Of course, even speaking from a vaguely pro-ID perspective (That is, I see no inherent conflict between evolution happening since origin, and having God as the origin-point), I can see arguments from the 'determined that ID can't be right in any way' crowd, especially along the lines of "Well, of COURSE when these two totally different Classes evolve Species with the same outward appearance, you'll end up with a lot of genes that are alike!", and similar arguments I'd HOPE the people performing the experiment would be able to counter with enough counterexamples of "Look, we took this pair and this comparison in the same class, that other pair and that comparison in the other class, no matter how close they are in structure, we're seeing more similarities between the two wolves (or squirrels, etc) than between the wolf and the squirrel of the same Class."
That does not seem to be how the book is using 'group' and 'type', which are the terms they use most often ('kind' only shows up once, I just thought it was notable given the Biblical origins of the term). They're quite specific that it isn't synonymous with any kind of species definition, because they're comfortable with the notion that new species may arise within a group, but that new types/groups cannot be generated.
"A commonly accepted definition of species is an interbreeding population with fertile offspring. [...] Speciation is a means of creating diversity within types of living things, but macroevolution is much more than diversity. [...] The appearance of reproductively isolated populations represents microevolution, not macroevolution."
It'd be much simplier to falsify if they meant 'kind' your way.
Elizabeth,
Based on the limited amount of gene sequencing and gene organization comparisons that have been done, marsupials appear more similar to each other than to placental mammals. The caveat is that there have been very few marsupials looked at and none of them completely sequenced as far as I can tell and with limited data DNA comparisons across large evolutionary distances can be misleading. However, assuming that relationship holds true (marsupials more like other marsupials than any placental mammal) as DNA from more marsupials and placentals is sequenced, I still fail to see how that would falsify ID since they could always fall back on the argument that the split between placental and marsupial mammals (since both are clearly mammals) properly belongs to microevolution. I agree with you though that if that relationship doesn't hold true it would certainly call current evolutionary theory into question.
You may be right, although if Mammalia is a 'group' and all the mammals the result of microevolution, ID is left with the assertion that natural processes can produce kangaroos, giraffes, whales, mice, and elephants from common stock, which I suspect they would be unwilling to accept.
The work that has been done so far has not been in service of a question like mine, it's been done in an attempt to clone the marsupial wolf, so the comparisons have not been with the placental wolf but with living marsupials. I don't see why a simliar comparison couldn't be done with the placental wolf, though.
dont get your hopes up people. Suppose the obvious happens and the marsupial wolf DNA is indeed markedly different from the placental wolf. All teh IDer has to argue is that the DNA must have been designed to be different. Back to square one.
Excellent post, Elizabeth. I do have a question, though, about something.
Although the authors are somewhat cagey about it, ID as presented in the book seems not only to deny that natural selection can account for today's diversity of organisms, but to deny that common descent happened at all.
I'm not seeing how the quotes support that claim. Certainly, the ID people are saying that natural selection doesn't explain species diversity, but the disavowal of common descent doesn't seem to be there.
For example, couldn't ID be implemented in a manner similar to punctuated equilibrium, just with intelligent effort of will substituted for whatever causes sudden changes in PE? Thus, a cat would give birth to a dog via the influence of some kind of intelligent tinkering.
I suspect I'm simply confused, possibly about the meaning of "common descent", and that you've explained this to me before. Feel free to be patient. :-)
Jeff: I was thinking that too - presumably not all of the macroevolutions happened at the same time according to the fossil record of the emergence of new species, hence "Intelligent Designing" might be a better name.
You may be right, but it's just not clear from the book. 'Groups' have 'their own origins' and forms of life 'begin abruptly'. The commonality of DNA doesn't imply anything about relationships:
It would be both logical and efficient for an intelligent agent to design living things with a common biochemical base. (pg 36)
What I can state with confidence is that there's nothing in the book that does affirm that different 'groups' are of common descent; it's never even mentioned as such (using those words or any similar). It's hard for me to imagine that this was accidental, so my conclusion was that they don't support it but didn't want to say so explicitly for fear of doing further damage to their scientific credibility.
It's an interpretation, though, and there's certainly room for disagreement. It's not central to the prediction.
Honestly, if this is a Marsupial Wolf then I would imagine that it would compare more closely with it's canine cousin than a kangaroo. It would actually prove that animals adapt to their environments and that spontaneous genetic mutation can occur in species. In fact if he is able to clone the embryo from the canine genetic line, it would mean that they are closely related enough for it to work. If not, then it could mean that the animal is a relative of yet another species of canine that has long been extinct. I do not think that this is really a solid defense for ID although it is interesting in any case to see who this animal's relatives are going to be if there are any existing relatives left. This would not be proof of something existing outside of the scope of adaptation and mutation. Other species of animal have been used as examples of this and eventually science figures out their peculiarities and the commonly accepted theory holds true once again.
Aziz: you make a good point, but it brings up a bone I have to pick with many Darwinists -- of which I am one -- namely that there is a tendency toward the exact same sort of a priori non-falsifiable reasoning among them. E.G. they say today that Darwin predicts X. When we find out Y instead, they go back and say Darwin predicted Y after all. They do quite a lot of this and don't get called on it.
The most amazing part of this whole conversation to me is that petition the Discovery Institute circulated of scientists saying they are skeptical of the idea that natural selection and random mutation could explain all the diversity we see in life today. I thought DI was extraordinarily clever in using that wording, because that is the exact same wording that atheistic Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould used countless times. He admitted that evolution and natural selection by themselves probably couldn't explain all we see of life's diversity today. What could? He believed that there had to be other mechanisms we just don't understand yet (and he was DEFINITELY not a creationist).
Yet astoundingly, I've seen anti-ID people mouth-frothingly defend the idea that natural selection and random mutation are enough, triumphally declaring that these alone are enough to explain everything. When asked what's changed that makes us believe this, they have yet to say (And please do tell me if I've missed something.)
In 1999, a rather interesting thing was discovered by genetic researchers. It was published in the pages of Science and everything. Namely, it appears that all species of higher mammals, from white mice to white elephants, rats to babboons, humans to horses, share the same 35,000 or so genes. The only major difference between them being, apparently, the number and configuration of their chromosomes.
Explain that through random mutation. And while you're at it, explain how you get a random mutation that is A) functional, B) viable with both a male and a female reproducing it, and C) how you use that to explain that throughout the fossil record we see regular periods wherein literally thousands of new species appear apparently out of nowhere, punctuated by huge lengthy periods of apparent homeostasis in the gene pool.
No one has ever, that I've seen (I may be wrong) come up with a satisfactory answer to that. Which is one of many reasons why, even though I'm no creationist or ID'er or whatever, I find the questions raised by the ID'ers more thought-provoking and interesting than pernicious and destructive. Screw it, let 'em ask their questions. Show the kids the things we don't understand, and let the kids contemplate. Although most of the contemplation will be useless and probably silly, the next great evolutionary biologist will probably be a 4th grader who one day had some radical thoughts of her own.
(To clarify in case someone chooses to quote me out of context, I did not suggest that the next great evolutionary biologist will be a 4th grader. What I suggested is that the next great evolutionary biologist will be someone who in 4th grade hears provocative ideas and has some provocative ideas of her own, and as she grows will continue to percolate on her own provocative ideas. Hellfire, Einstein came up with both General and Special Relativity working as a patent clerk, and was considered rather a stupid daydreamer when he was a kid...)
C) how you use that to explain how throughout the fossil record we see regular periods wherein literally thousands of new species appear apparently out of nowhere, punctuated by huge lengthy periods of apparent homeostasis in the gene pool.
...and your mention of Stephen Jay Gould:
Isn't "punctuated equilibrium" the theory he came up with which basically answers your question? From what little reading I've done it (and iirc), he essentially theorizes that evolution happens in leaps and bounds periodically instead of through long, minute changes spread out over time.
Cardeblu: Well yes, that was Gould's answer to the apparent quandary. But it wasn't so much an explanation as a description. I mean, I've read a lot of Gould. Nowhere that I can find does he describe an actual EXPLANATION. He merely noted that it appeared that evolution goes through long periods of apparent homeostasis, then all of a sudden POW! JILLIONS OF NEW SPECIES APPEAR! And this happens OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
"Punctuated Equilibrium" is not an explanation. It is a description of what we appear to see. Maybe we see it wrong, but maybe there's something else going on here that we don't understand.
If you want, I suppose you can say "God did it." It's as good as any other guess so far as I can see. More likely, the answer is, "there's something else going on here, and we don't know what it is."
Wouldn't it be great to let kids be presented with that apparent quandary, and let them think on it? Even if most of them come up with silly explanations?
We just don't fucking know. Isn't that something we should just admit?
I again note that there may be something discovered in recent years I don't know about. If so, someone should tell me. God knows I don't know everything. I wish I did.
I again note: horses and humans, bats and baboons, whales and white mice, all appear to share the same 35,000 or so genes. The only real difference between them is not their genes, but the configuration and number of their chromosomes.
Your explanation for this is... what? "We'll figure it out someday?" Great! So let's have as many minds as we can contemplate the question, even if most of the answers they come up with are dumb.
Wouldn't having the same 35,000 odd genes indicate some crazy idea like an original species that when placed in different climates and situations took on changes to adapt to their envrionment? Thus, today we are dramtically different but share some of the same genetic make-up handed down through our ancestry?
Why is Elizabeth the one trying to contruct a rational castle in the name of ID. Is it possible she is capable and they are not? If ID proponents had a leg to stand on they would be doing it themselves. Do you learn nothing from that?
I mean, where is the humility which just says, "We just don't know?" Is that such a damning accusation?
Where is the spirit of blog which compels you to address Elizabeth's proposition rather than changing the subject?
...and where is the spirit of adventure which says to young minds, "We don't know. What do you think?"
Saying "we don't know" is generally OK. Replacing the vacuum with Incoherent Dissembling is not.
The book seems to be arguing that species are not related to each other in the form of a tree, the way evolution predicts and the Linnaean classification describes.
Now, if you check the DNA of all species and classify the genomes in the form of a tree, you're bound to come up with a few cases where your new classification disagrees with the old classification. The book's authors will then say that there are animals whose DNA is similar to group X, but they built like group Y (and were even classified as part of group Y!). Hence, it is wrong to state that they are descended from either group.
Basically, they "predict" that it's hard to classify species in the form of a tree, something which is already known. Just like evolution "predicted" the Linnaean classification, which had already existed.
Can you find me a quote from ANYONE saying that the reason they oppose Intelligent Design being taught in the classroom is that the only way children will ever be scientists is to be taught that natural selection is a theory of smooth and seamless perfection? A quote saying that children should ever be told, "We're sure about everything?" You keep talking about these people who think that children should never be told we don't know when we don't know... who ARE they?
Dean writes : The only real difference between them is not their genes, but the configuration and number of their chromosomes.
Not exactly Dean. The real differences are in the details - in how and where and when during embryonic development those 35,000 genes are turned on and turned off. Sometimes in how many different proteins can be made from each of those genes. Also, 35,000 genes is only a reference to the stretches of DNA that makes proteins. Turns out there are lots of RNA products of DNA that don't make protein but may regulate the production of protein by other genes. Those DNA regions differ a lot between different mammalian species.
The genes in mice and humans are not exactly the same. Heck, even in mice and rats they're not the same, which is a darn shame because otherwise I could save some money by using equipment for rat genes on the mouse cells I'm working with.
There has been serious talk about alternatives to the Linnean Classification system that reflect genetics instead of morphology. I think such a change is inevitable.
You just convinced me. You should read Of Pandas and People. Even with the egregious errors and outright falsities it contains, you would have a net gain in your understanding of biology.
I'd be interested in it too.
Of course, even speaking from a vaguely pro-ID perspective (That is, I see no inherent conflict between evolution happening since origin, and having God as the origin-point), I can see arguments from the 'determined that ID can't be right in any way' crowd, especially along the lines of "Well, of COURSE when these two totally different Classes evolve Species with the same outward appearance, you'll end up with a lot of genes that are alike!", and similar arguments I'd HOPE the people performing the experiment would be able to counter with enough counterexamples of "Look, we took this pair and this comparison in the same class, that other pair and that comparison in the other class, no matter how close they are in structure, we're seeing more similarities between the two wolves (or squirrels, etc) than between the wolf and the squirrel of the same Class."
That is, Rover the family dog and the Wolf are the same kind. This seems to me the most functional distinction.
This is basically the same as a species definition, but it avoids the arguements as to whether Rover and Wolf are the same species.
So Kind seems quite a valid term to me.
That does not seem to be how the book is using 'group' and 'type', which are the terms they use most often ('kind' only shows up once, I just thought it was notable given the Biblical origins of the term). They're quite specific that it isn't synonymous with any kind of species definition, because they're comfortable with the notion that new species may arise within a group, but that new types/groups cannot be generated.
"A commonly accepted definition of species is an interbreeding population with fertile offspring. [...] Speciation is a means of creating diversity within types of living things, but macroevolution is much more than diversity. [...] The appearance of reproductively isolated populations represents microevolution, not macroevolution."
It'd be much simplier to falsify if they meant 'kind' your way.
Based on the limited amount of gene sequencing and gene organization comparisons that have been done, marsupials appear more similar to each other than to placental mammals. The caveat is that there have been very few marsupials looked at and none of them completely sequenced as far as I can tell and with limited data DNA comparisons across large evolutionary distances can be misleading. However, assuming that relationship holds true (marsupials more like other marsupials than any placental mammal) as DNA from more marsupials and placentals is sequenced, I still fail to see how that would falsify ID since they could always fall back on the argument that the split between placental and marsupial mammals (since both are clearly mammals) properly belongs to microevolution. I agree with you though that if that relationship doesn't hold true it would certainly call current evolutionary theory into question.
Dale
You may be right, although if Mammalia is a 'group' and all the mammals the result of microevolution, ID is left with the assertion that natural processes can produce kangaroos, giraffes, whales, mice, and elephants from common stock, which I suspect they would be unwilling to accept.
Now that this has been posted, I'm allowing myself to actually look into whether or not it has been done. :-)
http://www.irysec.vic.edu.au/sci/goneill/thylacine.htm
The work that has been done so far has not been in service of a question like mine, it's been done in an attempt to clone the marsupial wolf, so the comparisons have not been with the placental wolf but with living marsupials. I don't see why a simliar comparison couldn't be done with the placental wolf, though.
Any ID people out there who want to fund this?
Although the authors are somewhat cagey about it, ID as presented in the book seems not only to deny that natural selection can account for today's diversity of organisms, but to deny that common descent happened at all.
I'm not seeing how the quotes support that claim. Certainly, the ID people are saying that natural selection doesn't explain species diversity, but the disavowal of common descent doesn't seem to be there.
For example, couldn't ID be implemented in a manner similar to punctuated equilibrium, just with intelligent effort of will substituted for whatever causes sudden changes in PE? Thus, a cat would give birth to a dog via the influence of some kind of intelligent tinkering.
I suspect I'm simply confused, possibly about the meaning of "common descent", and that you've explained this to me before. Feel free to be patient. :-)
You may be right, but it's just not clear from the book. 'Groups' have 'their own origins' and forms of life 'begin abruptly'. The commonality of DNA doesn't imply anything about relationships:
It would be both logical and efficient for an intelligent agent to design living things with a common biochemical base. (pg 36)
What I can state with confidence is that there's nothing in the book that does affirm that different 'groups' are of common descent; it's never even mentioned as such (using those words or any similar). It's hard for me to imagine that this was accidental, so my conclusion was that they don't support it but didn't want to say so explicitly for fear of doing further damage to their scientific credibility.
It's an interpretation, though, and there's certainly room for disagreement. It's not central to the prediction.
The most amazing part of this whole conversation to me is that petition the Discovery Institute circulated of scientists saying they are skeptical of the idea that natural selection and random mutation could explain all the diversity we see in life today. I thought DI was extraordinarily clever in using that wording, because that is the exact same wording that atheistic Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould used countless times. He admitted that evolution and natural selection by themselves probably couldn't explain all we see of life's diversity today. What could? He believed that there had to be other mechanisms we just don't understand yet (and he was DEFINITELY not a creationist).
Yet astoundingly, I've seen anti-ID people mouth-frothingly defend the idea that natural selection and random mutation are enough, triumphally declaring that these alone are enough to explain everything. When asked what's changed that makes us believe this, they have yet to say (And please do tell me if I've missed something.)
In 1999, a rather interesting thing was discovered by genetic researchers. It was published in the pages of Science and everything. Namely, it appears that all species of higher mammals, from white mice to white elephants, rats to babboons, humans to horses, share the same 35,000 or so genes. The only major difference between them being, apparently, the number and configuration of their chromosomes.
Explain that through random mutation. And while you're at it, explain how you get a random mutation that is A) functional, B) viable with both a male and a female reproducing it, and C) how you use that to explain that throughout the fossil record we see regular periods wherein literally thousands of new species appear apparently out of nowhere, punctuated by huge lengthy periods of apparent homeostasis in the gene pool.
No one has ever, that I've seen (I may be wrong) come up with a satisfactory answer to that. Which is one of many reasons why, even though I'm no creationist or ID'er or whatever, I find the questions raised by the ID'ers more thought-provoking and interesting than pernicious and destructive. Screw it, let 'em ask their questions. Show the kids the things we don't understand, and let the kids contemplate. Although most of the contemplation will be useless and probably silly, the next great evolutionary biologist will probably be a 4th grader who one day had some radical thoughts of her own.
Isn't "punctuated equilibrium" the theory he came up with which basically answers your question? From what little reading I've done it (and iirc), he essentially theorizes that evolution happens in leaps and bounds periodically instead of through long, minute changes spread out over time.
"Punctuated Equilibrium" is not an explanation. It is a description of what we appear to see. Maybe we see it wrong, but maybe there's something else going on here that we don't understand.
If you want, I suppose you can say "God did it." It's as good as any other guess so far as I can see. More likely, the answer is, "there's something else going on here, and we don't know what it is."
Wouldn't it be great to let kids be presented with that apparent quandary, and let them think on it? Even if most of them come up with silly explanations?
We just don't fucking know. Isn't that something we should just admit?
I again note that there may be something discovered in recent years I don't know about. If so, someone should tell me. God knows I don't know everything. I wish I did.
Your explanation for this is... what? "We'll figure it out someday?" Great! So let's have as many minds as we can contemplate the question, even if most of the answers they come up with are dumb.
Why is Elizabeth the one trying to contruct a rational castle in the name of ID. Is it possible she is capable and they are not? If ID proponents had a leg to stand on they would be doing it themselves. Do you learn nothing from that?
I mean, where is the humility which just says, "We just don't know?" Is that such a damning accusation?
Where is the spirit of blog which compels you to address Elizabeth's proposition rather than changing the subject?
...and where is the spirit of adventure which says to young minds, "We don't know. What do you think?"
Saying "we don't know" is generally OK. Replacing the vacuum with Incoherent Dissembling is not.
John :)
Now, if you check the DNA of all species and classify the genomes in the form of a tree, you're bound to come up with a few cases where your new classification disagrees with the old classification. The book's authors will then say that there are animals whose DNA is similar to group X, but they built like group Y (and were even classified as part of group Y!). Hence, it is wrong to state that they are descended from either group.
Basically, they "predict" that it's hard to classify species in the form of a tree, something which is already known. Just like evolution "predicted" the Linnaean classification, which had already existed.
Can you find me a quote from ANYONE saying that the reason they oppose Intelligent Design being taught in the classroom is that the only way children will ever be scientists is to be taught that natural selection is a theory of smooth and seamless perfection? A quote saying that children should ever be told, "We're sure about everything?" You keep talking about these people who think that children should never be told we don't know when we don't know... who ARE they?
Not exactly Dean. The real differences are in the details - in how and where and when during embryonic development those 35,000 genes are turned on and turned off. Sometimes in how many different proteins can be made from each of those genes. Also, 35,000 genes is only a reference to the stretches of DNA that makes proteins. Turns out there are lots of RNA products of DNA that don't make protein but may regulate the production of protein by other genes. Those DNA regions differ a lot between different mammalian species.
Dale
You just convinced me. You should read Of Pandas and People. Even with the egregious errors and outright falsities it contains, you would have a net gain in your understanding of biology.