Literature

Despite the intense interest in transitional forms, nearly all the candidates offered for our attention relate to stages of diversification within an Order or Family assemblage. These provide examples of morphological change, but rarely bridge the discontinuities that distinguish the higher taxa. In a minireview, Rodney Honeycutt introduces the problem in this way:

"The evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson defined major morphological discontinuities among higher taxa, specifically the orders of mammals, as the result of macroevolution or 'quantum evolution'. In many cases, these discontinuities lack fossil evidence of transitions, appearing as what Simpson termed 'breaks in the fossil record', [. . .]
These discontinuities, as well as the short time periods associated with the diversification of many mammalian orders, are still presenting a challenge to paleontologists, geneticists and developmental biologists attempting to reconstruct the 'Mammal Tree of Life', a first step in understanding the geological and biological processes that are responsible for mammalian diversity."

There are legitimate questions that need to be asked about this methodology of "attempting to reconstruct the 'Mammal Tree of Life'". The fossil data speaks 'discontinuity' but the evolutionary biologists are committed to 'continuity' (common ancestry). They do not ask the question whether some or all of these discontinuities are real. The 'common ancestry' theoretical model governs completely the way research proceeds and what outcomes are deemed acceptable.

Evolutionary biology is locked within the common ancestry paradigm, and discontinuities merely provide structure for the classification. (Source: go here.)

Molecular data provides another avenue for developing cladograms and, subsequently, evolutionary trees. The methodology in general use adopts the same evolutionary presuppositions - namely, that all taxa can be fitted into the theoretical model known as the Tree of Life. Sometimes, the molecular data and the morphological data complement each other, but there are numerous examples of conflict. One of these, noted by Honeycutt, concerns the Afrotheria. This group of African animals has been defined using genetic data and links together elephants, manatees and dugongs, hyraxes, elephant shrews, aardvarks, golden moles and otter shrews.

"The superorder Afrotheria is another challenging case of morphological discontinuity in mammalian evolution, containing animals as morphologically distinct as elephants and aardvarks. [. . .] Despite the obvious morphological differences distinguishing the members of this superorder, extensive molecular phylogenetic studies consistently support a monophyletic origin for the Afrotheria (that is, the group all descend from a single common ancestor). But there are few unequivocal morphological synapomorphies (shared-derived characteristics) supporting monophyly of this clade. As indicated by Archibald, the superorder is "not predicted by fossils"."

This tension can be eased, it is proposed, via the evo-devo approach. Honeycutt refers to recent work on the genetics of mammalian tooth formation, with some very tentative conclusions. He then links this research with the general message emerging from evo-devo advocates and declares:

"As with many other examples, changes in gene regulation probably account for morphological similarities and differences among the Afrotheria."

Turning to bats, which appear abruptly in the fossil record, Honeycutt's review leads to the same general explanation:

"it is now clear that small changes in the spatiotemporal pattern of gene expression during development account for the dramatic changes represented by the chiropteran forelimb, and the genes responsible are beginning to be identified. [. . .] Although the processes responsible for the evolution of powered flight in mammals are not yet known in detail, these comparative studies indicate that small changes in the timing and extent of expression in key genes can have large developmental effects."

Reading this minireview has raised some serious concerns about the way evolutionary biology is practised.
1. There is an unhealthy dominance of the Tree of Life presupposition. This is steering and controlling thinking and effectively cuts off other avenues of legitimate enquiry (e.g. are the discontinuities real?).
2. There is a tendency to elevate tentative research findings to the status of being a panacea for solving major research questions. The reported research is said to be in its infancy, with very little known in detail, but this does not prevent drawing grand (and unwarranted) conclusions. Evo-devo enthusiasts should be more open to the possibility that their research is uncovering vast storehouses of complex specified information that explains stasis and diversification within an Order or Family but actually prevents transformation between discontinuities.

Small changes, big results: evolution of morphological discontinuity in mammals
Rodney L Honeycutt
Journal of Biology, March 2008, 7:9, 1-4 | doi:10.1186/jbiol71

Abstract: Comparative morphological and developmental studies, including a recent comparative study of tooth development among the Afrotherian mammals, are indicating the types of genetic mechanisms responsible for the evolution of morphological differences among major mammalian groups.

"The tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), found only in New Zealand, is the last surviving member of a distinct reptilian order Sphenodontia that lived alongside early dinosaurs and separated from other reptiles in the Upper Triassic."

Tuatara declared world's fastest evolving animal

The tuatara is so close to fossil forms that it has been dubbed a "living fossil". Animals like this were contemporary with dinosaurs. They are not typical reptiles. They have several uncommon physiological features:

"They have low body temperatures (they are active down to 5 deg C in the wild); slow rates of growth (about 50 cm in 35 years); a slow metabolism; a long generation time (sexual maturity at 10-15 years) and a slow reproductive rate (at 2- to 5-year intervals)."

Since slowness is a characteristic, it has been assumed that this is relevant to the lack of morphological change. "It has been argued that generation time, metabolic rate, body temperature and body size modulate the rate of neutral molecular evolution." This has led to an expectation that rates of neutral DNA sequence evolution also would be slow. So this is what the new research has tested.

Mitochondrial DNA has been used, taken from living animals and from sub-fossil bones ranging in age from 650 to 8750 radiocarbon years. The results were surprising:

"The rate estimates [. . .] show that the evolutionary rate of the tuatara HVR regions is the highest among the vertebrate species studied to date.This rate is >50% faster than that of other vertebrates."
[and, after exploring alternative explanations - ]
"These factors further confirm that there was minimal post-mortem damage to the DNA, that the ancient sequences obtained are authentic and that the unexpectedly high tuatara evolutionary rates are real."

The researchers have expressed some surprise at this finding. In their paper, they say: "Given this high rate of molecular evolution, the stable morphology of tuatara over tens of millions of years is remarkable." Their Press Release has this:

"Of course we would have expected that the tuatara, which does everything slowly - they grow slowly, reproduce slowly and have a very slow metabolism - would have evolved slowly," Lambert said. "In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly."

The paper points out that their findings challenge many hypotheses and notions about evolutionary change. The most substantial conclusion that can be drawn is that it supports the general hypothesis that the rate of molecular evolution is not coupled to the rate of morphological evolution. But this, of course, challenges the neoDawinian synthesis, which insists on small incremental changes acted on by natural selection.

The authors do not discuss the more fundamental question of how far DNA information is responsible for the form of organisms, or whether the form of organisms is determined by other information embodied in embryonic cells. This question is not being asked by Darwinists, who insist that all biological information must be traced back to the genome. However, some biologists (including those advocating Intelligent Design) are actively exploring alternatives.
"Previous studies on living fossils such as the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab have suggested a substantial nucleotide diversity in these phylogenetically distinct species, perhaps indirectly suggesting a high evolutionary rate."
The evidence is accumulating that much contemporary evolutionary theory is not supported by data. If you want a prediction arising out of the tuatara research, it is that the gulf between the genome and the development of form will widen, and the association of molecular evolution with morphological evolution will be weakened.

Rapid molecular evolution in a living fossil
Jennifer M. Hay, Sankar Subramanian, Craig D. Millar, Elmira Mohandesan and David M. Lambert
Trends in Genetics, March 2008, 24(3), 106-109.

Abstract: The tuatara of New Zealand is a unique reptile that coexisted with dinosaurs and has changed little morphologically from its Cretaceous relatives. Tuatara have very slow metabolic and growth rates, long generation times and slow rates of reproduction. This suggests that the species is likely to exhibit a very slow rate of molecular evolution. Our analysis of ancient and modern tuatara DNA shows that, surprisingly, tuatara have the highest rate of molecular change recorded in vertebrates. Our work also suggests that rates of neutral molecular and phenotypic evolution are decoupled.

See also:

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal, EurekAlert, 20 March 2008

Human beings are much better talking about Darwinism than being explained by it. One of the major anomalies concerns altruism. Despite the many proposals to explain, on biological grounds, why humans help others before looking after their own interests, the central questions are still unresolved. Consequently, Darwinists continue to search for ways of interpreting altruistic behaviour in a way consistent with selfish genes.

We need a philosophy of life that allows us to make sense of all our experiences

New research emanating from social psychology brings challenges to economists as well as Darwinists. The starting point was the question: "Can money buy happiness?" Several studies have found that, once basic needs are met, happiness levels are not correlated with income.

"Indeed, although real incomes have surged dramatically in recent decades, happiness levels have remained largely flat within developed countries across time. One of the most intriguing explanations for this counterintuitive finding is that people often pour their increased wealth into pursuits that provide little in the way of lasting happiness, such as purchasing costly consumer goods."

The finding is counterintuitive because the received wisdom in economics is that "spending money on yourself gives the greatest happiness bang for the buck". Against this is growing evidence that "prosocial behaviour" brings significant experiences of happiness to benefactors. The researchers devised three methods of testing their hypothesis that altruism promotes happiness. These involved a survey of the spending behaviour of 632 Americans, an analysis of the actual spending patterns of bonuses given to employees by a Boston-based company, and a spending behaviour experiment utilising psychology undergraduates. In all cases, emphasis was not on disposable income, but on patterns of expenditure (whether on self or on others). In all three avenues of enquiry, "happiness correlated with the amount of money people spent on others rather than the absolute amount of the bonus or income".

"Dunn says the results "confirmed our hypothesis more strongly than we dared to dream." The effects of altruistic spending are probably akin to those of exercise, she notes, which can have immediate and long-term effects. Giving once might make a person happy for a day, but "if it becomes a way of living, then it could make a lasting difference," she says."

According to the ScienceNOW report, these results will surprise most economists. A UK academic is reported as saying: "It's an intriguing result you won't find in Economy 101 textbooks". It is worth adding that the observed behaviours do not fit well into Darwinian thinking either, because no genetic advantage ensues from these forms of altruism.

In situations like this, it is reasonable to ask fundamental questions about the validity of the conceptual framework of the theorists. In particular, have economists and evolutionary biologists got the right tools for understanding human behaviour? Answering this question takes us far beyond the scope of this blog, but here are a few thoughts to suggest a way ahead.
There are millions of people around the world who are not at all surprised by the research findings. They have learned that it is better to give than to receive - from a Teacher whom they regard as the supreme example of self-sacrifice. They have proved by practical experience that it is worth excelling in generosity. This message is particularly relevant today - Easter Day 2008. For these people, the human race cannot be understood solely in terms of material entities. When economists and evolutionary biologists come to recognise that design permeates all aspects of human nature, this will be a big step forward towards the development of a holistic worldview.

Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness
Elizabeth W. Dunn, Lara B. Aknin, and Michael I. Norton
Science, 319, 21 March 2008: 1687-1688.

Although much research has examined the effect of income on happiness, we suggest that how people spend their money may be at least as important as how much money they earn. Specifically, we hypothesized that spending money on other people may have a more positive impact on happiness than spending money on oneself. Providing converging evidence for this hypothesis, we found that spending more of one's income on others predicted greater happiness both cross-sectionally (in a nationally representative survey study) and longitudinally (in a field study of windfall spending). Finally, participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves.

Youngsteadt, E., The Secret to Happiness? Giving, ScienceNOW Daily News, 20 March 2008

For years, we have been told that whilst most mammals can make Vitamin C from glucose, this ability is absent in humans, higher primates, guinea pigs and fruit bats. This trait, we are told, has an evolutionary explanation: an "inborn metabolic error" associated with an unfortunate mutation in past times. Instead of a gene for synthesising Vitamin C, these animals have a pseudogene. As a consequence, humans have struggled with scurvy whenever our diets have lacked natural sources of Vitamin C. The most vivid example of this involved British seamen in the late 18th century, who were eventually supplied with limes to avoid succumbing to the disease.

For a sailor, some lime juice a day keeps scurvy away

However, the loss of function story does not stop there. New research reveals a fascinating twist.

"[T]he red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA) [. . .]. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C) - can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body."

Emphasis really should be given to the word "efficiently". Animals making Vitamin C do not appear to be particularly adept at using it. "The recommended daily dose of vitamin C for humans is just one mg/kg, while goats, for example, produce the vitamin at a striking rate of 200 mg/kg each day." The remarkable efficiency of human red blood cells is described as a form of recycling:

"In essence, the red cells of animals that can't make vitamin C recycle what little they've got. Earlier studies had described the recycling process, Taylor said. "Our contribution to the whole story is to show that this process of recycling exists specifically in mammals that don't make vitamin C.""

This research is framed within an evolutionary perspective:

"Evolution is amazing. Even though people talk about this as an 'inborn error'--a metabolic defect that all humans have--there is also this incredible manner in which we've responded to the defect, using some of the body's most plentiful cells," said Naomi Taylor of Universite Montpellier I and II in France, noting that the body harbors billions of red blood cells. "[Through evolution], we've created this system that takes out the oxidized form of vitamin C and transports the essential, antioxidant form."

However, the research is also perfectly capable of a design perspective. Animals generating Vitamin C do not use it very efficiently. The alternative system of efficient recyling of Vitamin C in the diet avoids making for waste and, most of the time, it works very well. The only problems are when diets leave out foods that supply the Vitamin C. Instead of thinking of this mechanism as an evolutionary adaptation, the new research reveals processes that have optimised functionality.

Erythrocyte Glut1 Triggers Dehydroascorbic Acid Uptake in Mammals Unable to Synthesize Vitamin C
Amelie Montel-Hagen, Sandrina Kinet, Nicolas Manel, Cedric Mongellaz, Rainer Prohaska, Jean-Luc Battini, Jean Delaunay, Marc Sitbon, and Naomi Taylor
Cell, Vol 132, 1039-1048, 21 March 2008

Summary: Of all cells, human erythrocytes express the highest level of the Glut1 glucose transporter. However, the regulation and function of Glut1 during erythropoiesis are not known. Here, we report that glucose transport actually decreases during human erythropoiesis despite a >3-log increase in Glut1 transcripts. In contrast, Glut1-mediated transport of L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), an oxidized form of ascorbic acid (AA), is dramatically enhanced. We identified stomatin, an integral erythrocyte membrane protein, as regulating the switch from glucose to DHA transport. Notably though, we found that erythrocyte Glut1 and associated DHA uptake are unique traits of humans and the few other mammals that have lost the ability to synthesize AA from glucose. Accordingly, we show that mice, a species capable of synthesizing AA, express Glut4 but not Glut1 in mature erythrocytes. Thus, erythrocyte-specific coexpression of Glut1 with stomatin constitutes a compensatory mechanism in mammals that are unable to synthesize vitamin C.

See also:

Troadec, M-B. and Kaplan, J. Some Vertebrates Go with the GLO, Cell, Vol 132, 921-922, 21 March 2008.

How Humans Make Up For An 'Inborn' Vitamin C Deficiency, ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2008)

With the Darwin celebrations gaining momentum, it is worth noting an acknowledgment of error in the great man's thinking. The Press Release says: "Study shows Darwin was wrong about the origins of chickens" and this was echoed in some media reports. Darwin wrote he was confident that the domestic chicken was descended from the red junglefowl, but this turns out to be incorrect.

The yellow legs of chickens reveal their hybrid origin

The clue is in the yellow leg colouration which links to a genetic marker. This marker is not present in the red junglefowl but it is found in the grey junglefowl. The inference is that domestication involved hybridisation. Co-author Greger Larson said:

"Darwin recognized the importance of studying domestic animals as a model of evolution and this insight has proved enormously influential. The ironic thing is that he believed that dogs were hybrids of several wild ancestors but that chickens only had one, and he was wrong on both counts."

Why are these matters worthy of note? Not because Darwin happened to be wrong in his judgment in this matter, because new knowledge has come about with new evidence. We can be confident that Darwin would have changed his mind in the light of this research.

Rather, it is worthy of note because it contrasts strongly with far more important errors Darwin made that are not being brought to the attention of the public. He confused artificial and natural selection; he grossly exaggerated what natural selection is able to do; he assumed variation has no limits; he advanced the concept of common ancestry despite numerous evidences of discontinuity; he dabbled with inheritance by pangenesis (which we don't hear a lot about nowadays); and tried to present embryology and early development as evidence for his theory. We are not confident that Darwin would have changed his mind in the light of new evidences relating to these issues, because Darwin was primarily deductive in his thinking. He was not an empiricist who saw science developing by the testing of hypotheses but be brought a theoretical model to the data and explored 'best fit' scenarios. This approach he learned from Charles Lyell, who did much the same for geological science in his Principles of Geology. We have moved beyond Lyellism in the Earth Sciences - it is time we moved beyond Darwinism in the biological sciences. (For more on moving beyond Darwinism, go here.)

Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken
Eriksson J, Larson G, Gunnarsson U, Bed'hom B, Tixier-Boichard M, et al. (2008)
PLoS Genetics, March 2008, 4(2): e1000010 | doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010

Abstract: Yellow skin is an abundant phenotype among domestic chickens and is caused by a recessive allele (W*Y) that allows deposition of yellow carotenoids in the skin. Here we show that yellow skin is caused by one or more cis-acting and tissue-specific regulatory mutation(s) that inhibit expression of BCDO2 (beta-carotene dioxygenase 2) in skin. Our data imply that carotenoids are taken up from the circulation in both genotypes but are degraded by BCDO2 in skin from animals carrying the white skin allele (W*W). Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that yellow skin does not originate from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), the presumed sole wild ancestor of the domestic chicken, but most likely from the closely related grey junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii). This is the first conclusive evidence for a hybrid origin of the domestic chicken, and it has important implications for our views of the domestication process.

See also:

Study shows Darwin was wrong about the origins of chickens, EurekAlert, 29-Feb-2008

Highfield, R., Darwin was wrong about (chicken) evolution, The Daily Telegraph, 29 February 2008.

Darwin C., 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. Volume 1, Chapter VII, Fowls, 236-237.
From the extremely close resemblance in colour, general structure, and especially in voice, between Gallus bankiva and the Game fowl; from their fertility, as far as this has been ascertained, when crossed; from the possibility of the wild species being tamed, and from its varying in the wild state, we may confidently look at it as the parent of the most typical of all the domestic breeds, namely, the Game-fowl.

"Evolutionary biologists are - as modern scientists go - a historically minded lot" says Armand Leroi. Yet the perceptions of many are coloured by our secular culture: "The pre-1859 theoretical landscape is shrouded in a Judeo-Christian gloom that reaches without interruption to the dawn of recorded time, where it dissolves into the Stygian darkness of pagan creation myth." Happily, historians of science are generally able to challenge these revisionist cardboard images of the past. Leroi is reviewing a book by David Sedley, who is Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. Regarding the coffee-table myth, Leroi observes:

"David Sedley's book will change that view. He argues that, for the philosophers of ancient Greece, the central cosmological question was this: is the world, and all that it contains, the handiwork of an intelligent designer?"

"Even when Plato and Aristotle walk side by side, as in Raphael's famous painting The School of Athens, they do not see eye to eye or point in the same direction. We can't hear what the two are saying in Raphael's scene, but it seems clear enough that they belong to different generations and aren't listening too carefully to one another." (Source: go here)

The intellectual ferment of Athens threw up all sorts of ideas. Many were cranky, some indulged in poetry and metaphor, but the central issues could be explored with reasoned arguments.

"The brilliance of this book is that Sedley lets the Greeks talk to us and, surprisingly, we can understand what they're saying. Listen to Empedocles describing a time when the world was filled with a diversity of creatures with improbable combinations of features, most of which were then winnowed out, and you hear the late Stephen Jay Gould illuminating the body plans of the Burgess Shale fossils. Listen to Aristotle heaping scorn on Democritus for supposing that living things self-assemble from accidental combinations of atoms, and you hear Fred Hoyle's gambit that "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". Truly it has been, as Darwin said, just "one long argument"."

As the abstract of the review says, an exploration of these ancient debates "should broaden biologists' horizons". The puzzle is why debates about this central, cosmological question should not be an integral part of the discourse of the scientific community today? When there are numerous scientists who provide reasoned arguments that "the world, and all that it contains, [is] the handiwork of an intelligent designer", why are those advancing these arguments treated as though they have betrayed science? Why are they not welcomed as helping to broaden the minds of their colleagues? Sad to say, this stimulating debate is being crushed and we have a growing list of people who have been EXPELLED!

One long argument
Armand M. Leroi
Nature, 452, 153 (13 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/452153a

Abstract: Revisiting ancient Greek debates about the natural world should broaden biologists' horizons.

BOOK REVIEWED-Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity
by David Sedley, University of California Press: 2008. 296 pp.

Evolutionary biologists are - as modern scientists go - a historically minded lot. All of us acknowledge the greatness of Charles Darwin and some have even read On the Origin of Species. A few speak of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Lamarck or Goethe. Yet our historical horizon is actually very near. The pre-1859 theoretical landscape is shrouded in a Judeo-Christian gloom that reaches without interruption to the dawn of recorded time, where it dissolves into the Stygian darkness of pagan creation myth.
David Sedley's book will change that view. He argues that, for the philosophers of ancient Greece, the central cosmological question was this: is the world, and all that it contains, the handiwork of an intelligent designer? [snip]

Professor Kristi Bowman is an Assistant Professor of Law with an interest in how much influence the law has over the lives of US citizens. She wanted to find out more about the impact of national and state legislation on the teaching of evolution in high school science lessons. She noted that "researchers rarely focus on students' perceptions of the evolution, creationism, and intelligent design instruction in their high-school biology classes. This study builds on the work of Moore et al. (2006), who surveyed students in two high schools and one university, and begins to fill the existing knowledge gap by surveying students across the country." She asked: "What's really going on in science classrooms?" An overview of her findings has just appeared.

The teaching of evolution is a cover-story issue

The survey involved 8 states and three major variables: political climate (red or bue), regional location (NE, S, MW, W) and state standards (referred to as strong or weak). Some state standards require a rigorous teaching of evolution, and these were designated "strong standards" states. Other states say little or nothing about evolution, and these were given the name "weak standards" states. 972 completed questionnaires were obtained, and various sub-sets of these data were used for data analysis. The core sample was of 573 students who attended all 4 years of public high school in one of the designated states and graduated from high school in 2004-05.

Only headline findings are noted here. 92% said that they were taught evolution, but only 26% were taught "in depth". 30% said they were taught creationism, but 24% said that it was only mentioned briefly. 19% said that Intelligent Design was taught, but 12% said it was only mentioned briefly. Very few students described their experience of being taught creationism or Intelligent Design as "in depth". Another question explored whether these various options were presented as a "credible scientific theory", and the "yes" figures were 72% for evolution, 18% for creationism and 34% for Intelligent Design.

There were small differences noted across political boundaries. Surprisingly, state standards have very little effect on the statistics. This conflicts with the widespread assumption that standards have a strong influence on what goes on in the classroom. The most significant variable was geography:

"The law regarding evolution and creationism instruction is clear. State standards govern evolution instruction, but these data suggest that, regardless of what those standards say, evolution instruction varies least when disaggregated by the strength of the state standards, slightly more when measured against the red state-blue state division, and most when considering geographic location. In short, social factors appear to be more strongly correlated with disparities in the frequency and manner of evolution instruction than the sole legal factor."

Here are a few observations to think about:
1. This survey raises questions about the significance of the legal battles that have raged within the US over the teaching of origins. Whatever these battles are achieving, they are having very little impact on the ground.
2. There is no evidence that Creationism or Intelligent Design are being taught in any systematic way in US high schools. They get a mention - but this is only to be expected as textbooks also give them a mention, as did Darwin himself. These figures will not satisfy those who think that the high acceptance figures for Creationism and Intelligent Design are evidence for these topics being taught secretly.
3. Evolution teaching is certainly dominant, with 91% saying it is taught. But only 70% recall it being taught as a credible scientific theory and only 26% say it was taught in depth. These figures will not satisfy those who say that evolution is a cornerstone of biology.
4. The methodology of surveying students does not guarantee value-free data. There are a whole host of filters which need to be considered in the analysis. Teachers who take the time to look at what their students write down will sometimes come away thinking: 'Were we really in the same room?!' Those assessing their own courses also have justifiable reasons for questioning the validity of responses gained from students regarding their educational experiences. These analytical issues are not addressed by Bowman in this paper.

The author's concluding remarks are worth repeating:

"[T]he law is not clear regarding intelligent design because the ruling of the one court to consider intelligent design is not binding nationwide. [. . .] Especially as the intelligent-design movement gains momentum, it is important that we continue to assess students' perspectives on the frequency and manner of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design instruction in public high-school science classes."

What is important here is the educational experience of students, not just their recollections about what has been taught. And all the evidence that I am aware of shows that students who are 'taught the controversy' regarding origins issues find the experience more stimulating and perform better in examinations than those who are not.

The evolution battles in high-school science classes: who is teaching what?
Kristi L Bowman
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2008, 6(2), 69-74 | doi:10.1890/070013

Abstract: How frequently and in what manner are evolution, creationism, and intelligent design taught in public high schools? Here, I analyze the answer to this question, as given by nearly 600 students from major public universities nationwide in a survey conducted during the spring of 2006. Although almost all recent public highschool graduate respondents reported receiving evolution instruction, only about three-quarters perceived that evolution was taught as a "credible scientific theory". Creationism and intelligent design were reportedly presented almost one-third and one-fifth of the time, respectively, though respondents recalled that both concepts were presented as lacking scientific credibility much more often than not. The survey results are presented in composite form and also disaggregated with respect to the strength of evolution-related state standards, red state-blue state divisions, and the regional location of states within the country.

Note also:

Beyond the Frontier: Evolving Curricula in US High Schools? (Podcast) February 22nd, 2008

150 years ago on 1 July 1858, Darwin and Wallace's ideas on natural selection were read to the Linnean Society. But why does this 150th anniversary not get much of a mention in the current euphoria about Darwin? Recent correspondence in Nature suggests that the celebration plans are not doing justice to Wallace's contribution.
George Beccaloni and Vincent Smith refer readers to information from the Alfred Russel Wallace Memorial Fund at www.wallacefund.info/.

Alfred Russel Wallace

The correspondents write:

"This lack of interest in the 2008 anniversary is indicative of how Wallace's achievements have been overshadowed by Darwin's since Wallace's death in 1913, a process certainly not helped by the Darwin 'industry' of recent decades. During his lifetime, Wallace received plenty of recognition from his contemporaries for his part in the discovery, as indicated by the many honours bestowed on him. These include the Darwin-Wallace and Linnean Gold Medals (Linnean Society); the Copley, Darwin and Royal Medals (Royal Society); and the Order of Merit. Isn't it perhaps time for the current darwinocentric view of the history of biology to be revised?"

Whilst Wallace deserves to be remembered along with Darwin for originating the theory of evolution by natural selection, it is worth considering why his memory has languished. It is not just that he did not live among the intelligentsia of London. Michael Flannery has some interesting comments on Uncommon Descent:

"While Beccaloni and Smith want us to remember Wallace's discovery, I suggest a fuller reflection upon what that discovery meant to Wallace and to the biological sciences will uncover a wholly different kind of evolutionary scenario than that fashioned by Darwin, Huxley and their X-Club fellow travelers. In short, I call for not a recognition of Wallace within this much-touted Darwinian context but rather upon Wallace as the originator of an independent design-centered view best expressed as Wallaceism."

In 1888 Wallace wrote a book which represented his maturing thoughts on origins. The title was: Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection With Some of Its Applications. Although Darwinism was in the title, it was not the Darwinism of Darwin! He argued that, as far as humanity is concerned, natural selection cannot deliver much more than our physical bodies. Here are Flannery's comments on Chapter 15:

"Wallace opens his chapter by agreeing that natural selection accounts for much in the natural world, even the human form. The unique properties of the brain, however, are another matter. Wallace proceeds to demonstrate that, Darwin's elaborate speculations in his Descent of Man (1871) notwithstanding, particular features of the human intellect simply could not have been the product of natural selection. Humanity, in short, is more than the mere refinement of traits found in lower animals. Mathematical skill, musical and artist appreciation and ability, humor, the capacity for metaphysics, none of these could be explained by way of natural selection processes. This forms the context for his main thesis, namely, that humanity and its distinctiveness cannot be explained by Darwin's strict materialism."

Here are Wallace's last words:

"We thus find that the Darwinian theory, even when carried out to its extreme logical conclusion, not only does not oppose, but lends a decided support to, a belief in the spiritual nature of man. It shows us how man's body may have been developed from that of a lower animal form under the law of natural selection; but it also teaches us that we possess intellectual and moral faculties which could not have been so developed, but must have had another origin; and for this origin we can only find an adequate cause in the unseen universe of Spirit."

Comments like this mean that Wallace was not welcome in Darwinian circles. In short, he was EXPELLED!

Celebrations for Darwin downplay Wallace's role
George W. Beccaloni and Vincent S. Smith
Nature 451, 1050 (28 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/4511050d

We agree with Kevin Padian ('Darwin's enduring legacy' Nature 451, 632-634; 2008) that next year's Darwin anniversaries - the 200th anniversary of his birth and 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species - should be celebrated enthusiastically. But few seem to be aware that this year marks the 150th anniversary of one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science: the theory of evolution by natural selection. [snip]

See also:

Flannery, Why the recent article in Nature calling for Wallace recognition is right AND wrong, Uncommon Descent, 11 March 2008

The science community places great weight on sound reason, clear logic and objectivity. Whilst this works most of the time, it does not explain paradigm shifts (as articulated by Thomas Kuhn) which appear to involve pronounced human factors. Nor does it explain the origins debate involving scientists, where each of the viewpoints finds it hard to understand why other parties find it so difficult to follow what they regard as a simple argument. For example, some say that Darwinism provides a full and satisfying mechanistic explanation for design in living things so that it becomes possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, whereas others find Darwinian mechanisms capable of doing little more than providing fine-tuning of organisms to their environments, with no prospect of building complexity by these means. How can this situation be explained? Why is rationality, logic and objectivity (affirmed by all the parties) inadequate for resolving the controversies? Diehard positivists have a tendency to insist that they are in the right and all who differ from them represent the forces of darkness. However, new findings from neuroscience are emerging that show that our mental processes and the choices we make are influenced by prior convictions and beliefs.

What wine can tell us about the nature of reality

The most recent contribution to knowledge comes from social scientists involved in the way marketing actions can enhance or inhibit experiences of pleasantness of wine. Subjects tasted five samples, identified by their retail prices: $5, $10, $35, $45 and $90 per bottle. During tasting, the brain activity of the subjects was scanned using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). The Press Release summarises the results in this way:

The subjects consistently reported that they liked the taste of the $90 bottle better than the $5 one, and the $45 bottle better than the $35 one. Scans of their brains supported their subjective reports; a region of the brain called the medial orbitofrontal cortex, or mOFC, showed higher activity when the subjects drank the wines they said were more pleasurable.
There was a catch to the experiment, however. Although the subjects had been told that they would taste five different, variously priced wines, they actually had sampled only three. [. . .]
"Our study [shows] that the neural encoding of the quality of an experience is actually modulated by a variable such as price, which most people believe is correlated with experienced pleasantness," [said co-author Antonio Rangel].

An informative and insightful analysis of this research is by Jonah Lehrer.

"What they saw was the power of expectations. People expect expensive wines to taste better, and then their brains literally make it so. Wine lovers shouldn't feel singled out: Antonio Rangel, the Caltech neuroeconomist who led the study, insists that he could have used a variety of items to get similar results, from bottled water to modern art. [. . .] The human brain, research suggests, isn't built for objectivity. The brain doesn't passively take in perceptions. Rather, brain regions involved in developing expectations can systematically alter the activity of areas involved in sensation. The cortex is "cooking the books," adjusting its own inputs depending on what it expects. [. . .] [T]he work has broad implications. People assume that they perceive reality as it is, that our senses accurately record the outside world. Yet the science suggests that, in important ways, people experience reality not as it is, but as they expect it to be."

Neuroscience research, then, raises questions about the concept of objectivity and that challenges Positivist science in particular. We cannot escape being influenced by our expectations! Objectivity may be an ideal for science, but scientists, being human, cannot attain to it.
Expectations in science are linked to worldviews and paradigms of thought. This is what inhibits communication and understanding of controversial issues that are approached via different paradigms. This is the explanation why people on different sides of issues like these find it easy to impute irrationality or prejudice to the other side.

As a final thought, it is worth considering where neuroscience research is heading. Materialists think we are "nothing more than proteins and electrical impulses" (for a recent blog on this, go here). They should note that the findings of neuroscience are revealing that our "electrical impulses" do not reinforce the concepts of objectivity and rationality which are espoused by positivist science. As has been noted here, post-modernism is an inevitable consequence of positivist science. The underlying materialist philosophy is a universal acid that eats away everything it meets - including science itself. On this basis, the standards of objectivity and rationality have to be replaced by the socially constructed nature of science.
But should we throw up our hands and conclude that endless debates about the science of origins cannot clarify the truth? As long as Materialism prevails, there is no escape from this conundrum. However, when Theism replaces Materialism as the underpinning philosophy, the picture starts to look very different. Then, there are new grounds for justifying realism and rationality. Indeed, all the traditional emphases of science are reinforced by Theism - with the sole exception of secularism. This is not a negative point. Many of us regard secularism as an intrusion into the world of science, and we welcome having a rationale for removing it.

Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness
Hilke Plassmann, John O'Doherty, Baba Shiv, and Antonio Rangel
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences US, January 22, 2008, 105(3),1050-1054.

Abstract: Despite the importance and pervasiveness of marketing, almost nothing is known about the neural mechanisms through which it affects decisions made by individuals. We propose that marketing actions, such as changes in the price of a product, can affect neural representations of experienced pleasantness. We tested this hypothesis by scanning human subjects using functional MRI while they tasted wines that, contrary to reality, they believed to be different and sold at different prices. Our results show that increasing the price of a wine increases subjective reports of flavor pleasantness as well as blood-oxygen-level-dependent activity in medial orbitofrontal cortex, an area that is widely thought to encode for experienced pleasantness during experiential tasks. The paper provides evidence for the ability of marketing actions to modulate neural correlates of experienced pleasantness and for the mechanisms through which the effect operates.

See also:

Wine Study Shows Price Influences Perception, Caltech Media Relations, January 14 2008

Lehrer, J. Grape expectations, The Boston Globe, 24 February 2008.

According to David Goldston, "Many scientists today feel that they are confronted with an ever more religious and irrational public in the United States that reflexively rejects the views of scientists." This leads him to make various comments on how religious attitudes adversely affect the reception of science. Needless to say, this is not how ID advocates read the situation. It is not religion vs science, but theism vs materialism that is the real issue. When reframed in this way, theism emerges as the paradigm that nurtured science in its infancy and continues today to underpin the essential elements of scientific endeavour.
However, this is not the reason for drawing attention to this essay. Rather, Goldston identifies "two important facets" of interaction which, he says, may lead to "fresh problems".

The "ultimate picture of human nature" is that we are "nothing more than proteins and electrical impulses" - Goldston.

The first of these facets relates to social life and culture:

"Battles over science in general, and evolution in particular, tend not to reflect concerns about science, but about society more generally. [. . .] Scientists must continue to carry out their educational mission, but evolution will disappear from the headlines only when the whole constellation of social issues that animate the religious right recedes from public concern."

Unfortunately, these social issues are not clearly identified. We might surmise that some of these relate to Social Darwinism - as discussed recently by Weikart and West. There are additional issues surrounding the sanctity of human life (abortion, human embryo research, euthanasia, eugenics and human genetic engineering) where attempts by Christians to invoke an ethical stance drawn from the Bible are regarded as unwelcome intrusions into matters of science. Any objective analysis of this situation must conclude that this is not a case of religion vs science, but it is an issue of Christianity vs Materialism. There are two ethical stances in conflict: science is the playing field and not one of the players.

The second important facet concerns genetics and neuroscience and the attempt by materialists to interpret all of human nature in terms of physics and chemistry.

"Second, [. . .] the fact that scientific discovery can genuinely undermine religious beliefs. The [. . .] discoveries in genetics and neuroscience are likely to be far more problematic in the long run. The two fields are verging on drawing the ultimate materialist picture of human nature - humans as nothing more than proteins and electrical impulses, all machine and no ghost, to play off Descartes' formulation. This view will challenge not only fundamentalist views about the soul, but more widely held notions about what it means to be a person. That will further complicate age-old questions about the nature of individual responsibility and morality."

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that these words from Goldston are a deduction from his materialistic philosophy and they do not present the findings of empirical research. Materialism starts with the premiss that nature is all there is, and human beings are "nothing more than proteins and electrical impulses". This cannot be science, because science is a voyage of discovery, not a pre-emptive declaration of what the world is like. It is quite untrue to portray genetics and neuroscience as confirming "the ultimate materialist picture of human nature". (For more on this, consult Beauregard and O'Leary). Rather, these disciplines are revealing the necessity of bringing 'information' to the forefront of our conceptual models. The suggestion that humanity can be understood without reference to intelligent design is the ultimate materialistic scientist delusion. It is a small step from this dogmatic stance to anti-science. Materialists have become intoxicated with their own ideology: that is why many of us want to reclaim science from their grasp.
This takes us back to Francis Bacon who sought to reclaim 'science' from the Aristotelian philosophers - who thought they knew the true nature of the Universe. We want science to be open to evidence wherever it may lead. This means that today we must not start with materialism any more than, in the past, scholars grounded their thinking on Aristotelian metaphysics.

The scientist delusion
David Goldston.
Nature, 5 March 2008, 452, 17 | doi:10.1038/452017a

Abstract: Religious resistance to science is often exaggerated, but fresh problems may lie ahead