Intevolution - The Debate Continues

(At left) Scopes Trial newspaper cartoon, 1925 Collection of Richard Milner

“While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats.” - Mark Twain

The June 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine offers "Darwin in Court" - an excellent article by Richard Milner on the debate over evolution and intelligent design.

For those of you who haven't watched television or read a newspaper in the last 100 years, I will summarize. Evolutionists believe that life evolved gradually, through a process known as natural selection. Intelligent Designers believe that life was placed on Earth by a supernatural force (like God or Google) pretty much in its final form. That's the story in a nutshell, (which evolved from a nut without a shell).

Milner's article outlines the argument, lists new books, and details an important court case - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Richard is an Associate of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Recent publications mentioned are:

"Intelligent Thought" by John Brockman - an excellent introduction to this controversy. IT is a collection of essays on Intelligent Design by some of the world's top scientists. Brockman, a respected editor of scientific literature, collaborated with the authors to make this information comprehensible to people (like moi) who will never be asked to join MENSA.

"40 Days and 40 Nights" by Matthew Chapman, who is a great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. Milner describes Matthew's work as "a tour de force, hilarious without sacrificing seriousness or purpose." Chapman, attended the Dover School District trial, which lasted 40 days and 40 nights. This Biblical coincidence was not lost on the author, who incorporated it into his title.

"Not in Our Classrooms" by Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch. Eugenie is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This organization is focused on keeping religion (disguised as science) out of America's classrooms.

These books have been added to my (rapidly growing) "must read" list. I may need to get a second job to support my journalistic jones.

In his analysis of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, Milner focuses on the core issues: 1) Does Intelligent Design meet the definition of "science"? and 2) Does teaching it in public school classrooms violate the U.S. Constitution? The rulings of Presiding Judge John E. Jones III were that Intelligent Design was not science - and therefore requiring it to be included in a science curriculum violated the Establishment Clause of The First Amendment. This Clause forbids the U.S. Government from establishing or supporting religious activities. Since Judge Jones is a lifelong Republican, who was appointed by (born again Christian) President George W. Bush, I am guessing that he will be getting a few less Christmas cards from the GOP. But I applaud him for his judicial integrity.

In his final comments on the case, Judge Jones offered scathing criticism of the Dover School Board, the group responsible for introducing Intelligent Design into their classrooms:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise their real purpose. . ."

And

". . .The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources"

I enjoyed Richard's fluid prose, which facilitated my journey through the literary and legal landscape of this debate. Scientific writing is often harder to understand than Chinese algebra. My touchstone for this genre is "Can I read the article without moving my lips or getting a headache?" Milner passed this test with flying colors!

Richard also presented a fair and balanced profile of the IDers. He did not demonize them or describe them in condescending terms - something many of his fellow scientists have been guilty of. His article included a dialogue with a Christian associate. This person explained that not all Christians supported the IDers' view that Evolution and Intelligent Design were mutually exclusive. At a time when our world is so polarized, it was refreshing to find a writer who approached such a divisional issue with an open mind.

If you want to learn more about the Intevolution (my new word) argument - and what it means to John (or Jane) Q. Public, then I highly recommend "Darwin in Court". I also encourage you to visit the new Hall of Human Origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. It is a fun and fascinating way to learn more about where humans came from!

Chimps Lead Evolutionary Race

Nature Published online: 16 April 2007; doi:10.1038/446841a

Chimps Lead Evolutionary Race

More chimpanzee genes have been positively selected for than human ones.

Story by Michael Hopkin

Humans are generally believed to be more highly 'evolved' than our chimpanzee cousins. But in at least one sense that isn't true, say geneticists who have hunted for the hallmarks of natural selection in our respective genomes - and found more of them in chimps.

The discovery suggests that, since our evolutionary paths diverged 6 million years ago, greater numbers of chimpanzee genes have been shaped by 'positive selection', in which natural selection favours beneficial mutations.

Researchers at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, combed through 14,000 matching genes from the human and chimpanzee genomes. As they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week, 233 chimp genes showed signs of having been shaped by positive selection (M. A. Bakewell, P. Shi and J. Zhang Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073/pnas.0701705104; 2007). The corresponding figure for our own genes was just 154.

The result overturns the view that, to promote humans to our current position as the dominant animal on the planet, we must have encountered considerable positive selection, says lead author Jianzhi Zhang. "We think we're very different from animals, with our large brain size and speech," he says.

The gene discrepancy might be due to the fact that, for much of our histories, chimpanzees had the larger population size. Humans, with a smaller and more fragmented population, may have been shaped by random, erratic changes.

It is possible that the genetic changes underlying brain size are very few. It is difficult to put together a coherent picture, says Zhang, because it is hard to know which genes would have been crucial in shaping traits such as our large brain size. "It is possible that the genetic changes underlying brain size are very few," he says.

A sample of 14,000 genes does not tell the whole story. The team could not compare the entire genome as the chimp sequence has not been completed to the same level of detail as the human one. But for genes with good sequences, they were taken to show signs of positive selection if they had a high proportion of 'non-synonymous mutations' — DNA changes that alter the protein sequence produced by the gene — which could be a 'lever' for natural selection.

Zhang admits it is difficult to spot genes that have been the subject of more recent positive selection. Such genes could have been responding to selection pressures — such as changes in climate and food source — encountered by humans as they began to move out of Africa and across the planet over the past 100,000 years.

There also seems to be little pattern to the functions of the selected genes, says Zhang. Among those favoured in chimps are genes for protein metabolism and stress responses, whereas the human genes are involved in processes such as fatty-acid metabolism.

Victoria Horner, who works with chimpanzees at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, says: "We assume that chimpanzees have changed less than us, when that's actually not the case."

When Evolution Runs Backwards

A fascinating article appeared in the Jan. 13-19, 2007 edition of New Scientist. This was entitled "The Ancestor Within" by Michael LePage.

New evidence reveals the existence of many atavisms in nature. These are characteristics from ancient ancestors which suddently appear in modern species.

Prior to these discoveries, an axiom known as Dollo's Law was the widely held belief. Dollo's Law states that evolution can only run forward, not backward. However the preponderance of atavisms being discovered have caused scientists to question the accuracy of Dollo's Law.

It now appears that many characteristics of our ancient ancestors are not lost in our genome. Instead these genes are switched off, but can be switched on by mutation, or when environmental stress merits them being reintroduced in order to increase the chances of survival.

Michael's article is concise, and understandable to non-scientests, such as myself. If you are interested in evolution, then I think that you will enjoy it!

Eddie Izzard - Evolution

Evolution A comedy sketch by Eddie Izzard.

How We Became Human

The Oct. 9, 2006 edition of Time Magazine has a fascinating cover story about how humans evolved from other apes.

The chimpanzee genome was completed in 2005. When this was compared with the human genome, the variance was only 1.23%.

One significant difference between our two species is that chimpanzees don't appear to be susceptible to AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, or a particular type of malaria. Since our two genomes are so similar, a study of the differences may reveal a genetic basis for these diseases.

Check it out at What Makes Us Different?

Ape to Man

Ape to Man A fascinating program from The History Channel which explores our simian ancestors. I invite proponents from both sides of the evolution issue to post their comments.




"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist, and it has got him into a good deal of trouble in the last years. But if that is cut off, what is left will not be a scientist. And I doubt whether it will be a man."
- Jacob Bronowski

Will Liechtenstein Conference Deny the Existence of the Kong-ocost?

Today Liechtenstein one of the world's smallest countries, announced a Conference to examine whether The Kong-ocost (King Kong's 1933 rampage through New York City) ever really happened. The meeting is scheduled for February 2007. The announcement drew angry protests from some elderly New Yorkers.

Simon Plotsky, 96, voiced his objections. "We were there and saw with our own eyes what that monkey did to our city! It was Horrible! Horrible! We should never forget!" When Simon was asked where he lived in New York at the time of the incident, he could not remember. He also couldn't remember where he lives now.

CNN Reporter Mindy Lee spoke with Hans Frichter, the President (and also Mayor and Police Chief) of Liechtenstein about the meeting. Mr. Frichter said "We are a small country with limited income. Postage stamp sales to collectors have dropped off sharply in the past 10 years because of e-mails and the internet. Iran brought in a bundle of tourist dollars with their Denial Conference. Why shouldn't we cash in as well?"

When Miss Lee pointed out that King Kong was just a movie, not a real event, Mr. Frichter commented "Well, that is yet to be determined. You should come to the Conference and find out. I can get you a good deal on a hotel! Breakfast is included!"

Reaction to the Conference from the monkey world has been positive. P Monkey faithful sidekick of LonelyGirl15 said "The media should pay more attention to primate issues. After all, we've been around a lot longer than you humans!" The Bronx Zoo's Monkey and Ape Coalition also voiced support for the Conference. Spokesman Bongo Bongo (a 10 year old orangutan) commented "It's time to stop blaming us for the decline of Western Civilization. It's been more than 100 years since Darwin's book came out. Get over it!"

Hotel bookings and airline reservations for the tiny country have risen sharply. Mr Frichter is hoping for a slow news week, to increase press coverage. Or as he put it, "If nobody gets blown up, then Cha-Ching!"