. Timaeus: Shapiro cites many research articles which show that at least some unicellular creatures have the capacity to alter their own genomes within their own lifetimes. We already addressed one of those examples, and it doesn't support "engineering". Timaeus: In other words, the “speculative” part is focused on “became a whale *through random mutations and natural selection*.” If you can provide me with the list of selectable steps, at the molecular-genetic level, by which the putative hippo-like ancestor became the whale, you are welcome to provide it. If you cannot provide it, your claim is speculative, as opposed to empirical. The scientific method doesn't require listing every step. What is required in science are testable entailments. For example, Timaeus: It’s one of those great examples of Darwinian storytelling with a few fossils that make it superficially plausible, but as usual utterly lacking in a detailed account of the alleged molecular-genetic changes and their corresponding phenotypical changes. Actually, it was the molecular data (e.g. precipitin 1950, casein in 1996, retroposons 1997, mitochondria in 1998) that predicted the fossils (2001). Zachriel

Tell the students this:

Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

Also tell them that there aren't any known cases of microevolution that can be extrapolated into macroevolution. You know, tell them the truth. Joe

No, we wanted you to pick an example with citation so that we could examine together whether it supported the concept of “engineering”.

Lenski's lab- E coli engineering the ability to utilize citrate in an O2 rich environment. Joe

Teach biology in biology class. There is plenty to learn without involving the pseudo-science of evolutionism. Joe

Zachriel:

Common descent is strongly supported,

Humans giving rise to humans = common descent and it is well supported.

and natural selection is still considered a fundamental mechanism of adaptation.

Yet no one can test the claim to see if it is such a mechanism. Joe

Jeez Timaeus, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I just am asking for a specific example of what you think should be put into the curriculum that isn't in there now. Curly Howard

Curly: If you read charitably and with a view to context -- i.e., if you observe the whole sequence of previous posts (which it is evident that you have read, based on your replies to my statements to Zachriel), you will note that I carefully said "hippo-like" animal when I initially introduced the example, and you will therefore allow that "hippo" was a quickie shorthand form, not an error on my part. I.e., if you are arguing in good faith, rather than trying to score a petty verbal victory, you will read me in the light of what I am evidently mean, rather than trying to "catch me out" on a shorthand form used purely for typing convenience (given that the full and proper expression had been used previously). In fact standard neo-Darwinian theory these days claims that a primitive artiodactyl (a hippo-like artiodactyl being currently favored over a deer-like artiodactyl, though both options have their champions) was the ancestor of our whales, and that the artiodactyl body was gradually transformed into a whale body by a series of random mutations which were then "selected for" by an increasingly aquatic environment. It's one of those great examples of Darwinian storytelling with a few fossils that make it superficially plausible, but as usual utterly lacking in a detailed account of the alleged molecular-genetic changes and their corresponding phenotypical changes. Re your last question, you are not reading carefully. I said that I did not want to add an alternative "along with evolution" (your phrase, not mine) to the biology curriculum. That is, I did not want to add something *in addition to evolution* which was not itself evolution (e.g., direct miraculous creation) as an alternative to "evolution" for science students to consider. I made clear that I was talking about adding something not "along with evolution" but "within the bounds of evolution" (i.e., alternative explanations of evolutionary mechanism). The alternative views I wanted were the views of various evolutionary theorists not belonging to the Darwinian camp. That is, I would like the views of Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. to be mentioned -- not as "the truth" about how evolution works, but as possible alternate explanations for evolution, coming from evolutionary biologists who are *every bit as professionally competent, even by atheist secular humanist standards*, as Coyne, Dawkins, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, etc. You should know, by the way -- I'm guessing you don't -- that Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, Margulis, etc. -- all the people I have named, are religious unbelievers -- agnostics or atheists; so there is no possible way you can accuse me of trying to slip the views of Christian scientists into the curriculum. Also, none of them is a supporter of ID, so you cannot accuse me of trying to slip ID into the curriculum, either. Just forestalling in advance any time-wasting objections ... Timaeus

Well it's a good thing that nobody is making the claim that a hippo turned into a whale...by any mechanism. "I'm not asking for anything to be put into the curriculum" "I'm just asking for different views to be put into the curriculum" Do you see what I mean now? Give me what you think is the best, specific example of what you think should e added to the curriculum. Curly Howard

Curly: All science contains elements of speculation and elements of empiricism. It is not hard, in most cases, to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. We know a good deal about how protein synthesis works inside a cell. That knowledge is not merely speculative (even if some of the steps, not yet completely known to us, may at the moment be filled in by speculation); the knowledge is for the most part experimentally confirmed. On the other hand, that a hippo turned into a whale *by random mutations plus natural selection* is not experimentally confirmed; indeed, even on the theoretical level it is nowhere near agreed upon by all top-flight evolutionary biologists that the Darwinian mechanism is an adequate explanation of what happened. I have no idea what your last sentence is asking. I didn't ask for anything to be put in the curriculum "along with evolution." Have you not been listening to what I've said to about four different people here, that I'm not contesting "evolution" but merely asking that different views on the mechanism of evolution be recorded in the high school curriculum? Do you think I'm arguing for "creationism" against "evolution," even though I've repeatedly stated here that I'm not? And if that's not what you think, your last request makes no sense at all. Timaeus

Zachriel (166): Please note that I was speaking of a package deal, not merely "common descent," when I wrote: "for example, that a hippo-like animal became a whale through random mutations and natural selection is a speculation." In other words, the "speculative" part is focused on "became a whale *through random mutations and natural selection*." If you can provide me with the list of selectable steps, at the molecular-genetic level, by which the putative hippo-like ancestor became the whale, you are welcome to provide it. If you cannot provide it, your claim is speculative, as opposed to empirical. That does not make your claim wrong; I am merely giving it the correct epistemological classification. The point is that you want the speculation regarding mechanisms that you happen to like -- random mutations filtered by natural selection, with maybe a dash of "drift" and a teaspoonful of "endosymbiosis" thrown in -- taught in the public schools by law as the correct factual account of the origin of species; and you want the speculations you don't like -- e.g., natural genetic engineering, or structuralist explanations -- kept out of the public schools. But nobody gave an pseudonymous internet commentator named "Zachriel," who is not even sure if he is one human being, or many, the right to arbitrate which theories of evolution are worthy of consideration and which aren't. There is no reason at all why your opinion should count more than mine regarding the teaching of evolution in the schools. Or do you have some stellar record of achievement in this field which gives your views more weight than mine? If so, do tell us about your peer-reviewed scientific research and what positions you hold in the academic world of evolutionary biology, that puts you in a position to render judgment on all the evolutionary biologists of the world, and to say which of their views are worthy of being summarized in high school biology texts, and which don't deserve even a footnote. I wait with bated breath for you to pull aside the curtain, and shout: "Ta-daaaaa! Guess what? I'm actually Francisco Ayala!" Or "I'm actually Sean Carroll!" Or "I'm actually Simon Conway Morris!" Timaeus

Unfortunately no, it was the wrong phrase to use. This is because, as you said, all fields of inquiry are speculative to some degree. So distinguishing some as empirical and some as speculative is pretty much useless. All science is empirical. And again, nothing taught in high school biology is in disagreement with the experts. Microevolution is taught with respect to mutation/selection and macroevolution is taught by looking at lineages etc. If you would, give me what you think is the single most important biological example of something that should be put into the curriculum along with evolution. Curly Howard

Thanks, Curly. I make no apology for the use of the phrase "speculative biology"; it was exactly the right phrase. If you are offended, well, that is your problem, not mine. If the discussion is pointless it is because Zachriel is a dogmatist. You can't have a discussion where one person wants to have a wide-open Socratic discussion regarding what is true, and the other person has planted his feet on "consensus science" or "the majority view" or the like. I regard every conclusion in every field, including history, literary criticism, philosophy, theology, biology, physics, etc., as at least potentially "on the table" for discussion. I also see *every* academic discipline as having a speculative component. Within the natural sciences, the greatest flights of speculation occur in cosmology and evolutionary biology. And I don't object to speculation per se; it's an important component of scientific investigation. I object to the representation of speculation (which includes extrapolation where we cannot be sure of its legitimacy) as on the same level as results that have been confirmed by repeated experiment and observation. The structure of DNA has now been confirmed experimentally many times over. Its role in making proteins has also been confirmed in that way. That hippo-like animals were turned into whales *via random mutations and natural selection* (and it's the "via" part of the sentence that I'm stressing here, not the first part) is speculation -- speculation based on the alleged competence of the proposed mechanism to perform the task assigned to it. The changes I want to see in the textbooks and evolutionary biology unit are minimal. I simply want *a short notice* of the views of some major researchers such as Shapiro, Newman and Wagner included in descriptions of "modern evolutionary theory." Not to include mention of dissenting views is to conceal important information from students. As I explained to Zachriel above, this is not a question of merely mentioning one or two more mechanisms. It's a demand that it be noted that some evolutionary theorists think that the mainstream view is seriously misleading. I'm not asking the textbook to *side* with the dissenters; I'm not even asking it to give "equal time" to the dissenters; I'm merely asking that it record the existence of their objections. It can stress that they hold a minority view if it wants to. But it should not conceal their existence from young minds. The curriculum and textbooks should not falsify the actual state of the field, which is in flux at the moment. I'm being entirely reasonable here; my request is minimal, almost token, regarding the mention of Shapiro etc. Anyone who would deny my request is being hard-core neo-Darwinian doctrinaire, reflexively defensive, and thin-skinned due to a wounded neo-Darwinian amour propre. Timaeus

Zachriel (163): You asked me for the references that were provided by Shapiro to support natural genome engineering. I've now indicated where they can be found. I've therefore met your repeated demand. So I'm off the hook. The fact that you aren't persuaded by Shapiro's discussion or his references (which you don't appear to have checked in the primary literature yet, but never mind that) is not my problem. It's a problem between you and Shapiro. You know where he works; write to him and voice your criticism. My point was never that Shapiro was right and everyone else was wrong, and I certainly never said that his views should be taught in high school science instead of the "mainstream" view. My point was that he is a full-time evolutionary biology at a major American research institution (University of Chicago) and he has some major objections to evolutionary theory as frequently presented, i.e., as heavily neo-Darwinian. Other major players in evolutionary biology who have voiced objections -- though sometimes objections different from those of Shapiro -- to the primarily neo-Darwinian thrust of evolutionary theory include Gunter Wagner and Stuart Newman. Margulis in her day had her own objections. When high school curriculum is drawn up, it is understandable that the "mainstream" view will receive the lion's share of the attention; I have not objected to that. I have objected to *complete silence regarding dissenting views*. That is not how science should be taught, not even at the high school level. *Some* indication of inner tensions within evolutionary theory should be given -- even if only a single footnote, in small print at the bottom of the page, with the qualification that the objections represent a minority view. This is not only in the interest of academic fairness; it is exactly the sort of thing that will be noticed by the *bright* high school student, who reads carefully and thinks beyond the surface level. And one wants to throw in little tidbits to encourage the brighter student to think that science is worth pursuing because there are lively and significant debates going on within it. You continue to misrepresent my point as merely a complaint that "other mechanisms" aren't allowed alongside neo-Darwinian mechanisms, and point to the fact that other mechanisms get mentioned now and then as proof that the mainstream view is well-balanced and sound. But that is not my point. My point is that neo-Darwinian theory, according to these people I've named, cannot be made right merely by adding in a few other mechanisms (drift, mechanisms uncovered by evo-devo, etc.); according to these people, it is not the right central mechanism in the first place. Building on it is like building a house on sand. None of these people, of course, deny that mutations occur, that selection occurs, etc. Their point is that the mutation-then-selection model is nowhere near adequate -- not even with "patches" from other incidental mechanisms thrown in -- as a *general* explanation for the origin of radically new organismal forms. Most science textbook writers, however, still believe that it is. Dissent on this point is therefore not mentioned in their textbooks. But it should be. I'm asking only for a line or two, a footnote or two, a broad allusion to a loyal opposition within evolutionary biology. I'm not asking a high school textbook to endorse Shapiro's own views of how evolution happens. I'm merely asking that the textbooks -- and the curriculum generally -- acknowledge the existence of *a growing number* of very competent evolutionary biologists who think that the neo-Darwinian approach has been given far too much emphasis and that other factors are not only *present* in evolution, but may be considerably more important. If the view of Mayr etc. gets 10 pages of the curriculum, I think the dissenters deserve a paragraph. And they don't get even that. Regarding specifics, however, Shapiro cites many research articles which show that at least some unicellular creatures have the capacity to alter their own genomes within their own lifetimes. That means that acquired characteristics can be inherited. And while this knowledge is not new to researchers in some branches of biology, Shapiro's point is that the implications of this research have for several decades not been allowed to have an effect on mainstream evolutionary biology -- because of the neo-Darwinian guardians of the field. If you want to challenge the quality of the studies that Shapiro cites, then go ahead. Write to Shapiro and tell him why his mentor Barbara McClintock didn't know what the heck she was doing, that she was an incompetent biologist. Tell him that all those research articles, by her students and by others, were badly researched or badly written. See what he replies. It's easy to pick on me; the real test of your biological mettle will be shown when you go toe-to-toe with Shapiro, not through the intermediary of a nobody like me, but face-to-face. Do you have the courage to write to him and challenge him? If so -- do it! And let us all know the result! Timaeus

Timaeus, I object to your use of the phrase "speculative biology," but that's another animal altogether. My understanding is that microevolution is taught with a focus on mutations and selection, while macroevolution is taught with a focus on lineages/descent at the high school level. There is debate among scientists in every field. The changes you want are largely unnecessary and unfounded. You are right, this is a pretty pointless discussion I guess. Curly Howard

Timaeus: Re your last sentence: no, *you* are the one who wants students to be taught about speculations in biology: for example, that a hippo-like animal became a whale through random mutations and natural selection is a speculation. Common descent is strongly supported, and natural selection is still considered a fundamental mechanism of adaptation. Most textbooks discuss various mechanisms of evolution. Zachriel

Zachriel (163): Re your last sentence: no, *you* are the one who wants students to be taught about speculations in biology: for example, that a hippo-like animal became a whale through random mutations and natural selection is a speculation. But you are inconsistent; you want *that* speculation taught, but not *other* speculations which are not congenial to your outlook. You want the speculations of Dawkins and Miller to be taught, but not the speculations of Shapiro and Newman. You're narrow-minded, and you've swallowed "standard" evolutionary theory (meaning neo-Darwinism, modified only very slightly, with some very grudging concessions to other models) uncritically. And you want the evolutionary theory that *you* accept to be the one force-fed to ninth-grade students by the authority of the state. Well, I intend to keep standing in your way. If you don't like it, tough. There is not a thing you can do about it. And do drop your pretentious "we" -- so utterly silly. Timaeus

Curly: You are right; I did make two different points. But the points are not in contradiction. Let me align them: First, I think that physics should be taught before chemistry, and chemistry before biology. I think it is poor pedagogy to start with biology, which as a science is dependent on discoveries in physics and chemistry, while the reverse is not the case. However, I would not be against the idea of a "split" ninth-grade science with units of roughly equal size from physics, chemistry, and biology. Second, I think that basic *empirical* biology should be taught before *speculative* biology. There is a lot that is empirically known about genetics, development, cell structure, ecology, etc. These things would remain true -- because they have been empirically verified as the way living things are constituted and work -- even if we discovered tomorrow that God created the world in six days 6,000 years ago. Cells still would have metabolism, the nucleotide bases would still be CGAT, the oxygen cycle and water cycle would still be the same, osmosis and mitosis would still work the same way. Students should learn this material before learning more speculative conclusions, e.g., that random mutations plus natural selection can turn a hippo-like creature into a whale within a few million years. For this reason, it is better for evolutionary theory to be deferred to an upper year of biology. Or, if it is taught in ninth grade, it should be in the last unit of the grade, after the empirical biology has been absorbed, so that the dependence of the speculations versus the independence of the empirically known is made clear. And at least *some* mention should be made, if only in simplified and summary form, of the different schools of thought regarding evolutionary mechanism. And finally, at the end of the evolution unit in ninth grade, students should be taught: "You have learned only a very simplified notion of the evolutionary process. There is much debate among scientists about evolutionary mechanisms. For a fuller understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and of the debates among scientists who study evolution, please take Biology 304." I hope this clarifies. In any case, I'm weary of this discussion, so I don't promise to contribute again. But there is no inconsistency in my position. Whether education authorities are likely to follow my advice is another matter. There is nothing I can do about the latter. I've discharged my responsibility by giving my constructive suggestions. Timaeus

Timaeus: And my point is that Newtonian physics is normally taught first, with things like wave/particle duality, relativity and quantum physics being taught last, because they are conceptually trickier. And for the same reason basic models of evolution are usually taught, in particular, common descent and natural selection. Timaeus: The section is chock-full of detailed mechanisms of genetic engineering, accompanied by precise references to the biological literature — which is what you asked for. Most of it is old-hat, most of it is stochastic processes, and none of it supports "engineering". Timaeus: Basically you have been asking me to waste time retyping, for your benefit, what is already stated... No, we wanted you to pick an example with citation so that we could examine together whether it supported the concept of "engineering". Timaeus: What I avoided was *your* topic. Your topic entailed certain claims, such as "I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes." If you can't support that claim, then why should it be taught to beginning students in biology? Timaeus: “Simplified” should mean “presenting a simplified version of *both* the mainstream view *and* of some of the leading dissident views.” You already provided the example of not teaching wave/particle duality in lieu of standard physics. Wave-particle duality isn't controversial, but fundamental physics, yet you want beginning students to be taught about speculations in biology. Zachriel

Zachriel: I'm perfectly aware of the normal sequence of teaching in physics. And my point is that Newtonian physics is normally taught first, with things like wave/particle duality, relativity and quantum physics being taught last, because they are conceptually trickier. Similarly, there is no point teaching a myriad of possible evolutionary mechanisms in complex interplay to someone who does not yet know what a nucleotide or amino acid or protein is, who does not have a basic knowledge of ecology or has not yet learned any comparative anatomy, physiology, developmental biology, etc. Early evolutionary theorists such as Darwin had mastered such knowledge of basic biology as was available before they started speculating about evolution. In modern terms, that means adding cell biology, genetics, ecology, etc. to the "natural history" that Darwin knew. So the high school student has a lot to learn before he/she can even begin to think in a serious way about evolutionary mechanisms. Further, the first two evolutionary mechanisms that are usually taught are "random mutation" and "natural selection." Others are mentioned usually in only a cursory manner, if at all; and the student is left with the strong impression that evolution proceeds 90% due to natural selection filtering random mutations, with perhaps the odd occasional event such as endosymbiosis thrown in; but this account is wildly unlikely, and increasingly, talented evolutionary biologists (i.e., not Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Rob Pennock, or Barbara Forrest) are critical of such a model. The excuse that you are Curly are making, i.e., that in ninth grade you have to oversimplify, is bogus, because the ideas of Shapiro, Wagner, Newman, etc. aren't taught even in *upper grade* biology. The Darwinians don't want those ideas in there. And the Darwinians still have the biggest clout when it comes to curriculum. Even evo-devo, which most Darwinians will accept to a certain extent, they put in a very subordinate position to their precious RM + NS. And this is the problem, the teaching of a dated and very strained model as the main evolutionary mechanism. If you really have read the book, as you claim to have done, you will know that a very detailed account of what Shapiro means by natural genetic engineering is found on pp. 43-88. The section is chock-full of detailed mechanisms of genetic engineering, accompanied by precise references to the biological literature -- which is what you asked for. The table on pp. 84-86 gives a very precise summary. The table also indicates that the exact references to items in the table can be found in the online version of the book -- to which I already referred you. So if you doubt any particular claim Shapiro makes regarding the existence or interpretation of a mechanism, you have a straight path back to the original source. Basically you have been asking me to waste time retyping, for your benefit, what is already stated, better than I can state it, by Shapiro himself. I wouldn't retype Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory for you, or any other work in the field. Nor am I going to go on to Shapiro's web site and pick out examples, when you are quite capable of doing it yourself. I did not post thousands of words "avoiding the topic." What I avoided was *your* topic. But *my* original topic was high school science education, and Shapiro was merely an example I used of a professional evolutionary biologist who disagreed with classic neo-Darwinism. My point was not even that Shapiro was right, but merely that there existed a number of very competent evolutionary biologists who have very different views on how evolution works than the views typically presented on Panda's Thumb, in high school textbooks, on PBS specials, by the NCSE, and in Ken Miller and Francis Collins and other popular writers. My point was that it is pedagogically wrong to allow high school students to leave what is usually their only biology course with the impression that "RM + NS" is a basically adequate explanation of macroevolutionary change, with all the "other" mechanisms basically performing only minor ancillary roles, when this does not represent the range of views in the field. You have been frustrated because I want to keep talking about the topic *I* raised, and won't let you change the topic by focusing on details pertinent only to one of my examples. The question is not whether, in Zachriel's opinion (who cares about the views of Zachriel when they write science curriculum?), Shapiro or Newman etc. is a good evolutionary biologist; the question is whether these people are in fact certified evolutionary biologists with many publications and active in the field. If they are, their views should be represented -- even if only as minority views or only in passing and in footnotes -- in any general discussion of evolutionary mechanisms. Even at the ninth-grade level, where everything has to be simplified, "simplified" does not mean "representing only one view and ignoring the others." "Simplified" should mean "presenting a simplified version of *both* the mainstream view *and* of some of the leading dissident views." If you can simplify neo-Darwinism for ninth-grade students, you can simplify Shapiro, Newman, etc. for ninth-grade students. The problem here is that the neo-Darwinians don't want these other views to be mentioned at all. They want to create the illusion of an artificial solidarity in evolutionary theory. But that is just as dishonest as creating the illusion of an artificial solidarity (which nowhere near exists) in modern cosmology (which, like evolutionary theory, is constantly changing and in which there are strong disagreements among competent practitioners). The only motivation for hiding serious disagreement among theorists is to protect the view that one favors, and to propagandize the young with it. This will probably be my final comment here, since, if you don't get my point yet, you doubtless never will. By the way, I have already expressed the wish that you cease to employ the locution "we", which is entirely pompous unless you are speaking for a group, in which case I expect you to name the individuals for whom you claim to be speaking. But I suspect that by "we" you mean merely "I" -- in which case that is the word you should use, in accord with the conventions of good modern English. Timaeus

Timaeus, it doesn’t matter what grade biology is taught in, the basics of evolution is going to be part of the curriculum along with the basics of molecular/cellular biology, anatomy/physiology, genetics, ecology, etc. and there is no reason that it shouldn’t be. You’ve changed your argument (with me at least) from getting rid of evolution in 9th grade biology to apparently arguing that “biology must lead off high school science” is a bad idea. I don’t think it matters whether you teach them biology in 9th or 11th and I don’t think anyone assumes a high school student who “doesn’t like science will never have to take biology again.” Most higher education institutions that I am aware of require students to take one if not multiple science classes whether they are in music theory, law, whatever it is. Not only that but how many high school students do you think know exactly what they want to do later in life, next to none. How many even have a general idea of what they want to do? A significant fraction, sure, but how many of them will actually end up doing something within that field? Not too many. Like I said, it is the job of the educators to not only prepare students for college/the work force, but also to prepare them to make somewhat informed decision on topics they encounter later in life that may not be in their specialty. Primary/secondary education is all about teaching students the basics of the major subjects. The curriculum is not the problem. Curly Howard

Timaeus: I said all along that evolutionary theory should be taught in high school biology. I think it should be taught in more depth, not less. MIT only recommends one year of biology for most students. Despite your protestations, evolution is considered to be the central, unifying theory in biology, so students should be at least familiar with the basic models and principles, meaning it needs to be discussed in the first year introductory course. Timaeus: It doesn’t follow that it has to be taught in ninth grade, any more than wave-particle duality has to be taught in ninth grade. In physics, students usually start with Newtonian physics and conventional optics, even though it is a simplified model. Timaeus: You now claim you had read Shapiro’s book all along. No. We had to wait for the scroll to become available from the librarian ... then the scroll reader was indisposed ... Timaeus: Instead, you made me answer over and over again, knowing that I was under the impression you had not read the book and would therefore keep insisting that you read it. We had no idea that you would be so recalcitrant when asked to support your claims. That was on you. Timaeus: This is complete disrespect for me as a dialogue partner, because it shows no respect for my time. We asked politely many times for you to support your claims. You wasted your own time by refusing to engage the conversation while posting thousands of words avoiding the topic. We read the book when it became available, but even now, you neglect to discuss the specifics. Zachriel

Most of it is well-known science that has already been incorporated within evolutionary theory.

Please reference this alleged evolutionary theory so we can see what is and is not incorporated. Your word is not good enough. Joe

Zachriel: You are either seriously challenged in reading comprehension and reasoning ability, or deliberately dishonest in your representation of my argument. I never shifted argument. I said all along that evolutionary theory should be taught in high school biology. I think it should be taught in more depth, not less. I think more days should spent on it, not fewer. It doesn't follow that it has to be taught in ninth grade, any more than wave-particle duality has to be taught in ninth grade. Is my argument so hard to grasp, or are you being deliberately obtuse, to bait me? As for the rest, you've plainly been manipulating me. You now claim you had read Shapiro's book all along. You could well be lying, given how dialogically dishonest you have been all along; you might have, only just now, done a quick lookup of a single point to argue about, or you might have just in the past day or two read the book in a hurry. But supposing you had read it all along, you've deliberately concealed that fact from me, intimating otherwise (i.e., a acknowledging only having heard of some of Shapiro's ideas while suppressing any indication of having read his book). You could easily have indicated having read the book the very first time I mentioned it. Instead, you made me answer over and over again, knowing that I was under the impression you had not read the book and would therefore keep insisting that you read it. This is complete disrespect for me as a dialogue partner, because it shows no respect for my time. Had you been up front right away, had you said right away: "I have read the Shapiro book, but I cannot find any reference to natural genetic engineering, but only discussions of A on page X and B on page Y; can you help me find where he talks about natural genetic engineering?" I would have gladly conversed with you about specific passages of Shapiro. But you chose to act like a weasel rather than like a man. You've thereby used up all the benefit of the doubt I otherwise would have extended to you. I'm done. Take it up with Shapiro. He will have no problem addressing your various confusions about his meaning. Timaeus

Timaeus: As for most of the rest of your remarks, you sidestep the main point, which is that there are differences, often sharp differences, among the experts over how evolution works. I want the students to be aware that these differences exist; you don’t. Introductory classes generally teach basic models, not the latest controversies, which come and go. Timaeus: I never said that I didn’t understand Shapiro’s claims well enough to support them. I simply chose to withhold the references Zachriel wants, in order to make him procure and read Shapiro’s book if he wants to know what’s in it. Is the only place to find the information between the covers of Shapiro's book? Timaeus: The fact that Zachriel merely wants from me one or two technical references for Shapiro ... Starting with a single example, perhaps the best example you can provide, seems like a reasonable place to start. You can expand beyond that to any degree you feel necessary to make your point. Instead, you can't won't support your claims. Timaeus: Obviously if you have to cram evolutionary theory into one or two weeks of ninth grade, you will have to teach it superficially. The same would be true if you had to give ninth-grade students some notion of wave/particle duality. That’s why a good high school physics program wouldn’t teach wave/particle duality in ninth grade. And that’s why a good high school biology program wouldn’t teach evolutionary theory in ninth grade. That's hilarious. You've been arguing that students should be taught not just the basic evolutionary models, but the latest and often controversial discoveries. Now you say it shouldn't be taught at all! Timaeus: Shouldn’t Zachriel want to read a book like that ... Based on what you've written about it, absolutely not. You can't even summarize the main points of the book. In any event, we have read Shapiro's Evolution: A View From the 21st Century. Most of it is well-known science that has already been incorporated within evolutionary theory. He proposes a paradigm shift, but doesn't justify it, especially not in terms of "engineering". Rather, there are many mechanisms of variation, some undoubtedly of evolutionary advantage, but natural selection remains the primary mechanism of adaptation. But let's look at the chapter, "Revisiting the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology". The Central Dogma states that sequential information flows from nucleic acids to proteins, but not in the opposite direction. Shapiro claims that SOS mutagenesis is a phenomenon contrary to the Central Dogma, and that overthrowing the Central Dogma has shaken the intellectual foundations of molecular biology. The SOS response, a repair system activated due to damage to DNA, was discovered in 1975. How odd that the intellectual foundations of molecular biology have withstood the intervening forty years! But the SOS response, while it may introduce mutations or induce conjugation, does not reverse the direction of sequential information. Did you want to discuss some other topic in Shapiro's book? Perhaps horizontal DNA transfer, or symbiogenesis? Zachriel

Curly: Yes, evolution will be in the ninth-grade biology curriculum for as long as American educators are stuck with their unimaginative determination that biology must lead off the high school science program, and that students who don't like science will never have to take biology again. If you change those rigid assumptions, there is more room for experiment. But America is a very rigid land nowadays (unlike many earlier periods of its existence, where it was a much more experimental land, and more creative, not as inward-looking and frightened and defensive as it is today). So I'm not naive enough to think that millions of education officials are going to make any changes tomorrow based on useful suggestions. All I can do is put out my idea, and leave its outcome to fate, or providence. Timaeus

Timaeus, yes the education system needs an overhaul. The 7th/9th grade thing isn't really true. Biology learned in 7th grade is basically retaught in 9th with a little more detail. Lovely story about you and your friends, but the times are achanging. Evolution is inseparably part of the curriculum of general biology now, it is it's own scientific field, and the purpose of general biology courses is to expose students to the major fields as well as learn about the topic. It is the teachers job to prepare the student as far as knowledge goes (basic or not) and it is the students choice what they do with that knowledge. It's not a "popular" understanding of evolution. It's a "basic" understanding of evolution. And a basic understanding of all the topics in a 9th grade biology course is what a student will walk away with at best. There is no difference between teaching evolution and teaching cell theory. You can debate whether or not evolution should be in the curricula all you want, but the bottom line is it's here to stay. Curly Howard

Curly: I grant the factors you list; but beyond all those is the more general problem: the abysmally low standards not just in science but in every subject in most schools and states. It is not as if American schools became poor because they failed to emphasize evolution. American schools have steadily deteriorated for decades now, for causes that have nothing to do with how evolution is taught. And it doesn't matter if you bring in top-notch new high-school science teachers, if the students entering high school are only at sixth-grade level intellectually, because of a lousy primary educational system. Even the best teacher can't teach ninth-grade biology to students who haven't yet learned seventh-grade biology. So that puts even very good high school science teachers in the position of being remedial teachers -- a position they shouldn't be in. The system needs a boot in the rear from first grade on up; but you will never get that unless you fire all the 1960s and 1970s hippies and touchy-feelies with Ph.D.s in Education, and replace them with people who are experts in the various subjects, to retool the curriculum in everything from first grade up, making the system more subject-focused instead of touchy-feely focused. Enough on my general gripes regarding education. Now, regarding the alleged need for evolutionary theory to be taught in ninth grade: We did not study evolutionary theory in ninth-grade biology, but that did not stop many from my cohort from going on in the life sciences; one did a Ph.D. in biology and became a prof, and many others did Bachelor's degrees in biology. Others in my year did Ph.D.s in mathematics and astronomy, and a host of them became very successful engineers, with big jobs in major corporations or owning their own engineering firms. Others, in the years just ahead of and behind me, following the same biology curriculum in high school, went on to become doctors and dentists. So clearly, not having a two-week unit on evolutionary biology in ninth grade does not stop one from achieving excellence in scientific fields, including academic biology. The wild claims by the NCSE and others that if the US doesn't teach five or ten classes on evolution to ninth-grade biology students, the US will fall behind Third World countries in scientific achievement, are ludicrous. One more point: Obviously if you have to cram evolutionary theory into one or two weeks of ninth grade, you will have to teach it superficially. The same would be true if you had to give ninth-grade students some notion of wave/particle duality. That's why a good high school physics program wouldn't teach wave/particle duality in ninth grade. And that's why a good high school biology program wouldn't teach evolutionary theory in ninth grade. These things should be taught when students have reached a higher level of scientific sophistication. A merely popular understanding of evolutionary theory, picked up at age 14 and never built upon, is worse than useless. It equips students to do nothing more than take sides in culture-war bickering based on surface-level knowledge. Either a student is going to take more biology after ninth grade, or a student is not. If the student is going to take more biology after ninth grade, then evolutionary theory can be deferred while more basic material is being mastered. And if a student is never going to take biology again after ninth grade, and the best that can be taught in ninth grade is a superficial one-week or two-week survey, the student is not going to miss much by missing that unit -- especially since such superficial surveys of evolution are easily available on PBS television specials, and in various popular books on evolution (e.g., Ken Miller's) that students can read at any time. I therefore fail to see the urgency to make sure that no student gets out of ninth grade without Darwinian indoctrination. Timaeus

tabasco: I consider any book that is regarded by top people as a "game changer" to be a major book. But let's say I exaggerated. Let's say that the book is merely "a summation of the past 20 years of work by a major American evolutionary biologist, with his manifesto pertaining to future research." Shouldn't Zachriel want to read a book like that, if he is going to mouth off on the internet, setting everyone straight on what evolutionary theory says? The fact that Zachriel merely wants from me one or two technical references for Shapiro, on the basis of which, presumably, he is planning to find fault with Shapiro, and does not seem the slightest bit interested in learning the overall thought of a professional evolutionary biologist of some stature, tells me that Zachriel is a culture warrior rather than a true scientific thinker; he is not curious about evolutionary biology for its own sake, but out to champion it against the "creationists" (of whom I am not one, by the way). Timaeus

Timaeus, You didn't answer my question. On what basis do you anoint Shapiro’s book “one of the most important books in evolutionary biology in the past decade”? tabasco

"My point *about the school curriculum* was that whenever there are significant disagreements among the experts, students should be alerted to such disagreements, even if only in passing, rather than be presented with an artificial monolithic view which does not reflect the diversity of the field." High school students are not learning anything that is in significant disagreement among the experts. They are taught the very basics of biology and every thing is simplified; examples and explanations are kept to the most basic level. You can't teach a 15-year old about ATGC one week and then microsatellites the next week. Like I said the problem is not the curriculum. The problem is the quality of teachers, the priorities of average joe, and the I'll also add to that the attitude of people in general towards education/the youth. Curly Howard

tabasco: I never said that I didn't understand Shapiro's claims well enough to support them. I simply chose to withhold the references Zachriel wants, in order to make him procure and read Shapiro's book if he wants to know what's in it. And Zachriel was not challenging my understanding (at least not directly); he was challenging my claim that Shapiro said what he said, and he was challenging Shapiro's claim that support for Shapiro's view existed in the literature. But both those challenges can easily be met if Zachriel will read Shapiro's book, where it will be clear that Shapiro did say exactly what I said he said, and that Shapiro does cite copious literature in support of his claims. The point is that Zachriel (along with you, presumably) is too lazy or cheap to get and read Shapiro's book. Well, I'm not rewarding laziness, or cheapness. He can pay his money, as I did, and invest the study time, as I did. I'm not giving him a shortcut to knowledge. Carl Woese thought that Shapiro's book was worth reading. If you and Zachriel don't respect Woese's judgment enough to go out and read the book, well, too bad; that's your loss, not mine. And I'm sure Shapiro's not losing any sleep over the loss of two sales, either. Timaeus

Zachriel: Your remark about professional athletes was oblique, not direct; it required interpretation. Were you implying that teachers would be better if they were paid as much as professional athletes? Perhaps you were; but I couldn't be sure. You should learn to write more directly. Plus, you didn't even direct the comment to me, but to Curly; I was looking for a reply addressed to me, and my name is not Curly but Timaeus. (And in any case, teachers could be paid a lot more than they currently are in the USA without being paid as much as professional athletes, and that would still presumably make a difference in attracting better people into teaching.) As for most of the rest of your remarks, you sidestep the main point, which is that there are differences, often sharp differences, among the experts over how evolution works. I want the students to be aware that these differences exist; you don't. You want them to be taught a sort of "average evolutionary theory" that bypasses the actual conversations in the field. That's the bottom line, and that's why there can be no compromise between our positions. My position is pedagogically the right one, yours is pedagogically the wrong one. In the end, you stoop to cliche. Evolution is only nominally the unifying theory of all biology. In fact, most biological research could go on without any reference to evolution at all. And even where evolution is mentioned in scientific articles (other than articles specifically *on* evolution), it is often merely a gloss that doesn't affect the substance of what's discovered. For example, an expert on big cats might explain in a scientific article why the cheetah's anatomy and physiology enable it to run so fast; he might talk about oxygen use, metabolism, length and narrowness of limbs, body weight less than that of other cats, wind resistance reductions, etc. If the writer of the article throws in remarks such as "evolution has lengthened this limb and reduced the body weight," he is merely dressing up the physiological discussion proper with an evolutionary speculation which is in itself gratuitous to the physiological/anatomical explanation which is the point of the article. And biology books and articles are filled with such gratuitous glosses. And of course, a Young Earth Creationist can be taught the techniques of sequencing a genome as well as the most hardboiled Darwinian. You don't need to know a stitch of evolutionary theory to be able to do it. Dr. Phil Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, once asked 70 life scientists in a survey if they would do their science any differently if they thought evolution were not true. They all said that nothing would change. Of course, "evolutionary biology" would have to change in that case, but much else would carry on as normal. Finally, if some US students only take one year of biology, that just reinforces my point that the problem lies with the overall science curriculum, not with what happens in ninth-grade biology specifically. Science educators in the US are not very competent at designing an overall four-year campaign suited to the nation that put man on the moon. Other countries do it far better. It's the superior overall planning of science education, not anything to do with one or two weeks of ninth-grade biology, that makes those other countries superior. If American educators could swallow their pride and learn from the experience of other nations, they could deal with this and many other problems. Timaeus

Timaeus, You described Shapiro's book as "one of the most important books in evolutionary biology in the past decade", yet you write:

I don’t need to support the claims. Shapiro does that. And he knows much more about the subject than I do. You’ll get more references, and better explanations of his reasoning, from him than from me. So if you’re really interested in evolutionary theory, you’ll read him, not me.

If you don't understand Shapiro's claims well enough to support them, then on what basis do you anoint Shapiro's book "one of the most important books in evolutionary biology in the past decade"? And if you are tempted to cite Woese's "game-changer" quote, ask yourself this: "How do I know that Woese is right about this, and that Shapiro's critics are wrong?" tabasco

Timaeus: You never indicated agreement with Curly about teacher quality

Curly Howard: The curriculum is fine. We need better teachers. Zachriel: If teachers were paid as much as professional athletes, well, it’s a matter of priorities.

Timaeus: So the hyper-selectionism of Dawkins should be mentioned as one extreme, while the view of those who think that a very great amount of evolution takes place outside of selection should also be mentioned. The role of selection and drift are already part of the curriculum in most high schools. Timaeus: The view of those who think that “random mutations” are the main generator of biological novelty should be mentioned, but the view of those who think that “random mutations” play a very small part in generating biological novelty also should be mentioned. Mutations are an important source of novelty in evolution. You have to talk about mutation, even if by mutation you include several related mechanisms. We took a look and found information for high schoolers about other mechanisms, usually as additional material. For instance, concerning epigenetics, "A relatively new, but very interesting field of medicine and genetics..." But sure, let's put it in there somewhere. Let's see, the kids have to learn characteristics of cells and cell structure, classification, tissues and organs, mitosis and meiosis, biochemistry, genes to proteins, photosynthesis and respiration, Mendelian genetics, common descent, natural selection, history of life, ecology, studies of specific taxa: bacteria, viruses, humans, lab work. Timaeus: I don’t think evolution should be taught in the ninth grade at all. The students don’t yet know nearly enough general science to think about evolution properly yet. They should be soaked in physics, chemistry and general biology for two years, and not introduced to evolutionary theory until about eleventh grade. Most students only take one or two years of biology in high school. As evolution is the unifying theory of biology, it is important that all students have some knowledge of the field. http://mitadmissions.org/apply/prepare/highschool Zachriel

Zachriel: Stop being obtuse. You never indicated agreement with Curly about teacher quality, until your just-previous post. Stop falsifying the history of our exchange (the way you falsify the biological history of the planet). You know perfectly well that I never recommended "unspecified criticisms of evolution." In fact, I did not speak against "evolution" at all -- as I have been at pains to inform deaf and dense interlocutors here such as yourself, Aurelio, and wd400 -- but against neo-Darwinism. Further, I indicated clearly that what should be taught was a representative picture of evolutionary theory as it stands in 2015, not neo-Darwinism as it stood in 1975 or 1980. Evolutionary in 2015 is very much in flux, with major differences in emphasis between the theorists. You apparently don't keep up with theory enough to know of the differences; you are still under the delusion (fostered by the NCSE) that all evolutionary biologists think that neo-Darwinism is fine with just a few "touch-ups" -- like fixing paint chips on your car. But your lack of perception regarding some of the major tensions between the theorists regarding evolutionary mechanisms should not be determinative of what is taught in the public schools. The public schools should represent the current state of understanding, including any tensions between theorists regarding mechanism. To do otherwise is to present a false picture of what evolutionary theory "knows" and also to present a false picture of science as an activity. Again and again I point out that science should be taught in a critical manner, as history is taught in a critical manner. In history you don't learn "the" explanation for the fall of the Roman empire; you learn competing explanations, and you learn to produce a nuanced account out of those competing explanations. Scientific theories should be taught in the same manner. The leading theory should be taught, but also the major competing points of view. So the hyper-selectionism of Dawkins should be mentioned as one extreme, while the view of those who think that a very great amount of evolution takes place outside of selection should also be mentioned. The view of those who think that "random mutations" are the main generator of biological novelty should be mentioned, but the view of those who think that "random mutations" play a very small part in generating biological novelty also should be mentioned. The difference between "structuralist" and "functionalist" approaches should be mentioned. Etc. It should be stressed that scientists just *don't know* all the mechanisms involved, and *don't agree* on the relative weight of the mechanisms that *are* known. But you want all those differences swept under the table. You want the nice popular story that Ken Miller goes around the country peddling with his whale diagrams etc. You want ninth-grade biology to be taught that way. I disagree. I think Miller's presentation of evolution is an ideological travesty. And for that matter, I don't think evolution should be taught in the ninth grade at all. The students don't yet know nearly enough general science to think about evolution properly yet. They should be soaked in physics, chemistry and general biology for two years, and not introduced to evolutionary theory until about eleventh grade. If you can't get straight the difference between mitosis and meiosis, if you can't tell the difference between an arthropod and a mollusk, if you can't explain how the carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, etc. works, how food chains work, if you don't know what an amino acid and a protein are, if you don't know how protein synthesis works, etc., you aren't in any position to understand evolutionary theory. Showing the students cleaned-up diagrams of the horse or elephant series (with all the messy parts of the families conveniently left out, to create a tidy line rather than an ambiguous bush), or misleading (deliberately tampered with) Haeckel embryo diagrams, is an exercise in salesmanship, not science education. But salesmanship is of course what the NCSE is all about. I realize you will not respond to these remarks on the level I'm offering them. I don't think are capable of such a response. I don't think your "tekkie" mind can rise beyond pedantic detail to such broad discussions of methodological and pedagogical principle. But that's nothing new -- it's true of 95% of the Darwinists who post here. "Thoughtful" is not a word that describes their intellectual procedures. Timaeus

Timaeus: The person who said that the problem was with teacher quality was Curly Howard, not yourself. To which we indicated agreement. Timaeus: Yes, better teachers are needed, but also different school funding arrangements, and a science curriculum that makes sense. You've indicated you want to change the science curriculum, but the change you have suggested is that students should be told there are unspecified criticisms of evolution. When pressed for details, or even a single example with scientific support, you have refused. Zachriel

"Ye" did not respond. The person who said that the problem was with teacher quality was Curly Howard, not yourself. Or are you posting here under more than one name? I asked you how you'd arrange the curriculum over four years, how many credits you would make compulsory, etc. You didn't answer. It's evident you aren't interested in actually improving US science education, but merely in making sure that ninth-grade students are propagandized with Darwinism. Are you a paid employee of the NCSE? You sound like it. Those of us who have spent many years reflecting on science education, and on education generally, take into account much deeper and broader considerations than seem to occur to secular humanist ideologues like Eugenie Scott (and to the Christian "useful fools" who have aided and abetted her agenda). I repeat, the failure of US students to meet international standards in high school science education has nothing at all to do with the alleged influence of creationism on ninth-grade biology. It is a systemic problem in US science education and US education generally. Yes, better teachers are needed, but also different school funding arrangements, and a science curriculum that makes sense. American educators, were they not so stuck in their ways, might look to other countries where science education is more successful, instead of insisting on continuing with the science education model they instituted at the time of Sputnik. Timaeus

Timaeus: And you have emphatically refused to discuss the pedagogical issues which I have dealt with at length. For example, you have still provided no answer to my last paragraph of 124 above. We did respond. Education depends much more on the quality of teachers than anything else, and that depends on attracting higher quality people, not on some generalized statement about undefined criticisms of evolutionary theory. Treat teachers like rock stars, and you will attract the best young minds to the field. Treat them like socialist parasites, and you will deter the best from entering the field. In any case, we pointed to several claims you made in our previous comment which you have failed to support. Zachriel

Zachriel: "You have emphatically refused to provide a specific example ..." And you have emphatically refused to discuss the pedagogical issues which I have dealt with at length. For example, you have still provided no answer to my last paragraph of 124 above. And it was the pedagogical issues that I was concerned with, not the specifics of a particular biologist's work. You've chosen to seize on an example as a means of avoiding the bigger issues. The big issue is that the failure of science education in the USA has nothing to do with any alleged danger of creationism sneaking into ninth-grade biology, and everything to do with: (a) gross underfunding of education in the USA generally (when all the tax money goes to the military-industrial complex, there isn't much left over for the poorer schools of the nation); (b) uneven distribution of tax money, with suburban areas getting good schools and inner-city depressed areas getting poor schools; ( c ) poorly trained teachers; (d) a science curriculum that (i) does not have enough compulsory subjects and (ii) is not well organized in the sequence of subjects; (e) poor educational standards generally, with unbelievably low levels of literacy (the spelling errors on this site alone, some of them committed by people with Master's and Ph.D. degrees, are shocking and would not be found to the same degree in graduates of, say, British or Canadian high schools). Eugenie Scott and her NCSE have seized upon one very narrow issue in science education (what should be done regarding the teaching of evolution in approximately one or two weeks of ninth-grade biology); they are focused on a single tree, and oblivious to the fact that the whole forest is dying of Dutch Elm disease. The NCSE is basically a bunch of science-geek biologists who are clueless about science pedagogy and the associated cultural, social, and economic questions. Anyone who donates money to the NCSE might as well flush that money down the toilet, for all the good it does in improving science education in the USA. (As Dembski said long ago, "National Center for Science Education" is a misnomer; it's really "National Center for Selling Evolution.") Actually, this discussion has given me a good idea for a column. Maybe I will write one on the shortcomings of US science education and the utter uselessness of the NCSE. Thanks for the unintended inspiration. Read Shapiro, Zachriel. Learn something from a man who has forgotten more evolutionary biology than you will ever know. Good-bye. Timaeus

Timaeus: Still not reading carefully, I see. T: Students are taught now, for example, that acquired characteristics are never inherited {…}; but we now know this is not true, at least for some one-celled organisms. T: I was talking about actual changes to the genome stimulated by encounters with the environment. T: I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes. Our response to these claims was to ask for a scientific citation providing specifics. Timaeus: My point *about the school curriculum* was that whenever there are significant disagreements among the experts, students should be alerted to such disagreements, even if only in passing, rather than be presented with an artificial monolithic view which does not reflect the diversity of the field. Vague mentions of disagreements has little value. Timaeus: Science class will of course give the lion’s share of the time to the most commonly held view. I never objected to that. What I objected to was a complete shutting-out of even a passing mention, even in a footnote, of dissenting views. You have emphatically refused to provide a specific example with scientific support. Zachriel

Zachriel: Still not reading carefully, I see. I gave a list of professional evolutionary biologists who *are critical of the neo-Darwinian account of evolution*, not a list of such biologists who *talk about natural genetic engineering*. Shapiro discusses natural genetic engineering. I do not know if any of the other biologists that I named do, though some of the biologists named by *Shapiro* in his notes and text obviously support the concept -- though the actual term "natural genetic engineering" may be Shapiro's alone. Natural genetic engineering is not *my* claim. It's Shapiro's. If you think there is no such thing, you are welcome to take *Shapiro* on, in public. It would be amusing to see you try. Personally, I think he would crush you like a fly. Finally, your ability to grasp the broader context of a discussion is typical of the modern internet science geek: very poor. I never said that Shapiro was entirely right, or that any other of the people I mentioned was entirely right. In fact, my point *about the school curriculum* did not even require any conviction on my part that neo-Darwinism was wrong! My point *about the school curriculum* was that whenever there are significant disagreements among the experts, students should be alerted to such disagreements, even if only in passing, rather than be presented with an artificial monolithic view which does not reflect the diversity of the field. Thus, back in the 1950s, when the Steady State theory was the dominant one, and the Big Bang people were not yet able to point to evidence for it from the cosmic microwave background radiation, I would have supported the mention of the Big Bang theory as well as the Steady State theory in high school space science or physics classes. People like yourself would have wanted the kids to hear only one side, and most likely if someone like me had protested to the NCSE (had it existed then) that the Big Bang should get at least a nominal bit of instructional time, I would have been rebuffed by the Eugenie Scott of the day, told that science should teach only mainstream, accepted, consensus views, not "crank" or minority views, and I would also have been told in pretty plain terms that my motivation for wanting the Big Bang taught was "creationist" and that religion has no place in the schools. Science class will of course give the lion's share of the time to the most commonly held view. I never objected to that. What I objected to was a complete shutting-out of even a passing mention, even in a footnote, of dissenting views. Such an approach falsifies the scientific enterprise in the minds of students, giving them the impression that learning science is like learning that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen hundred and ninety-two, that somebody out there has "settled" the questions and the job of the student is to learn what has been "settled" without questioning anything. That's the worst possible model of science education. It's the worst possible model of education in *any* academic subject, but in science more than most others, because in many other subjects, a lot of things *are* settled, e.g., mathematics, history (in the basic facts), geography (in the basic facts), civics (as long as the Constitution doesn't change), music theory, etc. But science is always changing. And it changes because rival ideas are pitted against one another. Remove all the rival ideas, allow the reign of one monolithic idea, and you don't have science, but dogma. Timaeus

Timaeus: After I specifically denied that epigenetics is what I was talking about regarding Shapiro, and after I told you to consult Shapiro’s University of Chicago website, you pull up an example from the Third Way website (which is not Shapiro’s alone, but belongs to a whole group of scientists), and you pull up an example of epigenetic change. Shapiro is the author listed first, and it was the first example provided. If you would like to discuss a different example of "natural genetic engineering", then please provide a specific example and a scientific citation that supports your claim. Zachriel

Zachriel: You're further demonstrating the "Science Geek's Autobiographical Statement," which generally runs something like: "When I was in ninth grade I had the mathematical ability of a freshman college student -- and the reading comprehension ability of a fifth-grader." Take, for example, 136 above: I didn't say that Shapiro's book "changed my perspective on evolution completely." Where did that come from? I was explicit that I was using Shapiro as one of a number of examples of evolutionary theorists who had criticized neo-Darwinism. For all you can tell from my words, I had already come to the conclusion that neo-Darwinism was gravely ill before I ever heard of Shapiro. That is in fact the case. The point was that in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for years now, criticism of neo-Darwinism has been common, common enough to warrant at least a *mention* (if only in a footnote in the textbook) in the heavily neo-Darwinian account of evolution pushed at helpless, captive teenagers in the public schools. Take again, for example, 137 above: After I specifically denied that epigenetics is what I was talking about regarding Shapiro, and after I told you to consult Shapiro's University of Chicago website, you pull up an example from the Third Way website (which is not Shapiro's alone, but belongs to a whole group of scientists), and you pull up an example of epigenetic change. Take the wax out of your ears -- or your neural pathways. Epi-genetic: Greek, literally "upon the genetic" -- over and above what naked genetics determines. Yes, such changes occur. But I was talking about the actual alteration of the genome itself -- as an attentive reader would have caught. Shapiro provides evidence for that, too. Read Shapiro's book. Learn from a professional in the field, in between your sessions as a computer programmer or whatever you do for a living -- if you do anything at all, given how much time you spend on the internet. Timaeus

So, seeing as no one will bother to provide an example for discussion, we'll take the first example on Shapiro's Third Way website, Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches. http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/related-reading Epigenetics is a form of variation. In particular, methylation controls how organisms develop, so changes in methylation are almost certainly important for adaptive speciation. More simply, it's one of many sources of variation that is then subject to natural selection. Regardless, Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering" is not Intelligent Design, but intrinsic intelligence. Zachriel

Timaeus: I don’t need to support the claims. Shapiro does that. From your comments, there is no support for "natural genetic engineering" outside of Shapiro's book, and furthermore, you forgot everything you read and can't recount any details, but it changed your perspective on evolution completely. Quite the recommendation. StephenB: I visited Shapiro’s website and secured the information you are asking for in about 90 seconds. Fantastic! Now cite a single instance for discussion. Zachriel

Zachriel

So cite a scientific paper supporting “genomic rewriting” so we can have that discussion, preferably one that is seminal. You might want to point out why this is considered contrary to current theory.

Zachriel, you are being ridiculous. Timaeus is right. I visited Shapiro's website and secured the information you are asking for in about 90 seconds. Try to be serious. If you can muster up a substantive response to what is being said, then do it. StephenB

Unfortunately for n_q, the UD regulars know my claims are borne from the evidence. Don't blame the messenger. Joe

All true, Timaeus. Joe

Joe: "LoL! She is a liar, equivocator and propaganda spreader. She embodies all that is wrong with science. Liddle too…" It's nice to see that UD has not changed its policy on condoning abusive and unsubstantiated claims by commenters as long as the commenter is a creationist. not_querius

Joe: I've had many interactions with Elizabeth Liddle. I have criticized her for some things -- overconfidence, one-sidedness, etc. -- but I do think she is much more intellectually fair than Eugenie Scott. Elizabeth will actually read an ID book or article before criticizing it, and will engage with it technically, whereas Scott will just dismiss it as "ID creationism" without feeling any need to read it. And I don't think Elizabeth has engaged in the kind of behind-the-scenes manipulation of events that Scott has. Scott (who has since left the NCSE, though I think she left someone equally militant in her place) is a political animal, and her work for the NCSE was not in the service of the quest for truth about origins, but in the service of one side of the culture war. And Scott has done far more damage to the lives and incomes of ID scientists than Elizabeth could possibly do, because Scott is an American and her base of operations was the USA, and her organization intervened in all kinds of ways, in public and behind the scenes, to try to strangle ID in its cradle or to punish any scientist who dared to support it, by job or career loss if possible. Elizabeth is a gadfly of ID, but Scott was a mortal enemy, and one who struck below the belt. The two aren't comparable. Timaeus

Zachriel: I don't need to support the claims. Shapiro does that. And he knows much more about the subject than I do. You'll get more references, and better explanations of his reasoning, from him than from me. So if you're really interested in evolutionary theory, you'll read him, not me. Timaeus

If teachers were paid as much as professional athletes

If teachers were as good at their craft as professional athletes...

That just means you make claims, but are unable or unwilling to support them.

That is evolutionism and evolutionists in a nutshell... Joe

Unfortunately, the priorities of the average American are pretty screwed up. Curly Howard

Mung: Darwin was no Newton. Darwin is considered by most scholars as a scientist of the first rank, even not considering his theory of evolution. Timaeus: Exaggerations are on all sides, not just the anti-Darwinian side. Yes. Now you got it! So the popular press is full of overblown stories about evolution and physics. Everyone thinks they're an Einstein Darwin. Timaeus: I won’t lift a finger to find even one of the references for you. That's fine. That just means you make claims, but are unable or unwilling to support them. Curly Howard: The curriculum is fine. We need better teachers. If teachers were paid as much as professional athletes, well, it's a matter of priorities. Zachriel

Careful what you say about Eugenie Scott. I have a great deal of respect for her

LoL! She is a liar, equivocator and propaganda spreader. She embodies all that is wrong with science. Liddle too... Joe

The curriculum is fine. We need better teachers. Curly Howard

Zachriel: Typical of Darwinists, you report one-sidedly. You complain about popular announcements that X or Y has overthrown Darwin; you say nothing about the endless popular announcements that we have found the "real" missing link between man and the apes (announcements which later have to be retracted), that scientists have created "life in a test tube" (which announcements always turn out to be gross exaggerations), etc. Exaggerations are on all sides, not just the anti-Darwinian side. Science journalists greatly exaggerate the findings of scientists, and sometimes the scientists themselves encourage those exaggerations by overclaiming on very tentative evidence. So yes, there is bad popular science -- some of it coming from the scientists themselves. You know full well that such papers as you are asking for are cited copiously in Shapiro. I won't lift a finger to find even one of the references for you. This isn't an issue of whether articles exist. It's an issue of your research laziness. Or maybe you're just too cheap to spend money on a book (I picked up my copy for about $12.95). Or maybe you don't have the ambition or intellectual attention span to read anything longer than one article, which is why you keep asking me for one. Frankly, I don't care what your reasons are. You seem to be completely unimaginative regarding science pedagogy in the high schools. You seem content to work within the present system of teaching science in most states, which is demonstrably bad, and even people on your side, such as Eugenie Scott, are always lamenting the poor understanding American high school graduates have of science. Well, I offered some articulate suggestions for improving the system. I suggested a two-level biology program whereby basic biology (and chemistry) was covered much more thoroughly in the freshman year, and where evolutionary theory was delayed until a later year, so that, with more basic biology in hand, the evolutionary theory could be taught in much more depth. Your cheering section here told me my suggestions were longer than a paragraph and therefore not worth reading (or rather, beyond their video-game-conditioned patience level). What are *your* suggestions? How would *you* reform the American high school science curriculum? Tell me how you would arrange the physics, biology and chemistry over the four years, how many science credits you would make compulsory for graduation, etc., if you were in charge. Timaeus

Darwin was no Newton. Mung

Timaeus: Gamow was one of the leading cosmologists of his day. Your claim is that the popular culture was not exposed to alternative scientific ideas in evolution as there is in physics. There is certainly talk in popular culture of relativity, entropy and quantum mechanics, much of it wrong. Just look at this blog. We can find many examples in the popular culture of speculations about evolution. New findings are often reported with little context, and someone is overthrowing Darwin in biology on a regular basis, just like someone is overthrowing Einstein in physics on a regular basis. However, basic introductory science doesn't include these speculative ideas. Students learn Newton before Einstein. And in evolutionary biology, as a look at most any high school text shows, students learn about Darwin, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium and endosymbiosis. Timaeus: But if he is familiar with his thought, he must be aware of Shapiro’s idea of genomic rewriting, and must be aware of the literature Shapiro cites in defense of the idea. So cite a scientific paper supporting "genomic rewriting" so we can have that discussion, preferably one that is seminal. You might want to point out why this is considered contrary to current theory. Zachriel

Aurelio Smith: This discussion was not originally about Shapiro. I mentioned Shapiro in passing, along with a group of other examples, as an indication that the kind of evolutionary theory taught to high school students, with the mechanisms that Scott and Miller want to push, is no longer representative of evolutionary theory. I have no obligation to expound the ideas of Shapiro here, any more than I have to expound the ideas of Wagner or anyone else I named as an example. When I mentioned Shapiro, Zachriel claimed to be familiar with his thought. But if he is familiar with his thought, he must be aware of Shapiro's idea of genomic rewriting, and must be aware of the literature Shapiro cites in defense of the idea. So his "asking" me for articles on the subject, as if there is doubt that such articles exist, is an insincere rhetorical pose. He knows that he can find the citations to these articles in Shapiro. So either he is lying when he claims familiarity with Shapiro's writings, or he is not really interested in my answer, but is testing *me* on Shapiro. But I'm not here to be tested on Shapiro. I was making a point about science education. Then someone (I can't remember who) asked me what I would like to have taught in biology class in the high schools. That question cannot be answered in one sentence: curriculum requires a rationale. So I gave my rationale, in replies that anyone with average reading speed could read in less than 3 minutes each. Then I was told by several turkeys here that I take too long to explain myself. Well, those turkeys can go to Hartford, Hereford and Hampshire. If they don't want me to give a proper answer to a question, they shouldn't ask the question in the first place. And if they aren't willing to invest 3 minutes of their lives to read an answer on an important subject like science education, then they aren't worth conversing with in the first place. As for condescension, someone who talks down to ID proponents on the assumption that they are creationists (and obviously holds a low view of creationists) is not in a position to complain about it. Timaeus

Aurelio Smith: If you don't understand the Machiavellian strategies of Eugenie Scott, you aren't much of a cultural or political analyst. But then, even if you did understand those strategies, you would agree with them. Of course, you don't address the substance of my thought on science education. I guess that the paragraph I wrote was too long for your attention span. Your "texting" generation finds anything too long to fit on a cell phone screen to be "many words." I can tell from your remark about my own view on ID that you still haven't got the picture. You still are conflating ID and creationism. You're thick as a brick. And not worth trying to correct. Timaeus

Zachriel: You say stupid things. The popular writers I mentioned included well-trained scientists. Gamow was one of the leading cosmologists of his day. Jastrow was head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Capra had a Ph.D. in physics. Asimov had a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and taught in a medical school. You are comparing this kind of literature with faddish books on gluten-free diets? Why don't you just admit you made an error, that the popular conception of physics has gone well beyond Newtonian theory? Or is admitting an error something that "ye" don't do? Timaeus

There are popular books on Evolutionism, the blind watchmaker, gluten-free diets, astrology, and how the mind is made of woo. The basics of baraminology remains branching descent and "built-in responses to environmental cues", just like the basics of introductory physics remains force and momentum. The basics of Intelligent Design remains the ability to detect the presence of intelligent design even when nothing is known about the intelligent designer. And as science dictates, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific process(es) used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. Solar eclipses are part of that relevant evidence- the only planet in our system with total solar eclipses is the only planet with observers who can appreciate them and use them to understand the universe. Joe

Timaeus: Many, many popular books on physics in the 20th century and beyond have featured non-Newtonian insights... But the typical popular conception of evolution is still the neo-Darwinian. There are popular books on Intelligent Design, gluten-free diets, astrology, and how the mind is made of woo. Timaeus: The popular conception of evolutionary theory isn’t nearly as sophisticated as the popular conception of physics. The basics of introductory evolution remains branching descent and natural selection, just like the basics of introductory physics remains force and momentum. The popular conception of evolution primarily concerns the sweep of evolutionary history, dinosaurs and ape-men. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY Zachriel

Zachriel: Not true about physics, not true at all. Many, many popular books on physics in the 20th century and beyond have featured non-Newtonian insights. All the popular books on cosmology, for example (Gamow, Sagan and Shklovskii, Robert Jastrow, etc.) And of course, there are the works of Paul Davies, which were popular science bestsellers, and Hawking's Brief History of Time, another well-known science book in its day. There have also been popular books like The Tao of Physics which explore the decidedly non-Newtonian aspects of modern physics in relation to religious and philosophical concepts. You can tour the internet and find hundreds of sites discussing quantum craziness; science fiction stories for decades have made use of relativity strangeness; etc. The average half-science-aware reader of today is well aware that Newton's physics has been transcended in many respects. But the typical popular conception of evolution is still the neo-Darwinian. If you ask nine out of ten generally educated people what causes evolution, they will say something that amounts to: "random mutations plus natural selection." Rarely will they have another idea in their head. Even most of the science geeks who post on the internet and affect to know all about evolution still chatter more about random mutations and natural selection than anything else. The popular conception of evolutionary theory isn't nearly as sophisticated as the popular conception of physics. Timaeus

Zachriel: You can’t point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering Timaeus: Shapiro can. Notably, we have listed several of the mechanisms Shapiro considers, but you have not been willing to name just one for the purposes of discussion. Zachriel

Zachriel: "You can’t point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering," Shapiro can. But you refuse to read his book or check out his website, where many such papers are cited. So the conversation ends due to your laziness -- or your fear of what you will find if you read Shapiro. I'm amazed at the arrogance of internet Darwinists. Here we have Shapiro, molecular evolutionary theorist at the prestigious University of Chicago, author of a book deemed by Carl Woese (discoverer of a whole new kingdom of life) a "game changer"; I cited Shapiro as an example of someone whose views on evolutionary theory might be just a wee bit more up-to-date and sophisticated than those of Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, or Richard Dawkins (which are the sort of views that ninth-grade students have been fed for about 50 years now). And on the other hand we have "Zachriel," who speaks of himself in the plural and whose accomplishments in evolutionary biology are -- what exactly? Yet Zachriel speaks dismissively of Shapiro! And without even having read his book, to boot! The lack of intellectual humility in the Darwinist camp is astounding. Timaeus

When it was pointed out the ID is NOT anti-evolution. Also you can’t won’t point to a single scientific paper in support of unguided evolution, but you want it taught to school children. What a bunch of lying, double-standard spewing losers evolutionists are. Joe

Zachriel:

When it was pointed out that most of Shapiro’s mechanisms (regulatory sequences, symbiosis, hgt, evo-devo, epigenetics, polyploidy) are already largely incorporated into evolutionary theory,

There isn't any evolutionary theory. Unguided evolution doesn't even have any entailments. Obviously Zachriel prefers to obfuscate rather than educate. Pathetic... Joe

Timaeus: The fact is that since about the time of Sputnik up until now, the mainstream public conception of evolution has been the neo-Darwinian. And the fact is that since about the time of forever, the mainstream public conception of physics has been Newtonian. Zachriel

Aurelio Smith: I never said that I thought or hoped that Shapiro was an advocate of ID. Why are you consistently incapable of reading what I write and getting it straight? Do you have trouble absorbing the meaning of clear prose? Or is it ideological bias that makes you read all kinds of things into my posts that I've never said? I mentioned Shapiro only as an example of a secular, peer-reviewed, full-time evolutionary biologist (at a major university, to boot) who is critical of neo-Darwinian evolution. There are many, many others, including Wagner, Newman, etc. The fact is that since about the time of Sputnik up until now, the mainstream public conception of evolution has been the neo-Darwinian. What most people pick up about evolutionary mechanisms in school (and in popular presentations in books or on television) is the view of typified by Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, or Richard Dawkins. That's dated now. The curriculum should be changed -- *not to include ID* (I have to repeat, for the benefit of the deaf and thick people here), and *not to include creationism*, but to include a much more complex and nuanced understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory should be taught at greater length and in more depth in high school science classes. But ninth grade is not the place to do it. From what I'm being told, the students in many districts can barely tell the difference between carbon and hydrogen, and students like that aren't going to be able to follow discussions of DNA etc. Ninth grade should lay down the basic foundations of science: chemistry, physics, and biology. Evolution should be taught in specialized biology courses in the upper years, where it can be treated at the length it deserves. Timaeus

Aurelio Smith: You still haven't apologized to me for completely misrepresenting my position re creationism and ID, but that's par for the course with Darwinists. No intellectual honesty anywhere in the pack. As for views of Shapiro, Carl Woese, who knew more about biology than anyone who has ever posted here or ever will post here, called Shapiro's book "a game changer." I'll take Woese's estimation over your secondhand or third-hand opinion. Timaeus

velikovskys (99): If you were paying attention -- which you obviously weren't -- the split personality remark was a joke, based on Z.'s ridiculous and pompous habit of referring to himself as "we". I was not actually accusing him of having a split personality. But by now I'm used to the Darwinists on this site: (a) not reading carefully and (b) not comprehending what they read. Timaeus

as to: "The ideas, mechanisms, processes Shapiro gets excited about are all encompassed by and consistent with modern evolutionary theory." I guess if you throw out random mutation and natural selection as primary players from 'modern evolutionary theory' you could have a point: A few comments from the 'non-Darwinian' evolutionist, James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics Shapiro on Random Mutation: "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html -Comment section "Establishing that teleological questions are critical will itself take a considerable effort because we need to overcome the long-held but purely philosophical (and illogical) assertion that functional creativity can result from random changes." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Upright_BiPed/genetic-recombination-not-random_b_1743647_175499059.html How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Natural Selection: "My argument remains that the innovative process in evolution is rapid natural genetic engineering rather than gradual selection of small changes over long periods of time. This argument does not deny a role for selection. I simply assert that it is unrealistic to ascribe a creative (virtually deus ex machina) role to natural selection." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/theory-of-evolution_b_1294315.html bornagain77

Aurelio Smith: The ideas, mechanisms, processes Shapiro gets excited about are all encompassed by and consistent with modern evolutionary theory. When it was pointed out that most of Shapiro's mechanisms (regulatory sequences, symbiosis, hgt, evo-devo, epigenetics, polyploidy) are already largely incorporated into evolutionary theory, Timaeus refused to discuss any specifics. Zachriel

Timaeus: Until you have read his book, this conversation is over. In the meantime, I’d advise seeing a doctor about that split personality problem. Talking about yourself in the plural is not a good sign. Neither is using insults instead of reasoning. velikovskys

Timaeus: I *refuse* to. You can't won't point to a single scientific paper in support of natural genetic engineering, but you want it taught to school children. Zachriel

Zachriel: In addition to having reading comprehension difficulties, you are willfully stupid. It is not that I am "unable to provide" examples. I could open my Shapiro book and find plenty of them. But I *refuse* to. Got it? I *refuse* to. Do you want to know why? It's because you haven't read one of the most important books in evolutionary theory in the past 10 years, and you're proud of the fact that you haven't read it, yet want to pose on this site as an expert on evolutionary theory. I refuse to co-operate with that kind of laziness, combined with that kind of pompousness. *I'm* not the one who made the claim about natural genetic engineering. Shapiro did -- Shapiro, and all the other research biologists upon whose research he draws. I couldn't care less if you doubt *my* word, but you're doubting Shapiro's word. If you think he's wrong, then prove it. Go over his examples in front of me and everyone here and show what an incompetent fool Shapiro is. But in order to do that, you're going to have to stop being lazy and actually read what he says. I will not do your work for you. Until you have read his book, this conversation is over. In the meantime, I'd advise seeing a doctor about that split personality problem. Talking about yourself in the plural is not a good sign. Timaeus

Timaeus: “We” are quite able to provide what you want, but don’t wish to invest the time to do the lookup You can't name a single example of 'natural genetic engineering', much less provide a scientific citation with evidence. You don't have to support your claims, but most people will discount them if you are unable to do so. Zachriel

I know reading comprehension isn't a high priority of yours, but me and Timaeus were talking about how the education system has changed in the past few decades. Maybe you've been going a little too heavy on the sauce while watching march madness, I don't know. Curly Howard

Curly Howard:

I hope you weren’t quoting me with “things change,” Mungy.

Let's pretend that I wasn't quoting you, even though this comment by you is there for all to see:

Things change.

Can we stop pretending now? Do you actually disagree with my analysis? evolution = "things change" unless they don't Mung

I hope you weren't quoting me with "things change," Mungy. Curly Howard

From what I know, most high schools teach most students chemistry, biology, and physics; each are a full year course and taken in some combination in grades 9,10,11. In grade 12, the higher level students can take a college level science class of their choice if available, while the lower students took an "environmental science-type BS" class in grade 9, then take the general chem/bio/phys trio in grades 10, 11, 12. In my opinion, the problem is the quality of teachers being recruited to teach science classes. The salaries are way too small to expect enticement of quality educators with a passion to teach who know their stuff. Curly Howard

>> evolution = "things change" => "things change" >> creationism = "things don't change" => "things don't change" >> evolution > creationism => false Ouch! Computers are indeed stupid. For sure they cannot be trusted to inform us that evolution is true. Mung

Curly: Your description of the problem makes sense to me; it would certainly explain the psychology of Eugenie Scott; if she herself was trained in high school that way, she probably cannot imagine that high school science could ever be any different. So she thinks in terms of "stuff you gotta cover in a hurry." It's a pretty pathetic manner of science education. Anyhow, my view is that you cannot possibly do justice to evolutionary theory in the first year of high school; if it gets crammed into only a week or two of the semester, it will be shallow and useless. It can't be treated properly until the senior grades, when more time can be given to it. All my comments on teaching different versions of evolutionary theory have presupposed that we are talking about a unit on evolutionary theory that is several weeks long, and in a senior grade. Are there no high schools, in your experience, which teach biology in the senior grades? Timaeus

Soitenly. Things change. Better or worse. What students get in high school now is as you said, the basics of the chemistry of life, parts and functions of the cell, anatomy and physiology, etc. They also get the very basics of evolution. All of this is overly simplified and they are expected to learn this all to a certain degree, depending on the individual teacher. This is generally how the secondary education system works in the US. Students are spoonfed information and basically expected to memorize it. Application of knowledge comes during college. It's not ideal but it's the best we can do currently. Evolution is an integral part of general biology, there is no reason it should be removed from curriculum while cellular biology, or anatomy and physiology stays. Curly Howard

Curly: Well, perhaps my high school experience was different from that of most. I was surrounded in my year by dozens of very bright students, who went on to become university profs, chartered accountants, engineers, senior civil servants, etc. In our classes we studied masses (no pun intended) of Newtonian physics, wave/particle duality (with lots of experiments on wave motion), philosophical/cultural critiques of science, cosmology, arguments regarding life on Mars, and all kinds of meaty things, not to mention math coming out our ears, including calculus, matrices, vectors and dot products, formal logic, etc. I can think of two dozen fellow students, offhand, who would have loved the chance to study varying theories of evolution and even have a classroom debate over them. And they all would have scoffed at the idea that any court of law had to "protect" them from any "wrong" scientific ideas. But of course, this was long ago, in the Dark Ages, when knights rescued ladies fair, and when there were were intellectual standards from kindergarten up; thanks to the philosophies of brain-dead hippie educators starting in the 1960s, there has been a steady decline in standards. So let's say for the sake of argument that the average student these days is nowhere near the level I'm describing. Let's say the average science student is more likely to need remedial help than to be capable of wrestling with really tough theory. In that case, one can't have it both ways. One can't argue: "These students are bright enough to understand neo-Darwinian theory, but aren't bright enough to understand criticisms of neo-Darwinian theory." That's rubbish. There is nothing *conceptually more difficult* about the criticisms of the theory than the statement of the theory. So while it is true that a student who cannot follow a basic lesson on meiosis will not be able to follow Shapiro's critique of neo-Darwinism, it is also true that the same student won't be able to follow Mayr's or Dobzhansky's exposition of neo-Darwinism either. And if the students are so bad that they can follow neither the theory nor its critics, then what they need is very basic biology (and chemistry) before they are taught anything about evolution at all. I would therefore suggest that evolutionary theory be moved entirely out of ninth grade and that ninth grade concentrate on much simpler biological basics, such as "what are the parts of plant and animal cells," and "what are the functions of each of these parts," and "what are the main characteristics of reptiles, mammals, birds, arthropods, molluscs," and "how do the oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon cycles work," and "what is a nucleic acid," and "what is an amino acid." Glad to meet you, Curly. Hope to hear Moe from you. (Nyuk, nyuk.) Timaeus

Timaeus, unfortunately I am afraid you have far too much confidence in the students, at least students here in the US. I am sad to say it, but "intellectually capable" is not a good descriptor of the majority of students. Curly Howard

wd400: You're a typical modern "science geek" -- you have no patience for reading a coherent piece of prose. Yet unless you have a learning disability, you should be able to read my longest post above in 2 minutes. I bet you are the kind of guy who can't bear to wait more than three rings on the telephone before you hang up. That's probably why Zachriel hasn't read Shapiro's book. Even though it's short as books go, only about 150 pages, it's longer than the 15-page attention span of most readers of science material. Anyhow: if you want the short and skinny, suited to your attention span: Your ideas on high school science education stink. Is that the kind of brevity you are looking for? Timaeus

Truth be told, Timaeus, you write far too much to say so little. So I've not read all of the post above or the one in other thread. The little I did read leaves me shrugging my shoulders, but your beliefs are your own and I don't see much point wasting your time or mine on them. Especially not if a reply would elicit another avalanche like these posts. wd400

Zachriel (81): "We" are quite able to provide what you want, but don't wish to invest the time to do the lookup, especially when "ye" (your name is Legion) need to read the Shapiro book anyway, to become responsible participants in current discussions about evolution. By the way, Legion, I can recommend a good shrink, if this multiple personality problem persists. But I suspect you won't want much to do with him (v. Mark ch. 5.). Timaeus

wd400 (re 79 above): Thanks for your in-depth and enthusiastic engagement. Timaeus

wd400: You are shortsighted when it comes to science pedagogy. You want science education to be about transmitting official truths, rather than imparting a critical way of thinking. I want the reverse. Mentioning that there are people who think HIV does not cause AIDS could provide a good "teaching moment." The students will doubtless have heard that view in the popular media anyway, so there is no way of "protecting" their shell-like little ears from hearing it by keeping all mention of it out of science class. More useful would be a short discussion, or at least a passing reference (one sentence, maybe even just one subordinate clause) to the view in the textbook, with a footnote citing the works in which Duesberg, etc. made their case, and citing a number of works in which that case was soundly refuted. That would lead the Duesberg-inclined students back to a body of literature which (a) would dispel any illusions they had regarding AIDS and (b) would give them an idea of the scientific process -- how bad ideas are studied, analyzed, and refuted. It's the same with ID. I'm *against* mandating the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum, but in particular local cases, on a voluntary basis, a talented science teacher could easily, without endorsing ID, use ID notions -- which in many cases his/her students will have heard a lot about, and may be inclined to support -- as a "teaching moment" to get students thinking about broader questions in biology or in science generally: does science deal only in efficient causes, or should it take into account formal and final causes as well; what is "methodological naturalism" and what bearing does it have on origins questions; how do historical sciences differ, if at all, from experimental sciences; what is the difference between teleology and teleonomy, and is one more appropriate in biology than the other; what does the extremely frequent use of machine analogies in molecular and cell biology, even by atheistic scientists, imply; etc. Again, this need not take a huge amount of time. A 20-minute classroom discussion at the end of the unit on evolution might be sufficient to have the desired pedagogical effect. And the fact that ID was mentioned, rather than being censored, would create the impression among students that scientists are open to new ideas, even if they end up rejecting those ideas, and that courts aren't necessary to determine what science teachers can teach. You and Zachriel have far too little confidence in both the science teachers of the nation, and the students of the nation. Not only are the students intellectually capable of handling the existence of disagreement among scientists; the discussion of such disagreements would make science more *interesting* to them. If they see science as a "live" field in which there are rival claims which research is needed to settle, they will conceive of science as something they might want to pursue as a career; if they see science as a "dead" field, in which the experts have settled everything but a few details, then they will regard science class as just the transmission of "stuff you gotta know" to pass the course, or to get into dentistry school, or whatever. Science class would then be something like the old "names and dates" method of teaching history. Young people are excited by the prospect of a field in which intelligent experts can disagree, and the more high school science can portray science as that sort of endeavor, the more young people will want to major in science at university. Timaeus

Timaeus: I already indicated sufficiently what I was talking about: one-celled organisms that are known to reorganize their genomes (resulting in a new genome) in response to environmental challenges. For which we asked for a scientific citation, but you have been unable to provide. Zachriel

Zachriel: I never endorsed Margulis's claims about Gaia. I wasn't talking about them at all. Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism isn't "old". It's still very much alive. Her *alternative* to neo-Darwinism (do you know what it was? bet you don't) may no longer be much supported, but her negative evaluation of it re the origin of biological novelty is shared by many current evolutionary biologists -- the ones you can't be bothered to read. I'm not going to take the time to find particular pages in Shapiro, so you can save your breath. I already indicated sufficiently what I was talking about: one-celled organisms that are known to reorganize their genomes (resulting in a new genome) in response to environmental challenges. If you know as much as you intimate that you know about evolutionary theory, you will be able to find the examples yourself very quickly in the book, or on Shapiro's web site. Shapiro's notion is in direct conflict with the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory that was taught to the public from the time of Weismann up until very recent times. Yet the biological studies vindicating Shapiro's view were available much earlier, from the time of McClintock forward. But the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy didn't want to talk about anything so "Lamarckian." And this is just one example of the control of the textbook and popular presentations of evolutionary theory by an "old guard" that is increasingly out of touch with the complexity of modern biology in general. The theory that Margulis was arguing against *does* still exist -- in many high school textbooks, in many popular presentations of evolution in books and on television, on many pro-evolution blogs, at the Dover ID trial, in the writings of Miller and Dawkins, etc. If you want ID people to stop criticizing that theory, and you have any influence upon the world of evolutionary biology, get your colleagues to tell Miller, Dawkins, the NCSE, etc. to shut up, and have your friends write to the PBS etc. and tell them to stop putting dated crap on television in place of recent evolutionary theory. Timaeus

Oh, and the other thread. Thank you for answering that question. I found all the answers very interesting. wd400

Timaeus, Well, I for one think we should keep terrible ideas out of school curricula. There are scientists who don't think HIV causes AIDs, for instance, but I don't think we should add that crtique of existing science in high school In any case, you are just wrong to think evolution biology is "rife with conflict". There are, as there always have been, conflicting interpretations within the field, but the like of Margulis (and to a lesser extend Shapiro) represent a very small minority of evolutionary biologists. Open an issue of Genetics, Evolution, American Naturalist or Molecular Biology and Evolution if you want to confirm this. Teaching that stuff instead of the well-established ideas within evolutionary biology would be a very strange way to go about building a high school course. wd400

Timaeus: But what you’re unaware of — based on your discussion — is that Margulis also offered a general critique of the neo-Darwinian view of the origins of evolutionary novelty. We're quite aware of it. What matters to science are her biological claims that have been substantiated. Her primary contribution was endosymbiosis. Her ideas on Gaia have not borne scientific fruit. She was also a staunch darwinist. Similarly, Darwin's theory of natural selection has been substantiated and is still part of current theory, while his theory of Pangenesis has been rejected and forgotten. Timaeus: I’m not saying the textbook should stop for a lengthy examination of Margulis’s views. Nobody cares about old fights. Endosymbiosis, however, is an important evolutionary mechanism, and is important to understanding biological history. Timaeus: So the high school textbooks give a false impression of the unity of evolutionary theory, by making use of a discovery of Margulis, and “coopting” that discovery to support neo-Darwinism Neo-darwinism is a catch-all phrase. It can means the original synthesis, or sometimes, the modern theory. But the theory that Margulis was arguing against no longer exists. Timaeus: As for your final sneer, I’ve read Shapiro’s entire book, which is more than you’ve done. Sure, but have exhibited no ability to recount what you read. All we asked for was a single example of Shapiro's so-called natural genetic engineering for the purpose of discussion. Zachriel

wd400: Your comment in 73 is irrelevant to the current dispute. I was not trying to convince Zachriel that Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism was correct. I was pointing out that Margulis's critique exists, and that the critique of many other professional evolutionary biologists exists, and that textbooks give a false impression of one monolithic "evolutionary theory," when in fact the field is rife with conflict. I never suggested that minority opinions in evolutionary theory should get *as much time* in textbooks as majority opinions; but the *existence* of minority opinions among qualified practitioners shouldn't be deliberately concealed from high school students -- which is what Eugenie Scott's NCSE, in its heart of hearts, hoped for; hence its policy of opposing not only ID, but also every educational reform posed in the USA for teaching evolutionary biology more critically. If you look at the Discovery website, you will find that the Discovery policy is not that *less* Darwinian theory should be taught, but *more* -- and that some criticisms of the theory, not from ID books, but from peer-reviewed scientific literature, should be included in the teaching. (Obviously, in an abbreviated form, with just the main ideas, as is appropriate for the limited time available in a high school classroom.) Only someone who is opposed to the free and open debate about ideas would want high school students to be aware only of the strengths of neo-Darwinism while remaining oblivious of its weaknesses. By the way, I worked hard to reply thoughtfully to one of your questions, and you have not yet given me the courtesy of even an acknowledgment, let alone a reponse. See #36 at: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/okay-darwin-follower/ Timaeus

Zachriel (74): I never denied that endosymbiosis was widely accepted. But what you're unaware of -- based on your discussion -- is that Margulis also offered a general critique of the neo-Darwinian view of the origins of evolutionary novelty. So the high school textbooks give a false impression of the unity of evolutionary theory, by making use of a discovery of Margulis, and "coopting" that discovery to support neo-Darwinism, without indicating that the same mind which conceived of endosymbiosis is not "onside" with some major claims of neo-Darwinism. I'm not saying the textbook should stop for a lengthy examination of Margulis's views. There isn't room. But it wouldn't hurt to have a short footnote to the effect that Margulis herself would not endorse the neo-Darwinian account which has "coopted" one of her suggestions. Even if the note also said that Margulis was in the minority among evolutionary biologists, I'd be content with the passing acknowledgment. Margulis's critique of the neo-Darwinian origin of biological novelty isn't merely historical criticism. It's a very live criticism, and it's shared by a good number of contemporary professionals in evolutionary biology (though you, not being such, aren't aware of that). I've already given you several names of people who, though they differ with Margulis in their own particular accounts of evolution, agree with her negatively, i.e., regarding the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism to account for the origin of most biological novelty. If you don't want to follow up on those critiques, that's your business. I've led you to water; it's your choice whether or not to drink. As for your final sneer, I've read Shapiro's entire book, which is more than you've done. If you're too lazy to read one of the most important books in evolutionary biology in the past decade (Carl Woese, who knows a thing or two, called it a "game changer"), you have no business mouthing off about evolutionary theory on the internet. Timaeus

Timaeus: The fact that you are struggling with my comments on Margulis and Gould shows that you are well behind me in reading *the actual words of those authors*, as opposed to reading *popular paraphrases of some of their isolated ideas*. Actually, we're more familiar with their actual words than popular paraphrases. Timaeus: Margulis’s critique of neo-Darwinism, complete with quotations and links to her words, has been discussed at length on this very website, a couple of years ago. So? As already pointed out, historical criticism only has historical value. What persists are the findings, such as endosymbiosis, which is now widely accepted. Timaeus: The scientific citations you are demanding are given copiously in Shapiro’s book. We asked for one example, something you can't seem to provide. You've exhibited no knowledge of Shapiro or his ideas on Natural Genetic Engineering. Zachriel

It’s a waste of time talking to you. You haven’t read enough of the theoretical literature.

LOl. One reason to ignore Margulis’ critique of neo darwinism is that it's very bad. THis is the person who let this paper get published, after all: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/47/19901.full It would be bizarre to teach the not-very-well-supported opinions of a hand full of evolutionary biologists in high school. wd400

Zachriel: It's a waste of time talking to you. You haven't read enough of the theoretical literature. The fact that you are struggling with my comments on Margulis and Gould shows that you are well behind me in reading *the actual words of those authors*, as opposed to reading *popular paraphrases of some of their isolated ideas*. Margulis's critique of neo-Darwinism, complete with quotations and links to her words, has been discussed at length on this very website, a couple of years ago. I can't remember the exact columns, but if you Google "Margulis" "Elizabeth Liddle" and "Timaeus" all together, you will probably be able to find the discussion and the link to Margulis's exact words. And Gould's *Structure of Evolutionary Theory* is easily available. I've already indicated that you need to read Gould's critique of adaptationism and functionalism (a separate issue from punctuated equilibrium). The scientific citations you are demanding are given copiously in Shapiro's book. I don't intend to go through the pages of his book and type out the references for you. If you are too lazy to read Shapiro's book, you aren't serious about evolutionary biology anyway. Besides, Shapiro has a website with massive technical resources on it; you can find even more detail there than is in his book. James Shapiro, University of Chicago. I trust you have the internet skills to take it from there. Do some reading, and then, when you are up to my level in evolutionary theory, we'll talk. Finally, you continue to have reading comprehension problems (as so many "sciencey" types do these days). I did not say that I "wanted" schools to "provide books" in ID. I said that I would not *forbid* those science teachers who, in their personal judgment as science educators, thought that reading a book by Behe or some other ID proponent might be helpful to some students, from mentioning such books on a supplementary reading list. I said nothing about "providing" such books, i.e., I said nothing about making such books course textbooks, or even about putting them in the library. But your reading is so sloppy you jump to conclusions. Of course, sloppy reading is nothing new in critics of ID; in fact, it's more the norm than the exception. Timaeus

Timaeus: Margulis’s endosymbiosis is found in the textbooks, but her criticism of neo-Darwinism isn’t. Huh? Endosymbiosis is a fundamental change in the then prevalent view of evolution. The criticism only has historical interest. While endosymbiosis is critical to understanding evolutionary history, it doesn't mean that much of evolution isn't due to neodarwinian processes. Timaeus: Gould’s punctuated equilibrium is found in the textbooks, but his serious critical analysis of Darwinian adaptationism isn’t. Huh? Punctuated equilibrium is a significant change in the then prevalent view of evolution. The criticism only has historical interest. Punctuated equilibrium isn't contrary to darwinism or neodarwinism. Timaeus: such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics in some one-celled organisms due to genome restructuring We've asked several times. Please provide a scientific citation so we know exactly to what you are referring. Timaeus: If you read my answer with due care ... We did. You wanted the school to provide books on Intelligent Design in the context of the biological sciences. Intelligent Design is not valid science, certainly not accepted science by the biological community, so should not be provided to students with the imprimatur of science. Zachriel

Zachriel: "We're familiar with Shapiro's scientific publications." Horsecrap, Mr. Schizophrenic. If you were, you would know what he has to say about genome restructuring. Stop BS-ing. Timaeus

Zachriel: You are misleading about what's found in the textbooks. Margulis's endosymbiosis is found in the textbooks, but her criticism of neo-Darwinism isn't. Gould's punctuated equilibrium is found in the textbooks, but his serious critical analysis of Darwinian adaptationism isn't. As for Shapiro, while some of his ideas about evolutionary theory are not yet generally accepted, some of the biological data he discusses has long been accepted -- such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics in some one-celled organisms due to genome restructuring -- but is not mentioned in the textbooks because the Darwinians who control the school curriculum don't want any "Lamarckian" heresy to be taught to the kids. The goal of those behind the curriculum is always to give evolutionary biology a facade of unity that it doesn't have, and that is done entirely for political purposes. Your childish final comment about pseudoscience betrays a deep disrespect for the science teachers of America. You don't believe they are competent to compile reading lists for bright students who want to read outside the curriculum. You think you know more about science pedagogy than they do, and more about the psychology of 13-17-year olds than they do. I pray that you are not a science teacher; your classroom would be one of indoctrination, not education. But that makes sense, as Darwinian theory, in all its guises, has always had much more quasi-religious materialist-reductionist dogma in it than real empirical science. You also don't read carefully. Your comment about "the introductory level" shows that you are still thinking about the hopelessly bad system, currently employed in most U.S. states, of teaching biology before the other sciences, in ninth grade, and of introducing evolutionary biology at that point, while the students are still trying to learn basic cell biology, basic genetics, etc. (and haven't yet done any high school chemistry, and thus are lacking in the chemical knowledge needed to understand even the basic biology, let alone evolutionary theory). If you read my answer with due care, you would see that my proposal was to teach basic biology in the early high school grades, deferring evolutionary theory until the upper grades, so that when students are introduced to evolutionary theory they already have a good understanding of basic biological concepts (the structure and physiology of cells, mitosis, meiosis, nucleotides, amino acids, oxygen cycle, carbon cycle, food chains, etc.). With those basics in hand, evolutionary ideas could be taught at a higher and more sophisticated level than they can be at present. There is certainly nothing in Shapiro's idea of genomic re-engineering that a high school senior could not understand, if that student already knows the basics of genetics and cell structure and function from previous courses. Timaeus

Timaeus: in 65 You insisted. Timaeus: In other words, you are too lazy to read Shapiro’s book. We're familiar with Shapiro's scientific publications. Are you saying you can't summarize any specific examples for discussion? That's very odd. If so, then we can defer this part of the discussion. Zachriel

Zachriel (64): Note this exchange: Timaeus: Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. Zachriel: In other words, you won’t name a single example worth discussing. Timaeus: In other words, you are too lazy to read Shapiro's book. And if you're too lazy to read Shapiro's book, then your thoughts on evolutionary biology are completely worthless. Anyone who claims to know evolutionary biology and hasn't read Shapiro's book, which came out more than 3 years ago, is a fraud and a poseur. All serious evolutionary theorists have at least read it, whether they agree with it or not. The fact that you haven't read it (along with the fact that you seem utterly unaware of the basic struggle between the structuralists and the functionalists) tells me you are not actually in the field of evolutionary biology, but are just another internet BS-er about evolution, like 99% of the atheists/materialists who post here. Fraud and poseur, Zachriel; fraud and poseur. Timaeus

Zachriel (re 65): After sounding half-reasonable previously, in 65 you sound infantile. You might try conversing like a grown-up. It's painful to give up one's childhood, I know, but it's a necessity of civilized existence. Timaeus

OFF-TOPIC Timaeus: Why do you keep saying “we”? A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,

group of poseurs ultimate expression of internet group think hive commune of pedants committee weird cult collective pseudonym like Bourbaki five guys collective tri-unity imaginary playmates being of more than one mind royalty, pluralis majestatis the Z-team, a team of Zachriels schizophrenic because it annoys you editorial, pluralis modestiae someone with a tapeworm best friend is a pooka dissociative identity disorder a bizzare pseudo-world affectation gaggle of grad students Jovian clique nervous tick possessed by demons a group of concerned citizens Got a mouse in your pocket? fellow at a Darwin institute gang of Z elaborate avatar created by a theist to explore the worldview of materialism

Zachriel

Timaeus: does there come a point where the original model is no longer adequate, even with modifications, and a new evolutionary theory is necessary When a new evolutionary theory is proposed that explains all the observations better than the current theory, then that is when the theory gets replaced. Otherwise, the old theory muddles along. In any case, speculating about a possible new theory is fine, but teaching such speculation to schoolchildren is not. Timaeus: Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. In other words, you won't name a single example worth discussing. Timaeus: when I introduced evolution — which I would put in the senior grades (eleventh/twelfth grades in US terms) — I would give a brief historical overview of evolutionary theory, ... followed by discussion of more recent developments; and the various critical remarks of Gould, Margulis, Shapiro and others, and the theoretical basis of those remarks would be discussed. All of that, including Gould (punctuated equilibrium) and Margulis (endosymbiosis), excepting Shapiro (natural genetic engineering), are already found in many high school textbooks. As Shapiro's ideas are relatively new and not yet generally accepted, it's appropriate they not be taught at the introductory level. Timaeus: Nor would I forbid teachers from putting a few ID books on a list of “further readings for keen students who are interested in learning beyond the course requirements.” Pseudoscience has no place in high school science classes. Zachriel

Why do you keep saying “we”? Has anyone else authorized you to speak for them? Or are you a crowned head of state? If neither of these conditions apply, please stop saying “we” and say “I”. I want to know whether I am addressing a single person or a group.

Every time Zach uses that affectation in speech it should cost him 3 UD preferred-member bonus points. Or maybe we could determine some other appropriate penalty for him -- but merely pointing out how stupid his royal we sounds hasn't helped yet so far. Silver Asiatic

Zachriel: Why do you keep saying "we"? Has anyone else authorized you to speak for them? Or are you a crowned head of state? If neither of these conditions apply, please stop saying "we" and say "I". I want to know whether I am addressing a single person or a group. You are taking one statement out the Altenberg literature without looking at the whole context. The whole context makes it crystal clear that the big question is how far the neo-Darwinian model of evolution can be merely supplemented -- by throwing in "other mechanisms" (which still operate within a largely Darwinian superstructure); does there come a point where the original model is no longer adequate, even with modifications, and a new evolutionary theory is necessary -- one in which the Darwinian mechanisms are not necessarily abolished, but in which they no longer take center stage? That is what the work of Wagner, Newman and other "structuralists" is about; the neo-Darwinian model is inherently "functionalist", and you can't get to a "structuralist" model merely by touching up a "functionalist" model, any more than you can get to a chocolate ice cream sundae by merely touching up a Greek salad. If my comments still do not make sense to you, I recommend that you read the discussions of structuralism of functionalism in Gould's opus magnum, and that you have a look at some of the recent writings of Wagner, Newman, and Denton. Regarding Shapiro, if you really do want specifics about organismal re-engineering of the genome, as you say you do, you will find them in his book entitled *Evolution*. Indeed, I would say that anyone who comments on current evolutionary theory as if he knows all about it ought to have read that book. As for your final question, do you mean "biology" or "evolution"? Regarding biology, I would teach them basic cell biology, basic genetics, basic physiology, and basic ecology before discussing evolution at all. That would be in ninth/tenth grades in US terms. Then, when I introduced evolution -- which I would put in the senior grades (eleventh/twelfth grades in US terms) -- I would give a brief historical overview of evolutionary theory, with some general discussion of Paley, Lyell, Lamarck, etc., followed by a discussion of Darwin's ideas, followed by a discussion of Mendel's ideas, followed by a discussion of the Modern Synthesis, followed by a discussion of Crick and Watson and the cracking of the genetic code and the resulting "solidification" of evolutionary theory in the 1960s, followed by discussion of more recent developments; and the various critical remarks of Gould, Margulis, Shapiro and others, and the theoretical basis of those remarks would be discussed. I would not at any point mention creationism, the Bible, or religion (except in a general way when explaining the contrast between Darwin and Paley). I would not make mention of ID mandatory in any state or school district, but I would not forbid teachers from mentioning the names of Behe etc. as examples of certified, published scientists who doubt the efficacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to generate new body plans. Nor would I forbid teachers from putting a few ID books on a list of "further readings for keen students who are interested in learning beyond the course requirements." This is where I differ from Scott and the NCSE, who would greatly downplay any appearance of disagreement among evolutionary biologists and who would make any mention of the names of ID theorists or their books in a biology class illegal (because unconstitutional). I am a much less intellectually tyrannical person than the NCSE folks. I believe that in an open intellectual atmosphere, good ideas will defeat bad ones and silly ideas will be marginalized. You don't need to ban and censor criticisms of mainstream theories. The NCSE believes the opposite. So contemptuous are they of the natural curiosity and open-mindedness and reasoning ability and basic intellectual honesty of high school students, that they want to "protect" those students from hearing "dangerous" ideas, i.e., ideas which challenge the consensus (which in point of fact is no longer even really a consensus). Part of our problem is that you keep talking about "modern evolutionary theory" and I keep talking about "neo-Darwinism". The culture-war activity against ID has been largely led by hardcore neo-Darwinists. Read the transcripts of the Dover trial. It's mostly 1970s evolutionary theory that the "expert witnesses" were pushing. (Some of the examples of fossils and the computer simulations were of course more recent, but the theoretical framework was old.) I don't hate "modern evolutionary theory" as such; what I hate is the misrepresentation of "modern evolutionary theory" as the dated conceptions of Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, etc. I don't want that archaic and theoretically unimaginative "evolutionary science" pushed in ninth-grade biology as "settled science." It's not settled science, it's dated science; already clever young biologists are mocking the evolutionary theory of Richard Dawkins. If we are going to teach high school students evolutionary theory -- and I think we should -- let it be the evolutionary theory of smart biologists at the University of Chicago, like Shapiro, or smart biologists at Stoney Brook, like Newman, not the theory of retired propagandists like Richard Dawkins or of cell biologists (not even evolutionary biologists) like Ken Miller who have not published any scientific articles since 1999. Timaeus

The problem is that the population size and number of generations is woefully small to even begin to consider a change of allele frequencies.

I beg your pardon? In a tiny population an innovation can be fixed very quickly, even by drift alone, but especially if it confers any kind of advantage.

Vervust et al. (2009), emphasis added: The presence of the species [Podarcis sicula] on the latter islet [Pod Mrc^aru] is remarkable, as it was introduced there in the context of an ecological experiment in 1971 (NEVO et al., 1972). Although the founder population consisted of ten adult specimens (five males and five females) only, the species has successfully colonized the island, eradicating the original population of Podarcis melisellensis in the process.

Piotr

Piotr: The problem is that the population size and number of generations is woefully small to even begin to consider a change of allele frequencies. Hence they write (from your quote above):

Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc^aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5].

Population genetics can explain this change, something you think I see as an "evolutionary milestone." As to my 'confidence,' this paper was discussed here over 7 years ago. I don't know that the paper was out yet, or that it was open at the time. What was available was available in articles about the experiment. What I remember being said was that they transferred this lizard species away from an island where it was in competition with another species, to an island where there were no lizard species, hence no 'competition.' When they say "originally populated," that doesn't necessarily mean that it was populated with the other species at the time the 'sicula' lizards were moved to the new island. From what you've quoted, it's really hard to determine; but, at the time I remember it being reported as a transfer to an island where there were no species. (If the original species was in competition with another species, then if you're looking for something novel to happen you would likely want to move it to a situation where it is removed from that competition.) Also, if you search the document, the word "competition" doesn't show up. PaV

Timaeus: As far as I understand the history of the term, “Pangenesis” was not used by Lamarck. No. Pangenesis was Darwin's theory. Timaeus: I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes. We responded generally to Shapiro's view, but we'll look at any specific evidence. Timaeus: The Altenberg conference was intended to explore such possibilities Here's the official statement from the Altenberg conference:

The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.

Not much of a revolution. Most of those mechanisms have already been incorporated into evolutionary theory or relegated for further study. Timaeus: So if you (and whoever else is represented your “We”) think that someone would only criticize neo-Darwinism because of some alleged religious motivation, think again! Of course scientists criticize. It's what they do. But you have to have evidence to change the paradigm. Timaeus: Indeed, teaching young people that there are differences and that scientists are eagerly looking for ways to determine which version of evolutionary theory is more correct is an excellent way of getting them excited about a scientific career. That's intrinsic to the scientific process, not to a particular branch of science. We asked for specifics, but you really haven't provided any. What would you want to teach to children about biology. Zachriel

Zachriel: As far as I understand the history of the term, "Pangenesis" was not used by Lamarck. It might provide a theoretical explanation for how Lamarckian evolution could work, but as far as I know the word and its exact meaning are Darwin's, not Lamarck's. But this is a minor point. We are agreeing that Darwin allowed a role for Lamarckian explanation. (By the way, the account of Lamarck and Darwin in Gould's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, esp. 178-179, is more or less in line with my own.) Why do you say "*We're* aware"? Are you the Queen? Or are you writing on behalf of a group, e.g., the gang at Panda's Thumb? Your remark on Shapiro is not clear to me. You seem to be saying that I was referring to some reference in Shapiro to epigenetics. But I was not. I was talking about the capacity of some organisms to re-engineer their own genomes. He discusses this in many places, notably in his book *Evolution*. The question is not one of "contradicting" neo-Darwinian notions, as if they are entirely wrong. The question is of *the relative importance* of notions such as natural selection and random mutation. You are misrepresenting the current range of views if you are implying that all evolutionary biologists think that the recipe for success is to mostly keep neo-Darwinism and tinker a bit at the edges, "extending" NDE a bit with a few other ideas. Some evolutionary biologists think that random mutation and/or natural selection are much less central factors. The Altenberg conference was intended to explore such possibilities, but of course, there are always going to be those (Coyne, Dawkins, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, etc.) who belittle anyone who thinks outside the box in which their own dated training in evolutionary theory has imprisoned them. Finally, I did not say that Shapiro or anyone else in particular endorsed ID. It is, however, noteworthy that often the criticism of neo-Darwinism in Shapiro, Margulis, Newman, Wagner, etc. resembles the criticism offered by ID writers. So if you (and whoever else is represented your "We") think that someone would only criticize neo-Darwinism because of some alleged religious motivation, think again! Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, Margulis, etc. are/were all atheists or agnostics. The theorists I'm talking about are/were (Margulis is dead, hence the slashed alternative) part of the community of professional evolutionary biologists. Some of them are at the peak of their careers, actively publishing and researching. I do not say that high school biology has time to cover in detail all of their ideas, but it would be wrong for the biology curriculum to pretend that evolutionary theory is something monolithic and that there are no fundamental differences between the theorists. Indeed, teaching young people that there are differences and that scientists are eagerly looking for ways to determine which version of evolutionary theory is more correct is an excellent way of getting them excited about a scientific career. I hope you are not working under the false assumption, which I have already corrected in replying to Aurelio Smith (who as yet has not been honest enough to accept my correction and retract, but is still standing on his pride), that my position here is anti-evolutionary. At no point have I suggested that the schools should deny that the overwhelming majority of biologists endorse evolution. I am talking about giving a more representative picture of the varying views on the causes of evolution. But the NCSE has steadily opposed legislation that would allow teachers to do that. It wants schoolteachers to be forced to follow curriculum and textbooks that are narrowly and programmatically neo-Darwinian. Its idea of "high school science teacher" is "paid mouthpiece of the state for the promulgation of the reigning theories"; my idea of *any* high school science teacher is "one who presents science in its richness" -- and that richness includes the indication of disputed ideas and unsolved mysteries, and the sense that "the experts" don't always know it all and that "the consensus" is not always right. Timaeus

Timaeus: I know indeed that Darwin tended to adopt Lamarckian suggestions in later editions of the Origin. He did more than that. Darwin proposed a Lamarckian theory called Pangenesis. This isn't usually taught in basic biology because it's irrelevant other than for its historical interest. Timaeus: I was talking about actual changes to the genome stimulated by encounters with the environment. I take it that you have not read Shapiro or any of the school of evolutionary theorists springing off the work of McClintock. We're aware of Shapiro's ideas. Epigenetics is one of the often cited mechanisms. It's not clear that he is really proposing anything radically new. The historical record strongly supports natural selection as the primary mechanism of adaptation, and understanding of how toolbox genes work and how they evolved has extended, but not contradicted, the basics of evolutionary theory. Everyone's an Einstein Darwin. Nor do any of these ideas support Intelligent Design, construed as an outside agent, rather than the workings of internal 'intelligent' mechanisms. Zachriel

Zachriel some history lessons for you adapation theory is not neo-Darwinian mkay?

The most famous scientist associated with adaptive theory is Charles Darwin whose studies in the 1830s in the Galapagos Islands established a fixed relationship between organism and its habitat. Before Darwin, other scientists such as Empedocles, Aristotle, William Paley, Lamarck and Buffon accepted that fact that species changed, but didn't fully understand the reason behind the changes or that adaptation was a continual process without a final form. Adaptation theory proposed three changes when habitat changes: habitat tracking, genetic change or extinction. Of the three, only genetic change is the adaptation

Andre

Zachriel: I did not say that Darwin had disproved Lamarck. I said that it was a popular trope that Darwin had disproved Lamarck. I know Darwin's writings firsthand, so yes, I know indeed that Darwin tended to adopt Lamarckian suggestions in later editions of the Origin. But the textbook popular presentation of Darwinism is never based on what Darwin actually wrote, but on idealized positions. Science popularizers are quite frequently ignorant of the actual messiness in the history of science; they have a narrative they want to put across, and facts don't bother them too much. So you get the gross oversimplification that Darwin believed that evolution had to wait until useful variations occurred by accident (which was the position of later neo-Darwinism), as opposed to the Lamarckian idea that constructive variation could spring from environment-organism interactions. The fact that Darwin himself wavered over mechanism and never entirely abandoned Lamarckian notions is conveniently glossed over. And it is the neo-Darwinian "Darwin" that most of the public has been taught in high school and popular writings about evolution for about the past 70 years. On another point: I was not talking about epigenetics. I was talking about actual changes to the genome stimulated by encounters with the environment. I take it that you have not read Shapiro or any of the school of evolutionary theorists springing off the work of McClintock. I have not suggested "making vacuous complaints about well-established science." What I am saying is that the presentation of evolutionary theory in the past has typically been of a one-dimensional neo-Darwinism. That is not reflective of the actual state of evolutionary theory today. It is ridiculous to have high school students still thinking about evolution as Dobzhansky thought about it, when over the past few decades the landscape has seriously changed. High school teaching necessarily simplifies, but there is no excuse for its simplifications to be those of 1975 rather than those of 2015. High school students are bright enough to understand *in general outline* the difference between different evolutionary theories. If you can explain to a high school student the difference between Big Bang and Steady State theory, you can certainly explain the difference between an evolutionary theory that is heavily adaptationist and one that isn't. And it's nothing short of academic dishonesty to leave high school students with the impression that evolutionary theory is a polished piece of work with only a few details to fill in, when in fact evolutionary theory, along with all of biology over the past 25 years, has been in tremendous flux as volumes of new knowledge pour in. This has nothing at all to do with ID; it's a point of science pedagogy that applies, mutatis mutandis, to the teaching of chemistry, physics, earth and space science, etc. in the high schools. In history class, students are taught conflicting theories of, say, the cause of the French Revolution; similarly, in science class, students should be given some idea of the diversity of theoretical opinion that exists among scientists; otherwise, they are being given a false picture of what science is as an intellectual enterprise. Timaeus

Timaeus: There is no excuse, in 2015, for not letting high school biology students that neo-Darwinism is a greatly simplified model of evolutionary change. It's not that simplified. A lot of evolution, including adaptation, still occurs within the neodarwinian framework. Timaeus: Students are taught now, for example, that acquired characteristics are never inherited {...}; but we now know this is not true, at least for some one-celled organisms. Are you referring to epigenetics? If so, epigenetics doesn't seem to persist past the 2nd generation. That would make it a phenotype, not a genotype. In any case, you can't learn epigenetics without already understanding genetics, so genetics is the appropriate subject for an introductory text. Timaeus: (the old “Darwin disproved Lamarck” trope) Um, Darwin didn't "disprove Lamarck". Darwin actually proposed a Lamarckian theory of inheritance. It was Mendel who discovered the genetics of inheritance. Timaeus: But the NCSE doesn’t want teachers to have the freedom to alert students of those criticisms. What? You want teachers to mention epigenetics? Timaeus: Part of science education should familiarize students with the scientific process, which includes the criticism of existing theory in the light of new evidence. Sure, but you don't learn the scientific process by making vacuous complaints about well-established science. Zachriel

Zachriel: We were taught about the Bohr atom in high school -- *and* were taught that it was a simplified model. And that was many years ago. There is no excuse, in 2015, for not letting high school biology students that neo-Darwinism is a greatly simplified model of evolutionary change. Random mutation and selection used to be almost the whole story in evolutionary theory. Now there is vigorous debate about how important random mutation is as a source of evolutionary novelty, and how far selection is involved in a good deal of evolutionary change. Students need to be made aware of that. When you say "What proposed changes?" I'm puzzled. Are you unaware that over the past 20 years or so, various states and school boards have proposed and in some cases enacted policies in science education that include "teaching scientific theories more critically"? My point was that the NCSE has issued a blanket "No" to all such policies, *even when they explicitly guarantee that neither creationism nor ID will be taught in the biology curriculum*. It follows that the NCSE stance is based not merely on the desire to keep "religion" out of science classes, but on the desire to protect the status of classical neo-Darwinism, which is pretty much what is taught in high school biology textbooks. Students are taught now, for example, that acquired characteristics are never inherited (the old "Darwin disproved Lamarck" trope); but we now know this is not true, at least for some one-celled organisms. High school students should be made aware of this. There is nothing wrong with teaching neo-Darwinian theory as long as the teacher is allowed to inform students of criticisms of that theory. But the NCSE doesn't want teachers to have the freedom to alert students of those criticisms. It wants "Miller Darwinism" or "Dawkins Darwinism" to be what is taught in the high schools. That's the problem -- doctrinaire science which kills the spirit of criticism and inquiry. Science education must go beyond merely teaching students simplified versions of current theories. Part of science education should familiarize students with the scientific process, which includes the criticism of existing theory in the light of new evidence. Students should learn something of why certain scientific theories eventually replaced others, and why even our most certain scientific ideas today may not seem so certain tomorrow. Any teaching of science that regards science as "stuff" that "students gotta know" falsifies the nature of science, and makes it into the equivalent of teaching history as nothing but a series of names and dates. Timaeus

PaV

If you can’t see the problem for population genetics, then this is a problem for you. It should be clear why it is a problem.

Namely? Excuse my ignorance, but I'd really like to hear the details.

I think caecal valves are a large-scale phenotypic change.

That's what I find funny. For most IDers they are just a piece of muscle, but for you at least they are an evolutionary milestone.

And the island they were place on had NO lizards there. That there was no competition factors into what happened, and you’re not keeping track of that in your response.

You are speaking with such amazing confidence as if you had read the published reports on those lizards. Your complacency is surprising and hard to excuse, since the original article is open access:

Here we address these issues by examining the outcome of a remarkable 36-year experimental introduction with the lizard Podarcis sicula. In 1971 five adult pairs of this species were moved from the small islet of Pod Kopis^te (0.09 km2) to the nearby Pod Mrc^aru (0.03 km2) by Nevo and coworkers (12). Both islets lie in the middle of the South Adriatic Sea near the larger island of Lastovo and belong to Croatia. Although the islet of Pod Mrc^aru was originally inhabited by another lacertid lizard species (Podarcis melisellensis), repeated visits (twice yearly over the past three years, beginning in 2004) show that this species has become extinct on Pod Mrc^aru. Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrc^aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5]. [Herrel et al. 2008]

Piotr

Timaeus: the Modern Synthesis is still the common understanding It's a simplified model, like the Bohr model of the atom. Timaeus: And if evolutionary theory *really* is no longer committed to a heavy dose of random mutation plus selectionism, ... Random mutation and selection are still fundamental processes in evolution. So is common descent. Timaeus: then the NCSE should not be against those proposed changes to the high school biology curriculum which involve presenting students with a summary of the critique of standard neo-Darwinism found in the scientific literature What proposed changes? Zachriel

Zachriel (48): Yes and no. In *popular* discussions of evolution (including the discussion surrounding the Dover trial, and much of the angry blogging directed against ID), the Modern Synthesis is still the common understanding, both of lay people and of the science popularizers. The neck of the giraffe, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistance, finch beaks, etc., ad infinitum. Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins have done a good deal more to shape the understanding of the average American who reads about these issues than the promoters of "neutral theory" etc. have. Even in the strictly academic world people who lean strongly to a population genetics/ heavily selectionist account still still seem to be found. How far off is Jerry Coyne from the old-time neo-Darwinism, in anything but minor details? His contemptuous reaction to the work of Shapiro etc. suggests: not far. And if evolutionary theory *really* is no longer committed to a heavy dose of random mutation plus selectionism, then the NCSE should not be against those proposed changes to the high school biology curriculum which involve presenting students with a summary of the critique of standard neo-Darwinism found in the scientific literature; but Scott and her gang have opposed *every single proposal in the USA* for changes of that sort in the biology curriculum, even where those proposals for change have *explicitly* stated that neither creationism nor intelligent design would be taught. Why is the NCSE so dead-set against teaching the weaknesses of the neo-Darwinism of Dawkins, etc., if, as you say, the real world of academic evolutionary biology is onside with the criticism of the modern synthesis? What motivation could the NCSE have -- unless the NCSE really does endorse the very account of evolution that you say academic biology long ago transcended? It is interesting that in the Dover trial the NCSE supplied the "scientific" defenders of evolution; odd that leading evolutionary biologists such as Shapiro, Wagner, Newman, Jablonka, Margulis, etc. -- all questioners of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy -- weren't invited to testify about more recent developments in evolutionary theory. What we heard was evolutionary theory as understood by the neo-Darwinian Old Guard. What a joke, to use the US legal system to vindicate a popular understanding of evolution that even the evolutionary biologists themselves have been steadily modifying and in some cases abandoning. Timaeus

wd400: For what it is worth, my answer to your earlier question -- which I took some time to compose, as I thought you wanted to hear my reasoning -- is to be found on the thread where you asked it: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/okay-darwin-follower/ If you find my answer adequate, inadequate, or in any way interesting, you may respond in that place. Timaeus

PaV: then “junk-DNA” will have been shown to be a wrong prediction of Darwinism Actually, "Darwinism", meaning natural selection being the primary mechanism of evolutionary change, generally predicts reduced amounts of vestigial structures. The question, still under debate, is the interplay between the processes that create junk and those, such as natural selection, that reduce junk. PaV: there are evolutionary biologists who now say that the Modern Synthesis is “dead.” You do realize the "Modern Synthesis" is several human generations old? It's been known to be incomplete almost since its inception. Zachriel

Yeah -- it says evolution like climate change science is tangled up in culture war. wd400

wd400

Rather, the major determinant on someone’s position on evolution (pro or con) is the culture with which they identify.

That says something about evolution as opposed to many other scientific claims. Silver Asiatic

FWIW, and that seems like very little at this point. I don't think ID sympathy generally arises from a lack of knowledge, and it certainly isn't a result of stupidity. Rather, the major determinant on someone's position on evolution (pro or con) is the culuture with which the identify. On the other hand, this mains many people (on both sides...) have strongly held opinions about subjects they don't know very much about. How posts on this site think the best (and only?) argument for junk DNA is the fact most of the genome hasn't yet been assigned a function. Heck, Wells wrote a book about junk DNA without taclking any of the strong arguments for it. So, when people (even those wil biology degrees) make silly statements based on their misapprehensions I try ot correct them (just as I would correct your typical hyper-selectionist evolution fan boy or girl when they make mistakes). As for the claim I'm a "pedant". I don't think it's a small error to suggest that the possibility of speciation wihout goegraphic isolation is a finding forced on us by genomics, rather than an idea that literally goes back to The Origin, was not widely doubted in the 1940s and has been the subject of a long-running debate in evolutionary biology ever since. Or, in another recent thread, to point out that a long story about polyploid evolution is rather short-cutted by the fact the species in question is diploid. Or, for that matter, to point out that intra-specific competition is rather important for evolution by natural selection (!). Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone who rejects and entire scientific field to understand the rudiments of that field, and to educate themselves about specific examples before throwing of increasingly outre ideas to explain observations that can be well-explained by more evidence-based theories. wd400

wd400: When you leave RM+NS behind, then it's a whole new 'game.' Yours is an exercise in being learned. It blinds you. If I seem comical, it is only because I refuse to think in Darwinian categories. What has Darwinism really explained? What does it predict? Nothing. And, everything. It's a wondeful ex post facto theory, like the Ptolemaic Universe. As to an intro to Bio, should I remind you I have a degree in Biology? From a long time back, yes, but a degree in Biology nevertheless. You simply have a penchant for pedantry. You want to give readers of UD the impression that you're knowledgeable, our expert at large, and that the whole idea of ID results simply from a lack of knowledge of the field of biology. This isn't the case, and you know it. (Look at the Discovery Institute, e.g.) But you're intent on giving that impression. Darwinism is almost entirely vacuous. It explains next to nothing. And when the ENCODE project finishes its work---if it's allowed to do so (Darwinian orthodoxy always lurks)---then "junk-DNA" will have been shown to be a wrong prediction of Darwinism, and a correct one for ID. Then what will happen? (You, of course, will say that "we've known this for a long time." Contrary to the truth, but convenient to think and say) In the meantime, there are evolutionary biologists who now say that the Modern Synthesis is "dead." That's all we're saying here. You insist, however, in telling us how this Synthesis explains all things. Right. You're entitled to your 'beliefs,' but, unfortunately, I'm not a 'true believer.'

finally, if your ‘ID-perspective’ requires you to reach for un-attested phenomena like “NGE” or trans-generational epigenetics to explain observations like these, then I’m afraid that perspective doesn’t seem very useful.

My dear, wd400, it is not the ID perspective that requires this, it is the impotence of neo-Darwinism that requires it. PaV

PaV: That there was no competition factors into what happened Intraspecies competition. Zachriel

You want me to be just as versant in evolutionary biology as the next PhD

I don't think you need as much as a PhD. I think you should know at least as much as a intro to Bio student,especially if you are going to conclude that an entire scientific field is bunk. At the moment your posts are kind of comical: like someone sitting down in from a checkers board and occasionally throwing all the pieces off the board and yelling "checkmate!", apparently unaware of how any part of the game you are playing works. In this latest post, for instance, you don't seem to know what epigenetics means. finally, if your 'ID-perspective' requires you to reach for un-attested phenomena like "NGE" or trans-generational epigenetics to explain observations like these, then I'm afraid that perspective doesn't seem very useful. wd400

Piotr:

Why should it be a problem for population genetics?

If you can't see the problem for population genetics, then this is a problem for you. It should be clear why it is a problem. I think caecal valves are a large-scale phenotypic change. And the island they were place on had NO lizards there. That there was no competition factors into what happened, and you're not keeping track of that in your response. PaV

wd400: Yes, I admitted I made a mistake about 'interpreting' your remark. But, clearly, there was reason for the mistake. That you accused me of "inventing" WGA was a much bigger error. But somehow you turn that around. You're intent on 'demonstrating' how little I know, and, presumably, how much you know. You're final remark:

It’s clear that you know only a little about this topic, so why are you so willing to pour scorn on the work of thousands of scientists without first trying to learn about that work?

Here's my answer: because I reject their presuppositions. When I read an article dealing with evolution, I have to basically re-interpret what their saying. Why? Because what is actually discovered in a study is so shrouded with Darwinian vocabulary that it is difficult to find out their actual discovery. You want me to be just as versant in evolutionary biology as the next PhD., and yet, for me, this is not a vocation, but an avocation. It is a silly expectation on your part. I view biology from an ID perspective; not from an evo-bio perspective. Things look very differently, and one comes to different conclusions. It is very easy on your part to simply dismiss this as a lack of education or otherwise; but all this does is exempt you from looking at things differently. You seem to think that if I "knew" more, then I would think differently. I've been at this for over ten years now. Because of various discussions, I've had to look at many things. Prior to the "wars," I read my share of things. The problem is not a lack of education; the problem is the beginning assumptions. In math, one begins with axioms. When those axioms change, then the conclusions change as well. You come here sort of as an "expert," who will point out all the errors being made. Well, there might be errors being made, here and there, but these are incidental, not determinative. Editing the Communist Manifesto for grammatical errors doesn't make Marx's thesis correct. If you see what I mean. (I sometimes have to wonder) Now, as to the lizard: refresh my memory on your explanation. I don't remember you addressing it. Let's have a go at it. As to this:

Again, your armchair hypothesis is already disproved. In the scrubjays (and the finches) the traits are heritable. If you want to invoke inter-generational epigenetics you (a) are assuming the existence of a phenomenon that (as far as I’m aware) has never been observed in birds and (b) still talking about differential survival of heritable variants.

First, I didn't invoke epigenetics. You were wrong to criticize what I was saying based on that. Second, your point (b) is also mistaken. Again, if you remember, I mentioned NGE. (I hope you recognize that acronym: it's Natural Genetic Engineering) Along these lines, the best solution to what occurs is to assume that the diet of these birds---which, after all, are broken down into various chemical constituents, and are digested in a particular way) have an effect on the expression of genes (this is not, strictly speaking, epigenetics) that are already present in the genome. So, what we see demonstrated is simply birds who are adapting to environmental conditions via some kind of feedback system triggered by their eating habits. Are the genes involved inherited? Of course, just like everything else is being inherited. Has there been a change in gene frequency? On this assumption, no. Instead, there has been a change in gene expression. Finally, these changes are likely inherited. Now we've entered the arena of epigenetics proper. You say that epigenetics hasn't been discovered in birds. To which I reply: has anyone been looking? So, I would predict that if they bother to look more in depth, they will find an epigenetic component to all of this. Time will tell. In the meantime, we're left with 'opinion,' not 'fact.' PaV

Thank you for admitting a mistake. In reply to your earlier post. Perhaps you didn't inpentanly invent the acronym WGA for "whole genome analysis", but it's not one that's widely used. That you thought it was (and so didn't need explaining) remains demonstrartive of you depth of knowledge in these fields.

And here we have speciation in the absence of such isolation. You completely misunderstood what I had written. But this didn’t seem to slow you down any.

Yes, because I have the advantage of knowing about the ~80 years of debate on the role of geography in speciation and the various models and studies that have demonstrating the conditions under which different modes of speciation work...

And when you say that “the recent swing towards more examples of ecological speciation has almost nothing to do with genomics,” isn’t this another way of saying that population genetics can explain this effect?

No. It's hard for me to even see why you think that.

Just like the case of those Adriatic lizards I’ve asked you to comment about on more than one occasion now. But, again, population genetics completely fails to explain what happens, and your response is————–silence. Maybe you’re hoping no one notices.

I replied once, and you returned this cockamamey story about evolution not having enough time to "sample the genome" which was so disconnected from reality I gave up.

The most sensible take on these findings is to presume that some kind of environmental effect, having clearly to do with diet, is effecting gene expression

Again, your armchair hypothesis is already disproved. In the scrubjays (and the finches) the traits are heritable. If you want to invoke inter-generational epigenetics you (a) are assuming the existence of a phenomenon that (as far as I'm aware) has never been observed in birds and (b) still talking about differential survival of heritable variants. It's clear that you know only a little about this topic, so why are you so willing to pour scorn on the work of thousands of scientists without first trying to learn about that work? wd400

PaV, I wonder what sort of problem you have with "those Adriatic lizards" (see my comment above, #19) Piotr

wd400: I found the post: The thread was "Darwin's Finches not a Good Example of Darwinian evolution?" It's #12:

(Not that it matters to anything today, but do you have a reference for Darwin’s claims about dog and pigeon species?)

I understood this as you 'wanting' the "reference," and not you 'questioning' the reference. I read it quickly. Added to this, this is the sort of claim normally would howl about, but you didn't. Finally, taken by itself, your statement was not entirely clear about whether you were agreeing, or disagreeing with what had been said earlier about "Darwin's claims about dog . . . species." Subsequently, you disavowed this view of what Darwin may have claimed, so, under the circumstances, I have apparently misunderstood what you wrote. My mistake. PaV

wd400: I cannot find the link. And I'm not about to look around for it. But I did read it. And read it quickly. Maybe you were quoting someone else. In fact, I remember distinctly that 'dog' was set in quotation marks. Now I use quotation marks a little excessively, so I would have taken them to mean an emphasis. You may have been--and since you're distancing yourself from it--I'll take it that you were directly quoting someone else. Again, if you don't take that position, then fine, I accept that. But I have no reason in the world to make something up like that. What purpose would it serve me if this remark doesn't reflect your views? ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Now, getting away from your silly charges of making this stuff up, let's move on to what constitutes true 'silliness.' I've only thrown three books down in disgust. "Origin of Species," when Darwin turned taxonomy on its head; Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker," when, after so many pages of what ended up being of no use whatsoever to his argument, he simply concluded---without substantiation---that evolution proceeds via "cumulative selection"; and finally Mayr's, "What Evolution Is." This renowned Darwinist, in an acclaimed book, gives a description of speciation that is no more than 'hand-waving.' I've read many books; but only those three did I throw down in disgust. Why? Because of the intellectual bankruptcy, the incoherence, they present. There is nothing so silly as what Darwinists want to tell us about speciation. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Now, I'll move onto a review of this thread? Here's what I originally wrote:

“Due to WGA, previous neo-Darwinian expectations have been overturned, with WGA demonstrating that the same species can, indeed, diversify without becoming ‘geographically separated.’” This suggests ‘environmental’ triggers. Shapiro’s NGE.

((As to the acronym I used for WGA, you might want to look here: http://www.abbreviations.com/acronyms/GENOME/60 You said I "invented" this. Would you like to take that back? Maybe you need to read more about whole genome analysis.)) You responded to the above quote in part:

. . . The importance of geographic isolation in speciation has been a central argument in evolutionary biology since the 1940s

My whole point was that Darwinists look to geographical isolation for speciation events. (Since they're left only to guess) This represents a large part of their argument a la Gould and PE. And here we have speciation in the absence of such isolation. You completely misunderstood what I had written. But this didn't seem to slow you down any. And when you say that "the recent swing towards more examples of ecological speciation has almost nothing to do with genomics," isn't this another way of saying that population genetics can explain this effect? Well, here we have speciation taking place, and, according to you, population genetics can't explain it. Just like the case of those Adriatic lizards I've asked you to comment about on more than one occasion now. But, again, population genetics completely fails to explain what happens, and your response is--------------silence. Maybe you're hoping no one notices. The most sensible take on these findings is to presume that some kind of environmental effect, having clearly to do with diet, is effecting gene expression. Whether you want to lump it with epigentics, or with NGE, it has to be something along these lines. That Darwinists are averse to this proposition---as you are---doesn't make it wrong. You consider yourself educated. So, tell us, how do YOU explain these findings? What do you think is happening? PaV

Any progress on that link, Pav? It would really cap your peformance in this thread to find that you combined the phrase "You actually have to make sense here" with a nonsensical rant about a post that exists only in your imagination.... wd400

Absent a link or quote with context I have no idea what I am claimed to have said... wd400

wd400: You wrote it; not I. It was on another post. Maybe you said it by mistake, or maybe you meant it in response to something someone else said. If that is not your position, this wouldn't surprise me since it would be senseless to think this. I will assume you consider breeds to be breeds, and not species, until you say otherwise. PaV

I shouldn't reply, but this is too funny

Pav, Wd400 was wrong from the get go with his “ecological competition driving divergence in a continuous population. Like this.” first post. Nope, this is a Magic Trait within Sympatric Speciation

So called "Magic traits" necessarily involve competition, "sympatric" means within a continuous population. wd400

What are you on about PaV? Dog species? wd400

Pav, Wd400 was wrong from the get go with his "ecological competition driving divergence in a continuous population. Like this." first post. Nope, this is a Magic Trait within Sympatric Speciation. Magic not Competition. ppolish

wd400:

If might save you from saying silly things, but it really appears nothing will.

Really!? What is truly silly is what evolutionists write about speciation. They should be embarrassed to pawn off onto the unsuspecting public, and more importantly, onto unsuspecting students, this 'tale' of how species arise. They should just be honest and say they don't know how it happens. Just as an example, I see where in another place you talk about "dog" species. This is inanity. We all know that they are breeds. We also know that if left alone---that is, no longer artificially kept separate from one another---that they will revert to a wolf species. So calling breeds 'species' serves only to illustrate that evolutionists are willing to say anything. I'm sorry, wd400, but that doesn't work here. You actually have to make sense here---and not just wave around 'magic' words. PaV

Darwin did not believe in purposeless unguided Evolution did he? That is only the modern dogma? So how can assortative mating be viewed as unguided in this day and age? Let's call it magic... http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2811%2900113-3 Magic Traits lol. Who comes up with this stuff:) The ability to fall in love would be a magic trait? Do you believe in magic? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eaqRwFyoGgQ ppolish

Bob O'H: The food sources themselves aren’t enough, you need assortative mating too. Because of the innate ability of birds to intermingle and hybridize geographically, the evidence indicates that birds often accelerate speciation through sexual selection for color and song. There's been a lot of research in the topic of birdsong, but this one seems particularly apt: Slabbekoorn & Smith, Bird song, ecology and speciation, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002: "Song may, therefore, provide females with acoustic cues to find males that are most fit for a particular habitat." See also Lachlan & Servedio, Song Learning Accelerates Allopatric Speciation, Evolution 2004: "learning therefore reduces the waiting time for speciation to occur and can be predicted to accelerate the rate of speciation." Zachriel

Separate forests with separate food sources, which ought to limit gene flow. Is it limited enough for speciation?

No. Joe Felsenstein showed that it isn't in the 80s. The food sources themselves aren't enough, you need assortative mating too. Bob O'H

Rhampten7, I was stating my personal evidence requirement. Anyway, don't waste your time with me, I'm a "Jesus all the way down" person:) Holy Spirit. ppolish

Today Darwin is wrong because geographic isolation isn't as important as we thought. Yesterday he was wrong because geographic isolation is more important than we thought:

The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation

:-) (Why they see adaptation and geographic isolation as somehow competing forces, I have no idea. Both of these articles are rather odd IMO. BTW this is also an example of how silly the claim oft-made here is that scientists go out of their way to show their allegiance to Darwin. From what I've seen it's usually the opposite.) goodusername

ppolish, ID theory has no problem with material "unintelligent" evolution, and in fact assumes it to be the primary cause of microevolution. So as long as you understand that your default is not ID theory's default, and you do not misrepresent ID theory as such, then you have no problem with me. rhampton7

RHampten7, my default is ID until I see evidence of material "unintelligent" Evo Bio:) ppolish

You want me to read more about speciation? Why?

If might save you from saying silly things, but it really appears nothing will. wd400

ppolish, ID theory would only tag a specific sympatric speciation event as "Designed" if a novel, irreducibly complex or specifically complex feature was identified. I don't believe anyone has found such a feature in the diverging spalax species. Until they do, this is simply a case of natural (material, 'unintelligent') evolution (whether you call it Darwinian or not, I don't care). rhampton7

I’m still waiting for you to give an answer as to how those Adriatic lizards changed so quickly and so dramatically. You’ll never give one, because there is no answer population genetics can give. But it lends itself quite easily and quite evidently to some sort of environmental triggering.

Funny. Some time ago I discussed the Mrc^ara lizards with a Polish cdesign proponentist, and his argument was that the caecal valve they had evolved was a trivial microevolutionary change not really worth a comment. Still lizards, you know. You can surely explain why environmental triggering produced the valve in the immigrant Podarcis sicula population on the island, but not in the local P. melisellensis population (a closely related species), which evidently needed it as well: after all, it was driven to extinction by the more successful valve-equipped competitor. And why haven't other populations of P. sicula on very similar Adriatic islands been affected by the (practically identical) environment in the same way? Why should it be a problem for population genetics? Piotr

Sympatric Speciation is a marvel of ID. Purposeful, guided, and maybe a dash of NS & RM. Maybe not. ppolish

wd400: You want me to read more about speciation? Why? It's utter nonsense. Why should I waste my time? It is the ultimate in "just-so" stories. I'm still waiting for you to give an answer as to how those Adriatic lizards changed so quickly and so dramatically. You'll never give one, because there is no answer population genetics can give. But it lends itself quite easily and quite evidently to some sort of environmental triggering. Instead of rejecting anything that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived ideas of how nature works, why not turn it around and, noticing how nature works, look for a sensible answer? As to epigenetics not at work here, you don't know that. You don't know every way in which epigenetics might work with an organism and within populations. It's an emerging area of discovery. But, alas, anything that doesn't fit into your patterned view of things must be rejected. So much for scientific curiousity. PaV

ppolish, You're welcome. That's a paper from 1999, showing that concept of sympatric speciation is not new, and should have been known to Wired's writer had they done some basic research. This paper from 2013 Possible incipient sympatric ecological speciation in blind mole rats (Spalax) is about may favorite example an animal "caught" in the act of evolving. Eviatar Nevo Ph.D., founder of the Institute of Evolution in Israel, has been documenting this fascinating speciation event for decades. rhampton7

OK, (a) inventing your owl acronyms and not defining them amkes understanding you hard work and (b) the recent swing towards more examples of ecological speciation has almost nothing to do with genomics. You ought to read some more about speciation, as your potted history of the field was very inaccurate. I have indeed heard of epigenetics, but it doesn't seem to be relevant here. wd400

Rhampton, from your link..."When assortative mating depends on a marker trait, and is therefore not directly linked to resource competition, speciation occurs when genetic drift breaks the linkage equilibrium between the marker and the ecological trait. Our theory conforms well with mounting empirical evidence for the sympatric origin of many species10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18." Thanks. ppolish

wd400: WGA is "whole genome analysis." Yes, I've read all sorts of things on speciation, none of which I find intellectually rigorous in the least. Finally, you have heard of epigenetics, right? PaV

But where is the "ecological competition driving divergence". Where is competition? Pine nuts and acorns are prolific. Enough for birds and squirrels and plenty left over. Ecological ingenuity driving divergence matches the evidence better than competition. Why are Darwinists so gung ho about competition? grrrr? ppolish

I'm a bit puzzled at the researchers' puzzlement. While textbook examples of geographic separation are often the "perfect" or "ideal" variety, with some impassable river or mountain range, that's hardly necessary for speciation. They even acknowledge that you don't really need separation at all: "Well, speciation can also come about in a broadly distributed population, with individuals at one end evolving differently than individuals at the other, but nothing kicks evolution into overdrive quite like separation." And in this example, you do have a kind of separation: Separate forests with separate food sources, which ought to limit gene flow. Is it limited enough for speciation? Maybe, maybe not, but they even say that they are a single species. So we have somewhat of a geographic separation, and two populations within a single species that have somewhat or partially differentiated. Wow, shocker. goodusername

This is called sympatric speciation. Sounds like the writer from Wired did not know the basics. rhampton7

PaV, (1)What's WGA? (2) Have you read anything about speciation? The importance of geographic isolation in speciation has been a central argument in evolutionary biology since the 1940s (3) These traits are heritable, over and above what habitat ta bird finds itself in, so it's hard to see how these results can be explained by "environmental triggers" wd400

PAV:

All of this suggests ‘environmental’ triggers, and not RM

Absolutely. The species are obviously intelligently designed with a toolbag of many important (and thus conserved) genes, the expression of which is indirectly controlled by the environment. Mapou

From the linked paper:

Physical barriers to gene flow were once viewed as prerequisites for adaptive evolutionary divergence. However, a growing body of theoretical and empirical work suggests that divergence can proceed within a single population.

Let me translate: "Due to WGA, previous neo-Darwinian expectations have been overturned, with WGA demonstrating that the same species can, indeed, diversify without becoming 'geographically separated.'" This suggests 'environmental' triggers. Shapiro's NGE. All of this suggests 'environmental' triggers, and not RM PaV

Darwinists: We discovered (long after hunters and farmers, apparently) that species adapt. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is true. You guys need to get a life. Smoke some weed or something. Mapou

BTW, Wd, a pistachio beak jay would be evidence for "Emergence of a Good Design" not "Survival of the Fittest". That is a tautology that needs to be retired. Retired because it is wrong not because it is old. Plenty of old ideas are doing just fine. Mountains of evidence for Emergence of a Good Design. Squat for Survival of Fittest. ppolish

Wd, The evidence I use for "Nature is Intelligent" is the same evidence you use for "Nature is Competitive". You see competition in the oak & acorn jays, I see ingenuity. Here is a test. Plant some pistachios on the isle and pistachio beaked jays will emerge. Sure, a lot of jays will live and die as a new beak is formed. But they won't die from starvation with all the acorns and pine nuts around. That is ingenuity not competition. ppolish

PPolish, The paper answers you questions We've been round and round on this in the past with regard Darwin's Finches. You are welcome to your "nature is intelligent" line , but it's clear enouhg to me that it is untestable, and you've demonstrated in other threads that you incapable or unwilling to understand these topics ,so I'm not going to waste any time trying. wd400

Wd400 - Where is this vaunted "ecological competition" you speak of? If you're born with an acorn beak, hang out in the oaks, born with a pine beak, hang out in the pines. Why no pine/oak beaks and a skinny jay with a coconut beak? Because that is stupid talk. Nature is not stupid. Nature is intelligent. Guided. ppolish

Okay, first, knock out the bong pipe. Shower and put on some shoes. Have a look at the job board.

WTF are you on about?

Darwin was wrong about everything except the fact that you could make a living somewhere, high in California. Turns out you can. About the rest, we dunno.

Darwin was wrong about many things, and right about a good deal more. For the most part he was wrong about speciation precisely because he down-played the role of geographic isolation and emphasised ecological competition driving divergence in a continuous population. Like this. wd400