File under 'well said' XXXI

Vague and mysterious forms of speech, and abuse of language, have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard or misapplied words with little or no meaning have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance and hindrance of true knowledge.
John Locke

Demythifying peer review.

For Critics of Intelligent Design, There's No Hiding Behind Claims of "Peer Review" Anymore
David Klinghoffer


Darwinists have had to back off considerably from the once-confident assertion that peer review in science journals constitutes, as Jerry Coyne put it in 2005 inThe New Republic, the "gold standard for modern scientific achievement." The whole institution of peer review is so besmirched now as to arouse, not even amusement anymore, but something more like pity.

In the same article, Coyne maintained that it was precisely by "By that standard" that advocates of the theory of intelligent design "have failed miserably." You mean by the standard of what is now revealed as the intellectual and scientific equivalent of insider trading? Or more like racketeering and simple fraud.

The existence of a blog like  Retraction Watch  is, in this respect, a sign of the times, a measure of the extent to which science publishing has fallen into derision. Their post from a couple of days ago, on a "peer review and citation ring at the Journal of Vibration and Control," has been widely reported, including the retraction of 60 papers from that journal. Sixty!

"This one deserves a 'wow,'" observes author Ivan Oransky. Indeed. The cat is really out of the bag.

Slate:

It may not be entirely fair to liken a "peer review and citation ring" to the academic version of an extortion ring, but there's certainly fraud involved in both. Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to chronicling which academic papers have been withdrawn, is reporting that SAGE Publishing, a group that puts out numerous peer-reviewed journals, is retracting 60 papers from its Journal of Vibration and Control after an internal investigation uncovered extensive evidence of severe peer-review fraud.

Apparently researcher Peter Chen, formerly of National Pingtung University of Education in Taiwan, made multiple submission and reviewer accounts -- possibly along with other researchers at his institution or elsewhere -- so that he could influence the peer review system. When Chen or someone else from the ring submitted a paper, the group could manipulate who reviewed the research, and on at least one occasion Chen served as his own reviewer.

The Washington Post:

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A "peer review and citation ring" was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You've heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there's a "peer review ring."

The publication is the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC). It publishes papers with names like "Hydraulic enginge mounts: a survey" and "Reduction of wheel force variations with magnetorheological devices."

The Guardian:

An academic journal has retracted dozens of articles and apologised to readers after falling victim to what it described as a "peer review ring" that appears to have involved more than 100 bogus scholars.

The Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC), a leading publication in the field of acoustics, said it was withdrawing 60 papers published in print and online over the past four years, after discovering that articles were being approved and cited by academics with "assumed and fabricated identities".

The journal's publisher, Sage, said in a statement that the ring appeared to centre around Peter Chen, a researcher formerly of National Pingtung University of Education, in Taiwan. Chen provided an "unsatisfactory response" when confronted, and has since resigned from his post.

Oh, it's just one unfortunate lapse, you say, not representative of anything much beyond itself? If you want to comfort yourself with that idea, first try following the reporting at Retraction Watch, which commonly posts two or three accounts of scholarly fraud and slipshod science per day.

With respect to what this means for the theory of ID, go back and read Casey Luskin's post, "Intelligent Design Is Peer-Reviewed, but Is Peer-Review a Requirement of Good Science" Casey concludes:

Despite the attempted lockout, ID proponents have published their ideas in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This shows that ID has academic legitimacy whether or not one applies the dubious "peer-review" test of good science.

That's right. Going forward, if you want to argue against ID, you are going to have to actually argue against it, critically analyze its arguments and its evidence, as opponents of ID so commonly refuse to do. There's no hiding behind claims of "peer review" anymore.

Miracles for sale.

Darwin of the gaps just so stories re junk DNA becomoing harder to sell

Junk DNA: Is Preventing Breast Cancer a Function?
Evolution News & Views February 6, 2016 4:33 AM 

Each time a function is found for a piece of non-coding DNA, the "junk DNA" myth gets more mythological. Here's a function that has been revealed for a certain long, non-coding transcript of DNA into RNA (lncRNA). It helps prevent breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Researchers at the University of Bath explain why it is difficult to find these functions for non-coding parts of the genome:

The human genome contains around three metres of DNA, of which only about two per cent contains genes that code for proteins. Since the sequencing of the complete human genome in 2000, scientists have puzzled over the role of the remaining 98 per cent.

In recent years it has become apparent that a lot of this non-coding DNA is actually transcribed into non-coding RNA. However, there is still a debate as to whether non-coding RNA is just 'noise' or whether it serves any function in the cell.

Part of the reason for this uncertainty is that it is very difficult to knock-out non-coding RNA without damaging the DNA, which can lead to off-target effects and false results.

They are clearly aware of the "debate" about junk DNA and the results of ENCODE that found that the majority of the genome is actually transcribed (they referenced ENCODE in the paper). As we have reported often, some members of the evolution side of the debate expect most of the DNA is junk. The design side expects that much of it (but not necessarily all) is functional. Thanks to this research, we have a new case that may point the way to future discoveries.

The news release is titled, "'Junk' DNA plays role in preventing breast cancer." It's based on an open-access paper in Nature Communications. Most readers scanning the paper will see what researchers are up against. Discussion of the complex interactions of parts -- lncRNAs transcripts, small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), promoters, exons, introns, alleles, interference in cis and trans and all the rest -- gets into the technical weeds fast. Thankfully, the release simplifies the essence of the finding. Basically, a piece of non-coding DNA "keeps cells healthy" by preventing a genetic "switch" from getting stuck.

Dr Adele Murrell, from the University of Bath's Department of Biology & Biochemistry, led the study. She explained: "The number of cells in our body are balanced by the level at which cells replicate and replace the ones that die. Sometimes the switches that control this growth get stuck in the 'on' position, which can lead to cancer.

"As the tumour grows and the cancer cells get crowded, they start to break away from the tumour, change shape and are able to burrow through tissues to the bloodstream where they migrate to other parts of the body, which is how the cancer spreads. This process is called metastasis and requires a whole network of genes to regulate the transformation of cell shape and mobilisation.

Dr Lovorka Stojic, from Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, the first author of this work identified that GNG12-AS1, a strand of non-coding RNA, prevents the growth switch getting stuck and suppresses metastasis. The specific genomic region where this non-coding RNA is located often gets damaged in breast cancer patients -- this control is removed and the cancer cells spread.

The researchers found that the lncRNA GNG12-AS1 acts as a molecular "rheostat" (their term) that controls the expression of an adjacent gene, DIRAS3, a tumor suppressor. It does it by two mechanisms. One is by regulating the number of transcripts of the tumor suppressor. But if that gets out of control, it can even suppress the "network of genes that prepare cells to change their shape and prepare for metastasis."

By experimentally reducing the amount of GNG12-AS1 produced, either by preventing its transcription or destroying the transcripts, they found that cells start becoming cancerous. This explains why in cancer patients, the switch is stuck:

DIRAS3 is downregulated in 70% of breast and ovarian cancer, and its loss of expression correlates with cancer progression and metastasis. The mechanism responsible for DIRAS3 downregulation to date involves different epigenetic mechanisms and loss of heterozygosity. We hypothesized that TI [transcriptional interference] by GNG12-AS1 could represent an additional layer of regulating DIRAS3 dosage.

The interactions are far more complex than can be described here. Suffice it to say that this long non-coding RNA, which would have been considered "junk" previously, plays a crucial role in regulating the amount of an important tumor suppressor gene. It's a "stable lncRNA localized in the nucleus" with a half-life of 20 to 25 hours, meaning it needs to be transcribed often. Other processes regulate the amount of the lncRNA in a very complex choreography of enhancers, suppressors, and feedback loops. Levels of expression also vary depending on the tissue involved.

It has become increasingly clear that non-coding parts of the genome play vital roles in regulating the coding parts. Regulation is an important function. A system that generates parts without regard to the amount needed is a system out of control. How cool is it to find a code that codes for products that regulate the amount of products in other parts of the code? Not only do we see function emerging for the non-coding regions, we see design on a more colossal scale than anyone could have imagined.

The University of Bath is an internationally recognized center of excellence in biological research. It's encouraging to see their biologists actively challenging the "junk DNA" myth:

Dr Kat Arney, science communication manager at Cancer Research UK, said: "Only a tiny fraction of our DNA contains actual genes, and we know that at least some of the bits in between -- often dismissed as 'junk' -- play important roles in controlling how genes get switched on and off at the right time and in the right place.

When the Human Genome project found that only 2 percent of the genome coded for proteins, the right question should have been, "What is all the rest doing?" Some evolutionists were too quick to dismiss it as a pile of useless leftovers from time and chance. Cancer patients around the world can be grateful that these researchers didn't buy that explanation, but looked beyond the unknown for greater understanding.

"Research like this is helping is to unpick the precise details about how these regions work, shedding light on their potential role in the development [or prevention] of cancer and pointing towards new approaches for tackling the disease."


If a system works, it's not happening by accident. That's the intelligent-design spirit that promises to shed more light into the genomic black box.

21st century divination.

 

The Fragmented Fossil Record of Early Hominins

Casey Luskin

 

 

Despite much hype in the media, the earliest hominin fossils are often so fragmentary that they remain the subject of considerable controversy in the scientific community. Let's examine some of the main early hominin fossils and the debates surrounding them.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis: "Toumai Skull"

Notwithstanding that Sahelanthropus tchadensis (also called the "Toumai skull") is known only from one skull and some jaw fragments, it has been called the oldest known hominin that lies directly on the human line.But not everyone agrees. When the fossil was first reported, Brigitte Senut, a leading researcher at the Natural History Museum in Paris, said "I tend towards thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla."²² Writing in Nature with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, Senut later noted there are "many... features that link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids," and argued "Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped."²³ In their view, "Sahelanthropus was an ape."²⁴
This debate has continued, but leading paleoanthropologists have cautioned in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) that teeth and skull fragments alone are insufficient to properly classify or understand species as a hominin: "[O]ur results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins."²⁵
At one point during the 2009 Texas evolution hearings, anthropology professor Ronald Wetherington testified that "every fossil we find reinforces the sequence that we had previously supposed to exist rather than suggesting something different."²⁶ But this fossil, first reported in 2002, provides a striking counterexample to that assertion. Commenting on the Toumai skull in the journal Nature, Bernard Wood of George Washington University opened by observing, "A single fossil can fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life."²⁷ He went on to state:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans.²⁸

In other words, if the Toumai skull is accepted as a stem ancestor of humans, then many later supposed human ancestors -- including the acclaimed australopithecines -- ought not be considered human ancestors. Wood concludes that fossils like Sahelanthropus show "compelling evidence that our own origins are as complex and as difficult to trace as those of any other group of organisms."²⁹

Orrorin tugensis: "Orrorin"
Orrorin, which means "original man" in a local Kenyan language, was a chimpanzee-sized primate known only from "an assortment of bone fragments,"³⁰ including pieces of the arm, thigh, and lower jaw, as well as some teeth. When the fossil was initially discovered, the New York Times ran a story titled "Fossils May Be Earliest Human Link,"³¹ and reported it "may be the earliest known ancestor of the human family."³² Despite the meagerness of the find, enough enthusiasm was stirred that an article in Nature soon after the fossil's unveiling cautioned that "excitement needs to be tempered with caution in assessing the claim of a six-million-year-old direct ancestor of modern humans."³³
Some paleoanthropologists claimed that Orrorin's femur indicates a bipedal mode of locomotion that was "appropriate for a population standing at the dawn of the human lineage."³⁴ But as a later Yale University Press commentary admitted, "All in all, there is currently precious little evidence bearing on how Orrorin moved."³⁵
Evolutionary paleoanthropologists often assume that bipedality is a litmus test for membership along the human line. So if Orrorin did prove to be an upright-walking ape-like creature from six million years ago (mya), would that qualify it as a human ancestor? Not at all. In fact, the fossil record contains bipedal apes that evolutionists recognize were far removed from the human line. In 1999, UC San Diego biologist Christopher Wills observed that "[u]pright posture may not be unique to our own lineage" since "[a]n ape that lived ten million years ago on Sardinia, Oreopithecus bambolii, seems to have acquired similar capabilities, perhaps independently."³⁶ A more recent article in Science Daily elaborated:

Oreopithecus bambolii, a fossil ape from Italy shares many similarities with early human ancestors, including features of the skeleton that suggest that it may have been well adapted for walking on two legs. However, the authors observe, enough is known of its anatomy to show that it is a fossil ape that is only distantly related to humans, and that it acquired many "human-like" features in parallel.³⁷

A 2011 paper in Nature by Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison explains the implications of bipedal apes that had nothing to do with human origins:

The object lesson that Oreopithecus provides is critical to the debate about interpreting the relationships of the earliest purported hominins. It demonstrates how features considered to be hominin specializations can be shown to have been acquired independently in a non-hominin lineage in association with inferred behaviors that are functionally related to, but not necessarily narrowly restricted to, terrestrial bipedalism.³⁸

Much as the Toumai skull threatened to displace australopithecines from our ancestral line, Pickford and his co-authors argued that if their hypothesis about Orrorin is correct, then australopithecines are again no longer ancestral to humans, but were merely "a side branch of hominid evolution that went extinct."³⁹ This hypothesis was not well received by many paleoanthropologists, because they need the australopithecines to serve as an evolutionary precursor leading to our genus Homo. Another paper in Nature showed how dissenting views are treated in paleoanthropology, charging that Pickford's "simple phylogeny contrasts starkly with mainstream ideas about human evolution, and glosses over many areas of controversy and uncertainty."⁴⁰

While Orrorin offers evolutionary paleoanthropologists the tantalizing possibility of a bipedal creature that lived around the time of the supposed split between humans and chimpanzees, simply too little of it is known at present to make confident claims about its locomotion, or its proper place in the supposed evolutionary tree.
Ardipithecus ramidus: "Ardi"
In 2009, the journal Science announced the publication of long-awaited reports about a 4.4 mya fossil named Ardipithecus ramidus. Expectations were high as its discoverer, UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist Tim White, had previously promised the fossil was a "phenomenal individual" that would be the "Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism."⁴¹ When the papers were finally released, the science media took it as an opportunity to evangelize the public for Darwin via the fossil they affectionately dubbed "Ardi."
The Discovery Channel ran the headline "'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled," and quoted White who stated that Ardi is "as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans."⁴² The Associated Press headline read "World's oldest humanlinked skeleton found," with the article claiming "the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor."⁴³
The journal Science named Ardi the "breakthough of the year" for 2009,⁴⁴ and officially introduced her with an article titled "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled."⁴⁵
Calling this fossil "new" was not quite accurate, since Ardi was discovered in the early 1990s. Why did it take over 15 years for reports to be published? A 2002 article in Science explains that initially the bones were so "soft," "crushed," "squished," and "chalky," that White reported, "when I clean an edge it erodes, so I have to mold every one of the broken pieces to reconstruct it."⁴⁶ Later reports similarly acknowledged that "some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction," and that its pelvis initially "looked like an Irish stew."⁴⁷
The 2009 report in Science tells a striking story of the fossil's poor quality: "[T]he team's excitement was tempered by the skeleton's terrible condition. The bones literally crumbled when touched. White called it road kill. And parts of the skeleton had been trampled and scattered into more than 100 fragments; the skull was crushed to 4 centimeters in height."⁴⁸ In an article titled "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found," the science editor at National Geographic put it this way: "After Ardi died, her remains apparently were trampled down into mud by hippos and other passing herbivores. Millions of years later, erosion brought the badly crushed and distorted bones back to the surface. They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch."⁴⁹
Claims about bipedal locomotion in hominids require careful and accurate measurements of the precise shape of various bones. How far should one trust claims about Ardi as a "Rosetta stone for understanding bipedalism" when the bones were initially "crushed to smithereens" and "would turn to dust at a touch"? Several skeptical paleoanthropologists felt those claims warranted little credence. As Science reported:

[S]everal researchers aren't so sure about these inferences. Some are skeptical that the crushed pelvis really shows the anatomical details needed to demonstrate bipedality. The pelvis is "suggestive" of bipedality but not conclusive, says paleoanthropologist Carol Ward of the University of Missouri, Columbia. Also, Ar. ramidus "does not appear to have had its knee placed over the ankle, which means that when walking bipedally, it would have had to shift its weight to the side," she says. Paleoanthropologist William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York State is also not sure that the skeleton was bipedal. "Believe me, it's a unique form of bipedalism," he says. "The postcranium alone would not unequivocally signal hominin status, in my opinion."⁵⁰

A subsequent paper by primatologist Esteban Sarmiento in Science noted that "All of the Ar. ramidus bipedal characters cited also serve the mechanical requisites of quadrupedality, and in the case of Ar. Ramidus foot-segment proportions, find their closest functional analog to those of gorillas, a terrestrial or semiterrestrial quadruped and not a facultative or habitual biped."⁵¹

Critics also questioned the claim that Ardi was necessarily ancestral to humans. When Ardi's reports were first published, Bernard Wood stated, "I think the head is consistent with it being a hominin... but the rest of the body is much more questionable."⁵² Two years later, Wood co-wrote a paper in Nature elaborating on those criticisms, observing that if "Ardipithecus is assumed to be a hominin," and ancestral to humans, then this implies the fossil had "remarkably high levels of homoplasy among extant great apes."⁵³ In other words, Ardi had many ape-like characteristics which, if we set aside the preferences of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, might imply a much closer relationship to living apes than to humans. According to a Science Daily article reporting on Wood's Nature paper, the claim of Ardi "being a human ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation."⁵⁴ Stanford University anthropologist Richard Klein put it this way: "I frankly don't think Ardi was a hominid, or bipedal."⁵⁵
Sarmiento observed that Ardi had characteristics that are different not just from humans, but also from apes. In a Time Magazine interview, "Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn't?," he elaborated:

"[Tim White] showed no evidence that Ardi is on the human lineage," Sarmiento says. "Those characters that he posited as relating exclusively to humans also exist in apes and ape fossils that we consider not to be in the human lineage."
The biggest mistake White made, according to the paper, was to use outdated characters and concepts to classify Ardi and to fail to identify anatomical clues that would rule her out as a human ancestor. As an example, Sarmiento says that on the base of Ardi's skull, the inside of the jaw joint surface is open as it is in orangutans and gibbons, and not fused to the rest of the skull as it is in humans and African apes -- suggesting that Ardi diverged before this character developed in the common ancestor of humans and apes.⁵⁶

Whatever Ardi may have been, everyone agrees that this fossil was initially badly crushed and needed extensive reconstruction. Its discoverers adamantly maintain the specimen was a bipedal human ancestor, or something very close to it. No doubt this debate will continue, but are we obligated to take for granted the bold talking points promoted by Ardi's discoverers in the media? Sarmiento doesn't think so. According to Time Magazine, he "regards the hype around Ardi to have been overblown."⁵⁷

[Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from Chapter 3, "Human Origins and the Fossil Record," of the new book Science and Human Origins, co-authored by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. For details, see Discovery Institute Press.]
References Cited:
[22.] "Skull find sparks controversy," BBC News (July 12, 2002), accessed March 4, 2012, "One of Dr Senut's colleagues, Dr. Martin Pickford, who was in London this week, is also reported to have told peers that he thought the new Chadian skull was from a 'proto-gorilla.'"
[23.] Milford H. Wolpoff, Brigitte Senut, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, "Sahelanthropus or 'Sahelpithecus'?," Nature, 419 (October 10, 2002): 581-82.
[24.] Ibid.
[25.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) , 97 (April 25, 2000): 5003-06.
[26.] Ronald Wetherington testimony before Texas State Board of Education (January 21, 2009). Time Index 2:06:00-2:06:08.
[27.] Bernard Wood, "Hominid revelations from Chad," Nature, 418 (July 11, 2002):133-35.
[28.] Ibid.[29.] Bernard Wood, "Hominid revelations from Chad," Nature, 418 (July 11, 2002):133-35.
[30.] Potts and Sloan, What Does it Mean to be Human?, 38.
[31.] John Noble Wilford, "Fossils May Be Earliest Human Link," New York Times (July 12, 2001), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/12/world/fossils-may-be-earliest-human-link.html.
[32.] John Noble Wilford, "On the Trail of a Few More Ancestors," New York Times (April 8, 2001), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/world/on-the-trail-of-a-few-more-ancestors.html.
[33.] Leslie C. Aiello and Mark Collard, "Our newest oldest ancestor?," Nature, 410 (March 29, 2001): 526-27.
[34.] K. Galik, B. Senut, M. Pickford, D. Gommery, J. Treil, A. J. Kuperavage, and R. B. Eckhardt, "External and Internal Morphology of the BAR 1002'00 Orrorin tugenensis Femur," Science, 305 (September 3, 2004): 1450-53.
[35.] Sarmiento, Sawyer, and Milner, The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-two Species of Extinct Humans, 35.
[36.] Christopher Wills, Children of Prometheus: The Accelerating Pace of Human Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 156.
[37.] "Fossils May Look Like Human Bones: Biological Anthropologists Question Claims for Human Ancestry," Science Daily (February 16, 2011), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132034.htm.
[38.] Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison, "The evolutionary context of the first hominins," Nature, 470 (February 17, 2011): 347-52.
[39.] Martin Pickford, "Fast Breaking Comments," Essential Science Indicators Special Topics (December 2001), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.esi-topics.com/fbp/comments/december-01-Martin-Pickford.html.
[40.] Aiello and Collard, "Our newest oldest ancestor?," 526-27.
[41.] Tim White, quoted in Ann Gibbons, "In Search of the First Hominids," Science, 295 (February 15, 2002): 1214-19.
[42.] Jennifer Viegas, "'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled," Discovery News (October 1, 2009), accessed March 4, 2012, http://news.discovery.com/history/ardi-human-ancestor.html.
[43.] Randolph E. Schmid, "World's oldest human-linked skeleton found," MSNBC (October 1, 2009), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.msnbc.msn.
com/id/33110809/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/worlds-oldest-human-linked-skeleton-found/.
[44.] Ann Gibbons, "Breakthrough of the Year: Ardipithecus ramidus," Science, 326 (December 18, 2009): 1598-99.
[45.] Ann Gibbons, "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled," 36-40.
[46.] Gibbons, "In Search of the First Hominids," 1214-19.
[47.] Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle," Time (October 1, 2009), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1927289,00.html.
[48.] Gibbons, "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled," 36-40. See also Gibbons, The First Human: The Race to Discover our Earliest Ancestors, 15 ("The excitement was tempered, however, by the condition of the skeleton. The bone was so soft and crushed that White later described it as road-kill").
[49.] Jamie Shreeve, "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found," National Geographic (October 1, 2009), accessed March 4, 2012, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missinglink-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html.[50.] Gibbons, "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled," 36-40.
[51.] Esteban E. Sarmiento, "Comment on the Paleobiology and Classification of Ardipithecus ramidus," Science, 328 (May 28, 2010): 1105b.
[52.] Gibbons, "A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled," 36-40.
[53.] Wood and Harrison, "The evolutionary context of the first hominins," 347-52.
[54.] "Fossils May Look Like Human Bones: Biological Anthropologists Question Claims for Human Ancestry."
[55.] John Noble Wilford, "Scientists Challenge 'Breakthrough' on Fossil Skeleton," New York Times (May 27, 2010), accessed March 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/science/28fossil.html.
[56.] Eben Harrell, "Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn't?," Time (May 27, 2010), at http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1992115,00.html.
[57.] Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

Darwinism Vs.The real world.XXXVII

Puberty, Maturation, and Fertility: The Role of Information in Human Sexuality
Howard Glicksman 

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series,  see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

The word sex comes from the Latin secare which means to separate or divide. Most one-celled organisms form offspring through asexual reproduction. It is asexual because there is no separation of genetic material. Therefore divided chromosomes do not need to be brought together and the new life produced is genetically identical to the original.

In contrast, most multi-cellular organisms form offspring in a much more complicated way called sexual reproduction. In humans, each of the chromosomes making up the 23 pairs containing the genetic material for life is separated from its partner and placed into gametes called male sperm and female eggs. Human reproduction involves sexual intercourse in which the male deposits sperm in the vagina of the female so they can move into the uterus and one of them can join its separated 23 chromosomes to the ones within the female egg in a process called fertilization. The fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm results in a one-celled zygote which then contains the full complement of genetic material and is distinct from its parents.

As difficult as it may be for evolutionary biologists to explain the blind and unguided development of the different organ systems and the body's ability to control them, because of the mechanism humans must use for reproduction they must also explain the simultaneous development of both males and females since neither is of any use to propagate the species without the other.

The three things needed for a human to reproduce are: (1) either be male or female and have all of the right sexual parts, (2) be able to produce enough sperm or release an egg into a fallopian tube, and (3) be able to participate in sexual intercourse so sperm is released into the vagina or have a clear path for sperm to swim toward the fallopian tubes.

In my last article, I showed that for the first few weeks of life the human embryo is asexual. That is because the primordial gonads have not declared themselves to be testes or ovaries yet. Notwithstanding where the embryonic structures that develop into mature sexual organs came from, the human embryo is destined to become female by default unless acted upon by specific chemicals. These include the Testis Determining Factor (TDF) (usually found on the Y chromosome), the enzymes needed to convert cholesterol into testosterone and testosterone into dihydrotestosterone, the androgen receptor on the Wolffian ducts and the tissue that will become male external genitalia, Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) and the AMH receptor on the Mullerian ducts.

If all of these chemicals are present and working properly the human embryo will usually develop into a normal male. But if the TDF is absent it will usually develop into a normal female. However, if the TDF is present, directing the primordial gonads to become testosterone-producing testes, but the androgen receptor is absent or defective (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS)), the result in an XY female. XY females occur in about one in twenty thousand "male" births and have testes instead of ovaries, no genital duct system and female external genitalia. So for the first decade of life they look like normal little girls. However, experience teaches that although humans are sexually differentiated as male or female at birth, they are not able to reproduce. Most children begin to show signs of their sexual development to come by the end of the first decade. Over the following years they will undergo sexual and bodily development in a process called puberty. Puberty is a constellation of physiological changes that, except in, for example, XY females, not only enables human beings to reproduce but also prepares them for their natural role in the family. Let's consider how this happens.

The hypothalamus and pituitary work to control many different vital hormones in the body. For example, the hypothalamus secretes Growth Hormone-Releasing Hormone, which stimulates the pituitary to release Growth Hormone (GH). As its name implies, GH is very important in the overall growth and development of the body. The hypothalamus also sends out Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone (TRH), which tells the pituitary to send out Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). It is TSH that controls the production of thyroid hormone from the thyroid gland, which mainly affects the body's metabolic rate. Furthermore, the hypothalamus sends out Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone, which tells the pituitary to send out Adrenocorticotropin Hormone (ACTH). ACTH stimulates the adrenal glands to produce cortisol, another hormone that is important in the body's metabolism, in addition to androgenic hormones.

The hypothalamus and pituitary together control the production of a hormone such as thyroid hormone, or others, through a process called feedback inhibition. For example, the hypothalamus and the pituitary have specific receptors that allow them to sense the blood level of thyroid hormone. If it rises above what is needed the hypothalamus reduces its output of TRH and the pituitary lowers its output of TSH. The feedback of the thyroid hormone level in the blood serves to inhibit the release of TRH and TSH to maintain control of the blood level of thyroid hormone.

The production of the sex hormones is regulated in the same way by the hypothalamus and the pituitary. The hypothalamus secretes Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) which attaches to specific receptors on certain cells in the pituitary and tells them to send out the gonadotropins, Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH). It is FSH and LH that attach to specific receptors on the testes or the ovaries to produce the sex hormones, testosterone and estrogen, respectively.

In the first decade of life it appears that the hypothalamus and the pituitary are very sensitive to the feedback inhibition of the sex hormones. This means that prior to puberty, very low levels of testosterone and estrogen are able to prevent the hypothalamus from releasing its GnRH and the pituitary its FSH and LH. This results in the blood levels of testosterone and estrogen being very low prior to puberty.

A few years before puberty the adrenals increase their output of androgenic hormones which causes a small growth spurt and the development of pubic and axillary hair. What actually triggers the beginning of puberty is, as yet, poorly understood. However, what is known to happen is that the hypothalamus and pituitary start to become progressively less sensitive to the sex hormones. The gradually diminishing feedback inhibition of the sex hormones on the hypothalamus and pituitary results in their slowly increasing their output of GnRH and the gonadotropins, FSH and LH, respectively. By the time puberty is in full swing, the levels of gonadotropins and the sex hormones have risen significantly.

During male puberty, more FSH and LH attach to specific receptors in the testes and cause an increase in testosterone production, while at the same time giving them the ability to produce sperm. Puberty in the male also results in the progressive increase and coarsening of facial, chest, axillary, abdominal, extremity, and pubic hair, with enlargement of the vocal cords and deepening of the voice. Moreover, with the associated increase in the pituitary output of Growth Hormone (GH), the male experiences a significant linear growth spurt and the development of his musculoskeletal system as well. Furthermore, along with the capacity for sperm production, puberty brings on enlargement of the penis, scrotum, and testes. Finally, testosterone not only plays a major role in sexual differentiation, development, and maturation, but also in the desire for sexual relations. In addition, testosterone is important in giving the male the ability to maintain an erection for adequate penetration into the vagina and ejaculation during sexual intercourse. All these developments prepare the boy to become a man and later a father.

During puberty in the female, more FSH and LH attach to specific receptors in the ovaries and cause an increase in estrogen production while at the same time giving them the ability to develop an egg. Puberty in the female results in an increase in mainly pubic and axillary hair that is not as coarse as in the male. Moreover, breast development takes place so that the potential mother will be able to provide breast milk for her infant. In addition, an increase in Growth Hormone (GH) results in a significant linear growth spurt and development of her musculoskeletal system as well. Puberty also brings on enlargement of the external genitalia and increased mucous production within the vagina and uterus. Finally, along with the capacity for egg development, the increase in FSH, LH, and estrogen allows for ovulation, where the egg is released and can enter the fallopian tube.

Inside the fallopian tube the egg can meet and join with the sperm, which has been deposited into the vagina by the male during sexual intercourse, to form new human life. After ovulation, the ovaries mainly secrete the pregnancy hormone called progesterone. The estrogen before ovulation, and the progesterone after ovulation, attach to specific receptors in the lining of the uterus to make it thicken up and produce more mucous helping it to prepare for pregnancy. If a pregnancy does not take place, the gonadotropins (FSH, LH) and the female sex hormone levels (estrogen, progesterone) drop precipitously to cause the lining of the uterus to shed in the process called menstruation. The first menstrual period generally marks the beginning of female fertility and usually takes place on a monthly basis for the next thirty or forty years.

All these developments prepare the girl to become a woman and later a mother. However, during puberty an XY female will develop normal breasts and in every way look like a normally maturing woman, except when she fails to menstruate. Investigation will then uncover her as yet unknown (even to her) secret.

Remember that an XY female has Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). In this case, the testes form testosterone, but since the androgen receptors are absent or not working, the Wolffian ducts degenerate and the external genitalia become female. However, in addition to testosterone the testes also produce Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH), which attaches to specific AMH receptors on the Mullerian ducts and makes them degenerate as well. So the XY female has neither a male nor female genital duct system and her vagina ends in a blind pouch. If an XY female has testes instead of ovaries how can she develop breasts during puberty?

The answer lies in the fact that breast development does not, per se, depend only on estrogen but rather the ratio between estrogen and testosterone. Since during puberty the normal XY male produces lots of testosterone and relatively small amounts of estrogen, his breast tissue does not develop. During puberty the normal XX female produces lots of estrogen and only relatively small amounts of testosterone, so her breast tissue does develop. Although an XY female has testes that produce lots of testosterone, because there are no androgen receptors for it to take effect, this allows the small amount of estrogen she produces to dominate and cause breast development. In fact, without any androgenic effects in their bodies, XY females are some of the most femininely attractive women in the world.

As noted above, the human embryo is destined to become female by default unless several other chemicals swing into action to make it become a normal male. But that's only part of the story because for the first several years of life, humans, whether male or female, cannot reproduce. Puberty first involves an as yet unexplained reduction in feedback inhibition so there can be a significant increase in the release of GnRH from the hypothalamus and FSH and LH from the pituitary. This also requires the presence of specific receptors on their target tissues. It leads to the testes being able to produce sperm and more testosterone and the ovaries being able to release an egg and more estrogen (and progesterone) so males and females can reproduce.

It is information, wrapped in chemical signals, that makes the embryo become male or female and initiates puberty, thus making human reproduction possible. As Stephen Meyer observes in the Discovery Institute film The Information Enigma, the major discovery of the last half of the 20th century was that it is information that drives biology. In generating information, all human experience points to a mind rather than a random and unguided material process.


But clinical experience teaches that just having all of the parts present for reproduction doesn't automatically guarantee fertility and the natural ability to bring about new human life. That's what we'll begin to explore next time.

On the collapse Darwinism's prima facie case.

Alleged Instances of Observed Speciation -- Evolution's Smoking Gun Is Still Missing
Editor's note: William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, leading figures in the intelligent design movement, are co-authors of The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems. Originally published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, this path-breaking work explores some of the most important arguments for intelligent design in biology. To celebrate the launch of Foundation for Thought & Ethics Books as an imprint of Discovery Institute Press, we will be publishing excerpts from the book here at Evolution News. Through July 8, we will also be making the book available for only $10 -- that's more than a 70 percent discount, and it includes both the full-color hardcover and an accompanying CD with additional materials. If you haven't read this classic book, now is your chance! Order now, because this special discount won't last long.

Despite the absence of evidence for the ability of reproductive isolation to harness the mechanisms of genetic change and thereby to produce new species, some Darwinists still claim that there are many instances of observed speciation.1 But most of these alleged instances are in fact analyses of existing species that are used to defend one or another theory of how they might have originated -- such as the theories of allopatric and sympatric speciation, or the bottleneck and founder effects. Analyzing existing species to support one or another theory of speciation, however, is not the same as observing speciation in action.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation, but these are due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or "polyploidy." Such cases, however, are limited to flowering plants and result from hybridizing two species to form a new one.2 Furthermore, according to evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, speciation that results from polyploidy (also called "secondary speciation") "does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher taxonomic levels.3 Darwinian evolution, by contrast, depends on taking a single existing species and splitting off new species from it (called "primary speciation"), which then in turn diverge and split, diverge and split, over and over again. Only primary speciation, and not secondary speciation, could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution.

Of the many instances of observed speciation alleged by Darwinists, only five come close to claiming observed primary speciation. First, in 1962, from a single lab population of Drosophila (fruit flies), J.M. Thoday and J.B. Gibson bred only those flies with the highest and lowest number of bristles (the insect equivalent of hair). After 12 generations, the experiment produced two populations that not only differed in bristle number but also showed "strong though partial isolation." Yet Thoday and Gibson not did claim to have produced a new species. Furthermore, other laboratories were unable to reproduce their results.4

Second, in 1958 Theodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky started a laboratory population of fruit flies using a single female of a strain from Colombia. Crosses between that fly and several other strains produced fertile hybrids in the laboratory. In 1963, however, similar crosses yielded sterile hybrids. In 1966, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky concluded that the strain they had introduced in 1958 had become "a new race or incipient species . . . in the laboratory at some time between 1958 and 1963."5 But Coyne and Orr, writing in 2004, suspect their results were "due to contamination of cultures by other subspecies."6 In any case, Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky reported only a "new race or incipient species," not a new species.

Third, in 1964 biologists collected some marine worms in Los Angeles Harbor and used them to start a lab colony. When they went back to the same location 12 years later, the original population had disappeared, so they collected worms from two other locations several miles away, and these were used to start two new lab colonies. In 1989, researchers found that the two new colonies could interbreed with each other but not with the Los Angeles Harbor colony that had been started 25 years earlier. In 1992, James Weinberg and his colleagues called this an observed instance of "rapid speciation," based on the assumption that the original colony had "speciated in the laboratory, rather than before 1964."7 A few years later, however, tests performed by Weinberg and two others showed that the original population was "already a species different from" the two new colonies "at the time when it was originally sampled in 1964."8 No speciation had occurred.

Fourth, in 1969 E. Paterniani reported an experiment on maize in which breeding was permitted only between individuals possessing two extremes of a particular trait. Paterniani noted the development of "an almost complete reproductive isolation between two maize populations" but did not claim that a new species had been produced.9

Fifth and last, in the 1980s William R. Rice and George W. Salt subjected a population of fruit flies to eight different environments. They then took the flies that preferred the two most extreme environments and allowed only them to breed. Within thirty generations the flies had sorted themselves into two populations that did not interbreed. Even so, Rice and Salt did not claim to have produced two new species. More modestly, they believed only that "incipient speciation" had occurred.10

So, of the five alleged instances of observed primary speciation, only one (Weinberg's) claimed to have observed actual speciation -- and it was later retracted. The other four (one of which could not be reproduced by other scientists and one of which was not controlled for contamination) claimed only some degree of reproductive isolation or "incipient speciation."

What is "incipient speciation"? Darwin wrote: "According to my view, varieties are species in the process of formation, or are, as I have called them, incipient species."11 But how can we possibly know whether two varieties (or races) are in the process of becoming separate species? St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are two varieties of dog that cannot interbreed naturally, but they are members of the same species. Maybe they are on their way to becoming separate species, or maybe not. The two varieties of Rhagoletis pomonella described in the previous section do not interbreed in the wild, but they look exactly alike and are still capable of mating in the laboratory. Like different breeds of dogs, they are still members of the same species. Calling them "incipient species" amounts to no more than a prediction that they will eventually become separate species. But maybe they won't. Short of waiting to see whether the prediction comes true, we can't really know. And given our limited lifespans, we don't have time to wait (at least not by conventional evolutionary timescales).

Darwinists therefore discount the lack of observed instances of primary speciation by saying that it takes too long to observe them. But if it takes too long for scientific investigators to observe primary speciation, then there will never be anything more than indirect evidence for the first and most important step in Darwinian evolution. Darwinists claim that all species have descended from a common ancestor through variation and selection. But until they can point to a single observed instance of primary speciation, their claim must remain an unverified assumption, not an observed scientific fact. University of Bristol bacteriologist Alan H. Linton made precisely this point when in 2001 he assessed the direct evidence of speciation: 

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. . . . Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.12

So except for secondary speciation, which is not what Darwin's theory needs, there are no observed instances of the origin of species. As evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: "Speciation, whether in the remote Galápagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced."13 Evolution's smoking gun is still missing.

References:

(1) See Catherine A. Callaghan, "Instances of Observed Speciation," The American Biology Teacher 49 (1987): 34–36; Joseph Boxhorn, "Observed Instances of Speciation," The Talk.Origins Archive, September 1, 1995, available online (last accessed January 9, 2007); Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Annelise Lilje, and L. Drew Davis, "Some More Observed Speciation Events," The Talk.Origins Archive, 1997, available online (last accessed January 9, 2007).

(2) See Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, "Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002): 589–639; D. M. Rosenthal, L. H. Rieseberg, and L. A. Donovan, "Re-creating Ancient Hybrid Species' Complex Phenotypes from Early-Generation Synthetic Hybrids: Three Examples Using Wild Sunflowers," The American Naturalist 166(1) (2005): 26–41.

(3) Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.

(4) J.M. Thoday and J. B. Gibson, "Isolation by Disruptive Selection," Nature 193 (1962): 1164–1166. J. M. Thoday and J. B. Gibson, "The Probability of Isolation by Disruptive Selection," The American Naturalist 104 (1970): 219–230. Coyne and Orr, Speciation, 138.

(5) Theodosius Dobzhansky and Olga Pavlovsky, "Spontaneous Origin of an Incipient Species in the Drosophila Paulistorum Complex," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 55 (1966): 727–733.

(6) Coyne and Orr, Speciation, 138.

(7) James R. Weinberg, Victoria R. Starczak, and Daniele Jörg, "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory," Evolution 46 (1992): 1214–1220.

(8) Francisco Rodriquez-Trelles, James R. Weinberg, and Francisco J. Ayala, "Presumptive Rapid Speciation After a Founder Event in a Laboratory Population of Nereis: Allozyme Electrophoretic Evidence Does Not Support the Hypothesis," Evolution 50 (1996): 457–461.

(9) E. Paterniani, "Selection for Reproductive Isolation Between Two Populations of Maize, Zea mays L.," Evolution 23 (1969): 534–547.

(10) William R. Rice and George W. Salt, "Speciation via Disruptive Selection on Habitat Preference: Experimental Evidence," The American Naturalist 131 (1988): 911–917. See also Coyne and Orr, Speciation, 138–141.

(11) Darwin, Origin of Species, 111.

(12) Alan Linton, "Scant Search for the Maker," The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, 29, available online with registration (last accessed January 9, 2007).


(13) Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 32.

Why the geekocracy will not save us.

Science, Knowledge, and the "Epistemic Horizon"
David Klinghoffer

National Review Online's Kevin Williamson has sometimes rubbed me the wrong way, but in the 24 hours or so since Neil deGrasse Tyson shot off his "#Rationalia" tweet, Williamson composed an essay in response that can only be called profound. Tyson, the "dumbest smart person on Twitter," proposed a "virtual country," with a "one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence." In reply, Williamson offers the image of a limit to knowledge, an "epistemtic horizon" like the "event horizon" of a black hole.

Read it all for yourself, but this is the conclusion and upshot:

The epistemic horizon is not very broad. We do not, in fact, know what the results of various kinds of economic policies or social policies will be, and there isn't any evidence that can tell us with any degree of certainty. The housing projects that mar our cities weren't supposed to turn out like that; neither was the federal push to encourage home-ownership or to encourage the substitution of carbohydrates for fats and proteins in our diets. A truly rational policy of the sort that Tyson imagines must take into account not only how little we know about the future but how little we can know about the future, even if we consult the smartest, saintliest, and most disinterested experts among us.
That is part of the case for limited government and free markets. Government can do some things, such as guard borders (though ours chooses not to) and fight off foreign invaders. There are things that it cannot do, even in principle, such as impose a "rational" order on the nation's energy markets, deciding that x share of our electricity supply shall come from solar, y share from wind, z share from natural gas, all calculated to economic and environmental ideals. That is simply beyond its ken, even if all the best people -- including Tyson, from time to time -- pretend that it is otherwise. Free markets go about solving social problems in the opposite way: Dozens, or thousands, or millions, or even billions of people, firms, organizations, investors, and business managers trying dozens or thousands of approaches to solving social problems....

There isn't a road to Rationalia. There are billions of them, negotiated by individuals and institutions dozens or hundreds of times a day, every time they make a significant choice. Government programs are, by their nature, centralized, unitary, and static attempts to impose a rational order on complexity beyond the understanding of the people who would claim to manage it....

It isn't ideology that imposes a relatively narrow circle on what government planners can do. And, with all due respect to the genius of F. A. Hayek ("The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"), it isn't only economics, either. The limitations on human knowledge are real, and they are consequential. As men like him have done for ages, Tyson dreams of a world of self-evident choices, overseen by men of reason such as himself who occupy a position that we cannot help but notice is godlike. It's nice to imagine ruling from an Olympus of Reason, with men and nations arrayed before one as on a chessboard.

Down here on Earth, the view is rather different, and the lines of sight inside the epistemic horizon are not nearly so long as our would-be rulers imagine.

I would add -- and this he doesn't say -- that the idea of a limit or horizon to knowledge goes far beyond politics, economics, urban planning, the issues that seem to animate Kevin Williamson. It includes faith, notwithstanding the certainty of the New Atheists and some religious spokesmen as well. In this context, I think of the Talmud's interesting gnomic statement warning of four boundaries of reality beyond which we are better off not seeking to gaze -- "what is above, what is below, what was before, and what will be after."
The idea of an epistemic horizon definitely includes science, especially historical scientific theories that seek to lay bare biological origins. Everyone who speaks about science in public should be reminded of this.

I don't mean we can never have an informed opinion on how life arose, became complex and diverse. That's exactly what we talk about when we talk about intelligent design. But the horizon should be kept in view when we hear Darwinian evolution asserted as "fact" -- "as much a fact as gravity or erosion," in a typical formulation. No, that is wrong.


ID advocates don't talk that way -- ID as "fact," rather than a tentative inference. And good for them. That modesty is a point in favor of the design argument.