Evolution and the Kansas science standards

Steve Abrams, chairman, Kansas State Board of Education, presents his side of the evolution vs. ID/IOT debate.

I'm excerpting only the bits I'm commenting on – to see his unedited prose, follow the link.

...continued in full post...

The critics also claim that in the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. They then proceed to explain that I ought to understand something about this, because surely I can see that over a period of time, over many generations, a pair of dogs will “evolve”. There is a high likelihood that the progeny several generations down the line will not look like the original pair of dogs. And then some of the critics will claim that this proves that all living creatures came from some original set of cells.

I'd love to see the e-mail in question. Usually, that phrasing is used by opponents of evolution, followed by the "refutation", "but they're still dogs.

As far as that argument goes, we can see impressive amounts of change in populations under selection in a very short time. Also, history is complete enough that we're pretty convinced that the vast array of dogs all descended from one original type of dog. Once this bridge is crossed, one can see how bears and dogs might well have derived from a common ancestor. Whether that ancestor looked more like a wolf or more like a bear can't be determined just from that fact – other lines of evidence have to be considered. But there is no yawning gap between the two orders.

Sure, Chihuahuas and Great Danes are "still dogs", but bears and dogs are "still carnivores" – members of the order carnivora. And carnivores and ungulates (including cows) are "still mammals". Mammals and reptiles are "still vertebrates". Vertebrates and annelids (worms) are "still chordates". Chordates and molluscs are "still animals", and animals and plants are "still eukaryotes". The issue here is the pattern we see. These groups are not random – each subgroup represents a modification of a larger group – a modification added by something.

Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

Problem: "change from one creature to another" has been observed. That's why the anti-evolutionists are having such a hard time defining "kinds". Does a "kind" equate to a species? A genus? How about a class, order or phylum? No matter where they try to draw the line, there are lots of examples of transitions over that line. Ultimately, the only definition of a "kind", where change from one to another is impossible, seems to be a list drawn by some expert ID/IOT researcher.

In our Science Curriculum Standards, we called this micro-evolution and macro-evolution… changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.

OK, let's clarify. What is the line between "macro" and "micro"? What is the scientific test for determining what kind of change can happen, and what kind can never happen? Why is it that critics of evolution doggedly refuse to define so fundamental a term?

It seems that instead of making it a “he said”, and then “she said”, and then “he said” and so on and on, it would make sense to go to the document about which everyone is supposedly commenting about: The Kansas Science Curriculum Standards. (ksde.org)

Good idea!

Another claim that our critics promote through the media is that we are inserting Intelligent Design. Again, if we go to the Science Curriculum Standards, Standard 3 Benchmark 3 Indicators 1-7 (pg 75-77). This is the heart of the “evolution” area. Only 7 indicators… ...<snip>... 7) explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations. As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.” Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones minimizing open scientific inquiry from their explanation of the origin of life. They do not want students to know that peer reviewed journals, articles and books have scientific criticisms of evolution. ...<snip>... I have repeatedly stated this is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… this is about what constitutes good science standards for the students of the state of Kansas. I would encourage those who believe we are promoting a back door to creation or Intelligent Design to actually do your homework… READ and investigate the Science Curriculum Standards (www.ksde.org) and base your comments on them and not on the misinformation critics have been plastering the print and clogging the airways with… unless of course, your only defense really is baseless character assassination.

Well, let's look at some of these standards. What I find interesting is not so much the seven standards listed in the article, but the details listed under "added specificity". For example:

1)The student: understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors. 1-c) Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution.

The Talk Origins website is a good resource to look at as well. You'll find just about every "criticism" of evolution discussed there, particularly its index of creationist claims. In the case of this "yes, but" to the standards, we see:

Claim CC201: If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets: New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants. The transformation is even and slow. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range. However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. ...<snip>... The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

Continuing...

f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by: i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.

Claim CB821: Modern versions of the phylogenetic "tree of life" are based on DNA and other molecular analyses. Inconsistent and bizarre results based on different molecular analyses "have now plunged molecular phylogeny into a crisis" (Wells 2000, 51). A few inconsistencies are to be expected, because biology is messy. Genes need not always evolve at the same rate in different lineages. Some molecules may converge as a result of selection or chance. Horizontal gene transfer occasionally occurs. Such exceptions will be rare, but there will be a few of them among the vast body of consistent results. Most inconsistencies can be resolved by basing an analysis on multiple genes (Rokas et al. 2003). Other inconsistencies will occur as a result of methodological and interpretive mistakes (Sanderson and Shaffer 2002). Phylogenetic analysis is a very complex subject; people who do not understand it well cannot be expected to get it right all the time. Publishing one's methods and results allows others to catch mistakes. Creationists looking for inconsistencies can dishonestly pick out the few there are while disregarding the vast body of consistent results and the reasons for the inconsistencies. Some claimed inconsistencies are really consistent. Wells, for example, cited a study which "placed sea urchins among the chordates" (Wells 2000, 51), but sea urchins (and echinoderms in general) do group with chordates as a sister group. Wells (2000, 51) also cited another study that "put cows closer to whales than to horses," which is also entirely consistent with genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence.

ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and

Claim CC300: Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life.... There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya. ... Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. ... According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.

...embryological characters are still useful as evidence for evolution (in constructing phylogenies, for example), just as adult characters are. Furthermore, there is some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny, especially when applied only to individual characters. Various causes for this have been proposed. For example, there is selective pressure to retain embryonic structures that are needed for the development of other organs.

2. a. Genetic changes occur only in individual organisms. New heritable traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. Except in very rare cases, mutations that may be inherited are neutral, deleterious or fatal.

Claim CB101: Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests. They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations.

Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Claim CB902: Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. ... There is no argument that microevolution happens. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed. Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. ... I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution. Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. ...Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Two comments. First, the response to this item of "added specificity" is basically pointing out that lots of "micros" add up to a "macro". (And, if we're going to coin terms, lots of "macros" add up to a "super macro", and lots of "super macros" add up to a "super-duper macro".) Second, when I go in for jury duty, one of the things that's always being pointed out is that "circumstantial" evidence is often considerably stronger than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence hangs around and can be subjected to further testing whereas direct evidence depends on the memory of an eyewitness and becomes less reliable over time.

Back to the standards.

6. c. Natural selection, genetic drift, genomes, and the mechanisms of genetic change provide a context in which to ask research questions and help explain observed changes in populations. However, reverse engineering and end-directed thinking are used to understand the function of bio-systems and information.

Claim CI120: A purpose for an object indicates that the object is designed. When somebody designs something, he or she usually has a purpose for it, but the purpose is that of the designer, not the object designed. For example, people have a purpose for windows and airbags in automobiles, but the automobile itself has no such purpose. To the extent that traits of living things have a purpose, that purpose, ultimately, is the reproductive success of the organism's genes. Such purpose is entirely consistent with evolution. It is not uncommon for undesigned objects to have a purpose. The North Star, for example, has a purpose in navigation, but it got that purpose entirely through the chance of its being in a certain spot. Some life forms have no apparent purpose. Life also exists at cross-purposes. A bobcat's purpose for a rabbit is likely to be quite different from the rabbit's purpose.

This would actually be a splendid point to bring up not just in biology, but in all of science. Science asks "how", and not "why". Many's the time a scientist will be led badly astray by thinking of some system in terms of one particular function.

Some of the scientific criticisms include: a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;

Miller-Urey: A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). [Jonathan] Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). ...<snip>... The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today. ...<snip>... ...textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results....In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying.

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells;

Claim CA100.1: Evolution leaves lots of things unexplained, such as gravity, the origin of life, biological complexity, and morals. No theory explains everything, and evolution makes no pretense of being different. Evolution does not even apply to some areas, such as cosmology and physics. In biology, evolution is broadly applicable, and it explains a great deal (Theobald 2004), but it is not everything. Some explanations depend on other factors; some we simply have not found yet; and some may be beyond our ability to uncover or understand. It is silly to condemn evolution, despite its strengths, for not achieving godhood.

and c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

This, ironically, supports a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life rather than any sort of special design project. Based on the geological record, it appears life formed pretty much as soon as the earth wasn't absolutely lethal. It just wasn't that much of a challenge. If it had taken a billion years, or two or three, then we'd be justified in thinking the formation of life was an improbable event, but not if it happens right away.

Indeed, life may have formed several times, and been wiped out when the next asteroid collided with the planet. Finally, the loose asteroids were mostly used up, and life was allowed to develop in peace.

Once life formed, it certainly did what life does best – it spread.

The first life – the first set of replicating molecular systems – were certainly nowhere near as efficient at reproducing as, say, modern bacteria. However, let's assume a "generation" time 1000 times greater than modern bacteria. Instead of doubling once every 20 minutes or so, suppose the first living things doubled in number once every two weeks.

In one year, our original replicator would have given rise to some 67,000,000 replicators. In two more years, we're up to one mole of replicators, and in another three years, the whole world's oceans could be filled with these replicators. In a science that considers a million years a short time, there's no way an event taking six years would appear anything but "sudden".

In this respect, the problem is very similar to that of the cambrian explosion (Claim CC300). The answer to that applies to eras outside the cambrian, too.