Beclouded by ego

Self-Image as a Bulwark of Darwinian Orthodoxy
David Klinghoffer September 25, 2015 11:49 AM


Carrying on the wonderful legacy of the noble Chuck Colson, the guys at BreakPoint -- John Stonestreet and Eric Metaxas -- are some of the more insightful commentators we know on the passing scientific scene. Stonestreet has a nice one this week ("Sensationalist Science"), noting the distorting role that pride plays in research, leading to some recent embarrassments.

Last month, psychology suffered a major blow when it was reported how often studies in the field fail the test of reproducibility -- better than half the time, in fact. Stonestreet asks:

Why are so many scientists apparently exaggerating and misinterpreting their findings? [Benedict] Carey [in the New York Times] points to what the scientists themselves describe as "a hypercompetitive culture across science that favors novel, sexy results and provides little incentive for researchers to replicate the findings of others, or for journals to publish studies that fail to find a splashy result."

In other words, sensationalist science is its own undoing. But there's more to it. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor at the University of Southern California, tells the Times that many senior researchers bristle at the thought of a younger, less experienced scientist critiquing their work. "There's no doubt," he said, "that replication is important, but it's often just [seen as] an attack, a vigilante exercise."

In other words, the real flaw in a lot of research isn't technical or methodological. It's just old-fashioned human pride. And it's not restricted to psychology or the social sciences. Dr. John Ioannidis, director of Meta-Research at Stanford, hints that the peer-review climate could be even more toxic in other fields, like cell biology, economics, neuroscience, clinical medicine, and animal research, calling the reliability of science itself into question.

Stonestreet draws a couple of appropriate conclusions for BreakPoint's Christian readers and listeners, including:

[T]his should remind us that science doesn't have all the answers. In fact, the more political, ideological, or lucrative the stakes, the more likely those "splashy results" are to be fish stories. And Christians know the reason: because inside every white lab coat and bow tie is a fallible human being, just like you and me.

The only thing this leaves out is an aspect of pride, and that is: prestige. In the context of evolution, it's all-important. It's not possible to exaggerate the place of self-image as a bulwark of Darwinian orthodoxy. Experience has taught us, again and again, how often otherwise thoughtful people refuse to consider alternative understandings of life's origins because that would potentially lead them down a socially uncomfortable path.

Yes, for scientists there are real professional dangers that go with opening your mouth to say something critical of the reigning evolutionary theory. Even for the tenured scholar, and all the more so for the untenured and the graduate student, a great deal of looking over your shoulder and anticipating damnation goes with the thought of admitting that Darwinism faces serious scientific challenges, or that evidence of design in nature might conceivably be worth a look.

Some folks in other professions -- journalism, notably -- face similar pressures, potentially impacting careers in very practical ways.

For many others -- not scientists but lay people -- it's the cloud of prestige around certain ideas, not the evidence or arguments behind them, that really matters. That's why Darwin defenders so typically respond to ID not with evidence and arguments of their own but with emotional manipulation based on their listeners' self-image.

The strategy has evolved with the times. It used to be that Darwin skeptics were tarred predominantly with language suggestive of religious fundamentalism. Hence the popularity of conflating intelligent design with creationism, resulting in the fanciful chimera of "Intelligent Design Creationism." More recently the tactic has shifted somewhat, with Darwin advocates making increased use of the weaponized terms "science denial" and "science denier." Here the idea is to subtly associate skepticism with something not just embarrassing but utterly vile -- Holocaust denial.


So, yes, as John Stonestreet says, pride plays its unacknowledged but important role in science discussions. Boy, does it ever.

On how natural flight makes the case for design

Ideology first/good science whenever

Junk Science at Smithsonian's Hall of Human Origins

Casey Luskin September 27, 2015 3:38 PM |

This past week I was in Washington, DC (no, not to see the Pope) and had the opportunity to spend a couple hours at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. I had long looked forward to seeing its David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

Ever since the hall opened in 2010, I'd been hearing that the exhibit was not just biased in favor of evolution, but had an unabashed evangelical motive to promote evolution to the public. In fact, in 2010 I heard Rick Potts (director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program) speak at an American Scientific Affiliation conference where he essentially admitted just that. He more or less told the audience that the purpose of the Smithsonian's human origins displays was to encourage the public -- especially religious communities -- to accept evolution.

Marvin Olasky recently reviewed the museum in World Magazine, but I needed to see it for myself. I love museums, and I love fossils, and I don't mind at all when museums talk about evolution. What I found is that the Hall of Human Origins is so zealous in its agenda that it was willing to promote junk science to achieve its goals.

One thing that really struck me is how the exhibit repeatedly called early hominins "early humans" even though they're very far from humanlike. This apparently is an effort to make you think that these creatures are really "us" and we are "them."

For example, early on I watched an interactive video display that showed a young paleoanthropologist discussing "early humans." I thought I heard her mention Paranthropus robustus as an example of an "early human," but I wasn't sure I heard that correctly. Surely, I mused, nobody would call Paranthropus robustus an "early human" when it's thought, even by mainstream paleoanthropologists, to belong to a distant side branch that was far removed from human origins. So I stuck around to listen to the whole video over again to make sure I hadn't misheard.

Unfortunately, I hadn't misheard.

So why was the exhibit calling Paranthropus robustus an "early human" -- when its very name means "parallel to man" because it's not thought to be in our line of ancestry, but was a distinct creature that probably lived alongside early Homo? The rest of my visit helped explain what was going on.

This same pattern repeated throughout the exhibit. Again and again, it promotes as "ancient humans" fossils that virtually no scientist would call "human" -- and clearly don't belong in the genus "Homo." Here's one example:

• Another display said, "From at least 6 to 3 million years ago, early humans combined apelike and humanlike ways of moving around." These must be really early humans because there were no humans around back then, and nothing that looked human or walked or thought or behaved like humans. Yet the exhibit calls these "early humans" apparently so visitors will think that these non-human species are connected to us.
• Another display says "For the first several million years of human evolution, early humans lived only in Africa." The display makes it clear they're talking about species prior to 1.8 million years ago. But again, prior to that time it's not clear that Homoexisted. The species from that period were not human.
• Yet another display shows a chimp, an australopithecine, and a modern young lady and calls the australopithecine "early human." A similar display portrays an "early human" that is 3 million years old next to a "modern human" eating a slice of pizza. The problem, of course, is that 3 million years ago there was nothing around that should be called "human," whether "early " or otherwise.
• Finally, one panel calls Sahelanthropus tchadensis an "early human" though it is from about 6 million years ago, and all we have of this species is a skull that some have said resembles a gorilla.

It's simple: The Smithsonian's Human Origins hall is overwhelmingly animated by the desire to sell Darwinism. That isn't surprising. After all, during the California Science Center case, we discovered that internal Smithsonian emails said ID is officially "against SI/MNH policy." And that's true enough. The Smithsonian punished evolutionary biologistRichard Sternberg just for publishing a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer in a technical biological journal.

As an institution, the Smithsonian is zealous for Darwinism -- so much so that it is willing to promote claims that are obviously bad science.

Not the planet of the apes.

Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans, Neanderthals Closer
Casey Luskin April 29, 2010 9:04 AM 

Research published in Nature over the past few months is showing a much greater genetic distance between humans and chimps than previously thought, while revealing a closer one between humans and Neanderthals.

A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme." Of course, the paper attributes these dramatic genetic changes to "rapid evolution during the past 6 million years."

One of the scientists behind the study was quoted in a Nature news article stating, "It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages." The news article states that "many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human" since "the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans." According to the news piece, "Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome."

But not wishing to offend the "myth of 1%", the Nature news article carefully adds, "The remainder of the chimp and human genomes are thought to differ in gene number by less than 1%."

While this research takes us genetically further from apes, a more recent report in Nature news takes us genetically much closer to Neanderthals. Titled, "Neanderthals may have interbred with humans," the article explains that "A genetic analysis of nearly 2,000 people from around the world indicates that such extinct species interbred with the ancestors of modern humans twice, leaving their genes within the DNA of people today." According to this new article:

[I]t may help explain the fate of the Neanderthals, who vanished from the fossil record about 30,000 years ago. "It means Neanderthals didn't completely disappear," says Jeffrey Long, a genetic anthropologist at the University of New Mexico, whose group conducted the analysis. There is a little bit of Neanderthal leftover in almost all humans, he says.
Given the high degree of skeletal similarity between humans and Neanderthals, the notion that we interbred is nothing new. They have been called a possible "race" of our own species, as studies have found their body shape is highly similar to that of modern human variation. Indeed, the discovery of "morphological mosaics" indicates that they likely interbred with modern humans. The finding of a modern-humanlike hyoid bone in a Neanderthal implies that they may have had language capabilities.

Textbooks often depict Neanderthals as primitive, bungling brutes with a vaguely human-like form (see above)--an attempt to instill the ape-to-human icon in students. But as Time Magazine reported in 1999, there's increasing evidence showing that this evolutionary interpretation was wrong, and Neanderthals were essentially "all just people":

The real message, [a Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik] Trinkaus believes, is that to people living in the Stone Age, Neanderthals were just another tribe. "They may have had heavier brows or broader noses or stockier builds, but behaviorally, socially and reproductively they were all just people."
(Michael D. Lemonick, "A Bit of Neanderthal in Us All?," Time Magazine (April 25, 1999).)


Some ID proponents might disagree with me on this particular point, but it's my view that Neanderthals were a race of human beings that ultimately went extinct. Either way, it's becoming increasingly clear that Neanderthals do nothing to bolster the case that humans evolved from more primitive hominids.

Would you know it if you saw it?

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution.

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

Professor Tour’s online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety – including the questions after the talk. You won’t regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which I’ll reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley’s change of views here.

Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?

Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?

The decline of academic freedom

Given the massive uncertainty about the “how” of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena – including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution. However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career:

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys…

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

It remains to be seen if other countries will allow their young scientists to think freely about the origin of life, and of the various species of organisms that we find on Earth today. What I will say, though, is that countries which restrict academic freedom will eventually be overtaken by countries which allow it to prosper. There is still time for America and Europe to throw off the dead hand of Darwinism in academic circles, and let their young people breathe the unaccustomed air of free speech once again.

Where imagination and storytelling trump observation and analysis

When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of Darwin's Doubt

Stephen C. Meyer October 2, 2013 4:25 PM 

'm pleased that the journal Scienceassigned my book Darwin's Doubt for review to the distinguished UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall. His is the first critical review ("When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship," September 20, 2013) to grapple with the book's main arguments about the inability of standard evolutionary mechanisms to explain the origin of morphological novelty in the Cambrian period. Though Marshall does address the main problem discussed in the book, his review also demonstrates -- if inadvertently -- the severity of that problem, and that leading Cambrian paleontologists and evolutionary biologists (such as Dr. Marshall) are nowhere close to solving it.

In coming days I will offer four responses to the four main critiques that Marshall presents of Darwin’s Doubt in his review. I begin here by addressing Marshall’s claim that developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), which are necessary for the development of animals, could have been more labile or flexible in the past.¹ Marshall made this claim to challenge my contention in Chapter 13 of Darwin’s Doubt that the observed inflexibility of these regulatory networks represents a major impediment to the evolutionary transformation of one animal body plan into another.² Not so, he argues. As he asserted in his review, “today's GRNs have been overlain with half a billion years of evolutionary innovation (which accounts for their resistance to modification), whereas GRNs at the time of the emergence of the phyla were not so encumbered."³

Yet, contrary to Marshall’s speculation about how dGRNs might have functioned in the past, all available observational evidence establishes that dGRNs do not tolerate random perturbations to their basic control logic. Indeed, mutagenesis experiments conducted on the genes present in dGRNs have repeatedly shown that even modest mutation-induced changes to these genes either produce no change in the developmental trajectory of animals (due to pre-programmed buffering or redundancy) or they produce catastrophic (most often, lethal) effects within developing animals. Disrupt the central control nodes, and the developing animal does not shift to a different, viable, stably heritable body plan. Rather, the system crashes, and the developing animal usually dies.⁴ As developmental biologist Eric Davidson has noted:

There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.⁵

Thus, to claim, as Marshall does in his review of Darwin’s Doubt, that dGRNs might have been more elastic in the past contradicts what developmental biologists have learned over several decades investigating how these networks actually function from mutagenesis studies of many different biological "model systems," includingDrosophila (fruit flies), Caenorhabditis (nematodes), Strongylocentrotus(sea urchins), Danio (zebrafish) and other animals.⁶ Moreover, as Marshall himself has noted elsewhere, there is a good reason for this inflexibility. As Marshall explains, “many of the characters that evolved during the origin of the phyla are no longer able to change. The reason for this is that selectable variation is absent: either the characters are invariant or mutants that carry this variation are sterile or lethal.”⁷

Of course, Marshall thinks that these networks could have had a different, more flexible, character in the past. Yet, given what dGRNs do, namely, that they enable different cell types to organize themselves, and differentiate themselves from each other, in precise ways at precise times during the development of specific animal forms, it is hard to see how dGRNs could have functioned as regulatory networks and also exhibited the kind of flexibility that Marshall envisions. Developmental gene regulatory networks are control systems. A labile dGRN would generate (uncontrolled) variable outputs, precisely the opposite of what a functional control system does. It is telling that although many evolutionary theorists (like Marshall) have speculated about early labile dGRNs, no one has ever described such a network in any functional detail -- and for good reason. No developing animal that biologists have observed exhibits the kind of labile developmental gene regulatory network that the evolution of new body plans requires. Indeed, Eric Davidson, when discussing hypothetical labile dGRNs, acknowledges that we are speculating "where no modern dGRN provides a model" since they "must have differed in fundamental respects from those now being unraveled in our laboratories."⁸

By ignoring this evidence, Marshall and other defenders of evolutionary theory reverse the epistemological priority of the historical scientific method as pioneered by Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and others.⁹Rather than treating our present experimentally based knowledge as the key to evaluating the plausibility of theories about the past, Marshall uses an evolutionary assumption about what must have happened in the past (transmutation) to justify disregarding experimental observations of what does, and does not, occur in biological systems. The requirements of evolutionary doctrine thus trump our observations about how nature and living organisms actually behave. What we know best from observation takes a back seat to prior beliefs about how life must have arisen.

In the next installment in this series, I’ll address Marshall’s claim that building Cambrian animals would not have required large amounts of new genetic information --  as I argue in Darwin’s Doubt -- but instead could have been produced by the “rewiring” of preexisting developmental gene regulatory networks.

NOTES:

(1) Charles R. Marshall, "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship," Science341 (September 20, 2013): 1344.

(2) Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne, 2013, 264-270.

(3) Charles R. Marshall, "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship," Science341 (September 20, 2013): 1344.

(4) See Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology," Developmental Biology, 357 (September 1, 2011): 35-40. See also the discussion in Darwin's Doubt, pp. 264-70.

(5) See Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology," Developmental Biology, 357 (September 1, 2011): 40.

(6) See, for example, the discussion of the model systemStrongylocentrotus purpuratus in: P. Oliveri, Q. Tu, and E. H. Davidson, “Global Regulatory Logic for Specification of an Embryonic Cell Lineage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105 (2008): 5955-62. For a diagrammed schematic of the dGRN network ofStrongylocentrotus purpuratus see Figure 1D in this article.

(7) See N.H. Shubin and C.R. Marshall, “Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Novelty,” Paleobiology 26, no. 4, Supplement (2000): 335. (Emphasis added).

(8) Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary Bioscience as Regulatory Systems Biology," Developmental Biology, 357 (September 1, 2011): 40.

(9) See Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. 3 vols. London: Murray, 1830-33, pp. 75-91.

The end of the line?

Sepp Blatter: Swiss open criminal proceedings against FIFA president
By James Masters, CNN

CNN)Sepp Blatter's tenure as FIFA president suffered a new blow after the Swiss Attorney General opened criminal proceedings against him on "suspicion of criminal mismanagement."

A statement released by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) of Switzerland confirmed it was examining a contract signed by Blatter with the Caribbean Football Union and an alleged "disloyal payment" of $2 million to UEFA president Michel Platini.

Former senior FIFA official Warner was indicted in the wide-ranging bribery scandal, while Platini entered the race to succeed Blatter as FIFA president in July.

The statement was released after Blatter, who has been in charge of soccer's world governing body since 1998, was interrogated by OAG representatives Friday following a meeting of the FIFA Executive committee in Zurich.


Blatter's lawyer Richard Cullen, said that "no mismanagement occurred."

In a statement sent to CNN, Cullen said: "We're confident that when the Swiss authorities have a chance to review the documents and the evidence they will see that the contract was properly prepared and negotiated by the appropriate staff members of FIFA."

The OAG confirmed that it had conducted a search at FIFA headquarters with the help of the police -- including Blatter's office -- and "data seized."

"The OAG suspects that on 12 September 2005 Mr. Joseph Blatter has signed a contract with the Caribbean Football Union (with Jack Warner as the President at this time); this contract was unfavorable for FIFA," said the statement.

"On the other hand, there is as suspicion that, in the implementation of this agreement, Joseph Blatter also violated his fiduciary duties and acted against the interest of FIFA and/or FIFA Marketing & TV AG.

"Additionally, Mr. Joseph Blatter is suspected of a disloyal payment of two million Swiss Francs to Michel Platini, President of Union of European Football Association (UEFA), at the expense of FIFA, which was allegedly made for work performed between January 1999 and June 2002 ; this payment was executed in February 2011," added the statement.


UEFA was not immediately available for comment after the OAG said that Platini had been "heard as a person asked to provide information," while one of Warner's officials told CNN "he wouldn't be saying anything."

Platini, who became president of Uefa -- the European governing body in 2007 -- is also a vice-president of FIFA.


The 60-year-old became a member of FIFA's executive committee in 2002 as well as chairman of the technical development committee and worked on the 2006 World Cup organizing committee.In a statement, FIFA said it had been "cooperating" and has "complied with all requests for documents, date and other information."

It added: "We will continue this level of cooperation throughout the investigation. We will have no further comment on the matter as it is an active investigation."

The incident comes eight days after Secretary General Jerome Valcke was suspended by FIFA, while the organization investigates allegations he participated in a scheme to profit off the sale of World Cup tickets on the black market.

Valcke has been relieved of his duties until further notice.FIFA was plunged into crisis in late May when seven officials were charged for racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering by the FBI.

The charges are part of a U.S. prosecution that indicted a total of 14 people from around the globe.

Meanwhile, a separate probe by Swiss authorities is investigating potential corruption into the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which will be hosted by Russia and Qatar.

Qatar's controversial bid for the latter was backed by Platini, and the tournament has since been switched from the emirate's summer months to the winter following concerns over unsafe temperatures.

Platini, South Korea billionaire Chung Mong-Joon, Jordan's Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein, ex-Brazil player Zico and Liberian FA chairman Musa Bility have all announced their intention to run for president.

To stand in the February 2016 presidential election, candidates will need letters of support from at least five FIFA member nations.

U.S investigation:

Meanwhile, a U.S. law enforcement official says the U.S. Justice Department is coordinating and sharing information with the OAG on the ongoing FIFA investigation.

Blatter is among the senior FIFA officials who remain under investigation, U.S. law enforcement officials told CNN.

The importance of the Swiss investigation against Blatter is that while the FBI has been focusing on his possible role in FIFA corruption, there are limits to U.S. jurisdiction.

U.S. prosecutors have claimed jurisdiction based on the fact financial transactions that are part of the alleged bribery schemes used U.S. banks or occurred in the U.S.


The U.S. investigators have had some trouble directly linking Blatter to those U.S. transactions, according to a U.S. official familiar with the investigation. Swiss investigators may have an easier time making those links, if they exist, since Blatter is based there.

In Russia:Justice delayed again

Decision in Retrial Postponed for 16 of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog:

The retrial of 16 of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog, Russia, is in its ninth month. Over 20 hearings have been held this summer, with more planned through October. If convicted, the Witnesses face imprisonment and fines merely for attending religious services, reading the Bible, and associating with fellow believers.

Lengthy Proceedings Affect the Defendants:
Since the beginning of the retrial earlier this year, the defendants have spent nearly 50 days in court. The defendants have been in court for over two years, including the time spent in the original trial. This makes it the longest-running criminal trial of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The amount of time consumed by the hearings has taken a toll on the defendants. One of them, Kirill Kravchenko, explains: “We cannot work; we cannot spend enough time with our family or get sufficient rest.” Several of the defendants have been fired or pressured to quit their job because of the time the trial consumes or because they are publicly maligned for being Jehovah’s Witnesses. For the past two years, the court has prohibited them from leaving Taganrog without first obtaining official permission.


The proceedings have also placed an undue emotional strain on the defendants. “It affects my health,” says Tatyana Kravchenko. “I cannot fall asleep, or I wake up in the middle of the night. I’m always thinking about the trial, mulling it over in my mind, worrying.” Nikolay Trotsyuk, also a defendant, has been hospitalized several times because of the stress of the trial.
Events Leading to the Retrial in Taganrog:
In 2011, police conducted a covert criminal investigation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog. Sixteen Witnesses were indicted in 2012, and their initial criminal trial began in May 2013. After 15 months of hearings, the Taganrog City Court convicted seven of them for alleged extremist activity. The judge heavily fined all seven and sentenced four of them to lengthy prison terms, but he immediately waived the fines and suspended the prison sentences. The judge acquitted the other nine Witnesses on technical grounds but nevertheless held that they had engaged in extremist activity.

The 16 Witnesses appealed the decision to the Rostov Regional Court, asking that they be acquitted of all criminal charges. The prosecutor also appealed, arguing that the suspended sentences were too lenient.


On December 12, 2014, the Rostov Regional Court considered the appeals and reversed the decision of the Taganrog City Court. However, instead of acquitting the Witnesses, the Rostov Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s demands Should the Extremism Law Restrict Peaceful Worship?and sent the case back to the Taganrog City Court for a full retrial with a different judge. The retrial began on January 22, 2015, and the Witnesses expected a judgment in June 2015. Now that the judge has scheduled hearings through October, it appears that he will decide the case late in 2015.
Should the Extremism Law Restrict Peaceful Worship?:
Russia’s Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity was originally intended to fight terrorism, but some Russian officials are misapplying it to restrict peaceful, lawful worship. Authorities throughout the country have disrupted Witness meetings, searched their homes, and banned and confiscated literature, using the extremism law as a pretext to justify these actions. In Taganrog, the authorities misused this law to liquidate the Witnesses’ local legal entity and to confiscate their Kingdom Hall. More recently, authorities in Samara and Abinsk have followed suit by liquidating the Witnesses’ legal entities and confiscating their property.


As a result of the heavy-handed actions of the Russian authorities, Jehovah’s Witnesses have submitted 28 applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to seek redress. Since 22 of these applications involve similar human rights violations, the ECHR is currently reviewing them together. According to an attorney for the Witnesses, the ECHR may issue its judgment on these cases as early as the end of 2015.

International Call to Revise Extremism Law:
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has called on Russian authorities to “refrain from applying the law on extremist activities against all religious communities, especially Jehovah’s Witnesses.” *


The UN Human Rights Committee has also expressed “concern at numerous reports that the law [on Combating Extremist Activity] is increasingly used to curtail freedom of expression, . . . targeting, inter alia, Jehovah’s Witnesses.” On March 31, 2015, it repeated its previous recommendations that Russia “revise without undue delay the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity with a view to clarifying the vague and open-ended definition of ‘extremist activity’ . . . . It should take all necessary measures to prevent the arbitrary use of the law and revise the Federal List of Extremist Materials.” *
Threat of Growing Religious Intolerance:

Russia now stands at a crossroads regarding freedom of religion. If those being prosecuted in Taganrog are convicted, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia expect that their fellow Witnesses could be prosecuted in Samara, Abinsk, and other places. They hope that the Russian government will end this persecution and uphold freedom of religion for all of its citizens.

   Time Line:
June 9, 2008:
Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s Office files a claim against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog for alleged extremist activity.

September 11, 2009:
The Rostov Regional Court declares 34 religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist and bans the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog (LRO).

December 8, 2009:
The Russian Federation Supreme Court upholds the September 2009 ruling of the Rostov Regional Court.

March 1, 2010:
The Ministry of Justice posts on the Federal List of Extremist Materials the 34 publications declared extremist by the Rostov Regional Court. Authorities confiscate the Witnesses’ Kingdom Hall in Taganrog.

June 1, 2010:
Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog file the application Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia with the European Court of Human Rights.

April 30, 2011:
Intelligence agencies begin secretly video recording the Witnesses’ religious services in Taganrog.


July 6, 2011:
Authorities add the Taganrog LRO to the Federal List of Extremist Organizations.

August 2011:
Local authorities initiate a criminal case against Witnesses in Taganrog and search 19 homes.

May 31, 2012:
Investigators issue the first indictments to Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog for their religious activity.

May 2013:
The trial of 16 Witnesses on criminal charges of extremism begins in the Taganrog City Court.

July 29-30, 2014:
On appeal, the Rostov Regional Court rules to remand the case for retrial by a different judge.

January 22, 2015:
Retrial of the 16 Witnesses begins in the Taganrog City Court.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the new birth.

Why is it necessary for any Christians to be “born again”?

God has purposed to associate a limited number of faithful humans with Jesus Christ in the heavenly Kingdom:
Luke 12:32: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.”

Rev. 14:1-3: “I saw, and, look! the Lamb [Jesus Christ] standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand . . . who have been bought from the earth.” 
Humans cannot go to heaven with bodies of flesh and blood:
1 Cor. 15:50: “This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.”

John 3:6: “What has been born from the flesh is flesh, and what has been born from the spirit is spirit.”
Only persons who have been “born again,” thus becoming God’s sons, can share in the heavenly Kingdom:
John 1:12, 13: “As many as did receive him [Jesus Christ], to them he gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in his name; and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God.” (“As many as did receive him” does not mean all humans who have put faith in Christ. Notice who is being referred to, as indicated by verse 11 [“his own people,” the Jews]. The same privilege has been extended to others of mankind, but only to a “little flock.”)
Rom. 8:16, 17: “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.”

1 Pet. 1:3, 4: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you.”
What will they do in heaven?:
Rev. 20:6: “They will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.”

1 Cor. 6:2: “Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?”
Can a person who is not “born again” be saved?:
Rev. 7:9, 10, 17: “After these things [after the apostle John heard the number of those who would be “born again,” those who would make up spiritual Israel and would be with Christ in heaven; compare Romans 2:28, 29 and Galatians 3:26-29] I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’ . . . ‘The Lamb [Jesus Christ], who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life.’”

After listing many pre-Christian persons of faith, Hebrews 11:39, 40 says: “All these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the fulfillment of the promise, as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us.” (Who are here meant by “us”? Hebrews 3:1 shows that they are “partakers of the heavenly calling.” The pre-Christian persons who had faith, then, must have a hope for perfect life somewhere other than in heaven.)

Ps. 37:29: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”


Rev. 21:3, 4: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
Is it possible for a person to have God’s spirit and yet not be “born again”?:
Regarding John the baptizer, Jehovah’s angel said: “He will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15) And Jesus later said: “Among those born of women there has not been raised up a greater than John the Baptist; but a person that is a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is [Why? Because John will not be in the heavens and so there was no need for him to be “born again”]. But from the days of John the Baptist until now [when Jesus stated this] the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press.”—Matt. 11:11, 12.


The spirit of Jehovah was “operative” upon David and “spoke” by him (1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 23:2), but nowhere does the Bible say that he was “born again.” There was no need for him to be “born again,” because, as Acts 2:34 says: “David did not ascend to the heavens.”

Civil War or Darwinists laundering their dirty linen.

The (Texas) Tree of Life: "Every Scientific Test To-Date" Supports "Darwin's Basic Ideas"
Casey Luskin January 24, 2014 6:01 AM

As I said earlier, in 2009 Texas adopted science standards that require students to "analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Enter biologist Ken Miller, who in 2013 submitted for adoption in Texas his textbook Biology, which promotes the opposite of critical thinking on evolution. Instead, we see statements in the book like this: "Astonishingly, every scientific test has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution." (p. 465)

Also astonishingly, when the reviewer pressed Pearson to change this sentence, the publisher agreed -- the only instance out of all the alleged errors where Pearson agreed to do so. But most astonishing of all is the language that Pearson proposed in its place:

Although it is clear that a great deal about evolution remains to be learned, every scientific test to-date has supported Darwin's basic ideas.
The new wording is equally dogmatic -- and equally false. In fact, the fossil record shows a pattern of abrupt appearance that is the opposite of Darwin's ideas. In embryology we now know that Darwin's ideas about similarities in early vertebrate embryos were wrong.1 We know that the tree of life concept is flawed, challenging a core tenet of neo-Darwinian theory. Indeed, neo-Darwinian theory2 itself is thought to be highly flawed.

An article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution from 2008 acknowledges that there is a "healthy debate concerning the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory to explain macroevolution."3 Also in 2008, William Provine, a Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, gave a talk before the History of Science Society arguing that "[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false":

1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . . 4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution. 5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution. 6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution. 7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution. 8. Definition of "species" was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr. 9. Speciation was understood in principle. 10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life. 11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms. 12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms. 13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.4
Just for the record, many of these claims that Provine calls "false" (e.g., "Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process" or "evolution produces a tree of life") are Darwin's basic ideas.

But let's continue.

A 2011 paper in the journal Biological Theory stated, "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope."5 In 2009, Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in Trends in Genetics that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the "traditional concept of the tree of life" and the view that "natural selection is the main driving force of evolution." Said Koonin, "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" and "all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution."6 Koonin concludes, "not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone."7

Yet Pearson has the chutzpah to claim that its error is fixed by stating that "every scientific test to-date has supported Darwin's basic ideas." There are many scientists who would dispute this claim, which disregards both the letter and the spirit of TEKS.

Pearson never even offered to change its equally false and dogmatic language, such as a statement on page 447 that says: "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is often called 'the most important scientific idea that anyone has ever had.' Evolutionary theory provides the best scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. It unites all living things in a single tree of life and reminds us that humans are part of nature." Since Miller mentions it, let's look briefly at the "tree of life."

Pearson's textbook asserts as a general truth that "use of DNA characters ... has helped to make evolutionary trees more accurate." (p. 521) In reality, controversies are rampant in the technical literature about the extent to which DNA data accurately show evolutionary relationships. At heart, the problem is that "evolutionary trees" based upon some "DNA characters" commonly conflict -- quite sharply in fact -- with "evolutionary trees" based upon other "DNA characters." This problem is pervasive in molecular phylogenetics, yet it is completely omitted from Ken Miller's textbook. Student readers are led to think DNA characters universally provide accurate, "tree"-like information about evolutionary relationships. But they don't.

In its rebuttal to the reviewer, Pearson notes that the text describes "a specific situation in which DNA characters were used to produce a more accurate taxonomy of American and African vultures." I doubt anyone would dispute the relatedness of American and African vultures. The notion that DNA can be used to construct an accurate tree in that case is uncontroversial. But the text fails to discuss the numerous instances where the DNA evidence could not be resolved into a tree, or where the data provided strong non-treelike signals that led to conflicting trees.

For example, a 2012 study in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society discussed how DNA evidence has made it difficult to resolve relationships: "Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species."8 The paper observed that "phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception."9

Many other papers have made similar observations:

A paper in Genome Research observed "different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s]."10

A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged "evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns."11

A 2006 study in PLoS Biology, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," offered striking conclusions. The authors acknowledge that "a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality," observing that one study "omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom."12

A June, 2012 article in Nature reported that short strands of RNA called microRNAs "are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Dartmouth biologist Kevin Peterson who studies microRNAs lamented, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree." According to the article, microRNAs yielded "a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents." Peterson put it bluntly: "The microRNAs are totally unambiguous ... they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."13

A 2011 paper in Genome Biology and Evolution noted, "[A]s the sequences from genome projects accumulate, molecular data sets become massive and messy, with the majority of gene alignments presenting odd (patchy) taxonomic distributions and conflicting evolutionary histories."14

A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that "the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be."15
In 2009, the journal New Scientist published a cover story titled, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life." The article explained:

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.16
Such data led biochemist W. Ford Doolittle to explain that "Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree."17 New Scientist put it this way: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life ... But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence."18 The article explains what happened when microbiologist Michael Syvanen tried to create a tree showing evolutionary relationships using 2000 genes from a diverse group of animals:

He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. ... the genes were sending mixed signals. ... Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another.19
The data were so difficult to resolve into a tree that Syvanen lamented, "We've just annihilated the tree of life."20 That's right: DNA data have "annihilated the tree of life." This is certainly in direct conflict with the language in the Pearson textbook -- that DNA "has helped to make evolutionary trees more accurate.'

Indeed, a major review article in Nature reported on how "disparities between molecular and morphological trees" lead to "evolution wars" because "[e]volutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."21

Difficulties encountered in using DNA data to reconstruct evolutionary relationships are well documented. Pearson paints a rosy picture about the ease with which DNA can help us reconstruct phylogenetic trees, but this picture is false. Now that they've refused to correct the textbook, students will be badly misled.

References Cited:

[1.] See Alex T. Kalinka et al., "Gene expression divergence recapitulates the developmental hourglass model," Nature, Vol. 468: 811-814 (December 9, 2010); Brian K. Hall, "Phylotypic stage or phantom: is there a highly conserved embryonic stage in vertebrates?," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 12: 461-463 (December, 1997); Andres Collazo, "Developmental Variation, Homology, and the Pharyngula Stage," Systematic Biology, Vol. 49:3 (2000).

[2.] Oddly, Pearson protests that the "Neo-Darwinian Synthesis" is an "older understanding of the evolutionary process," and thus "not relevant" to discuss. This is a highly unorthodox position. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne notes that, "The modern theory of evolution, called neo-Darwinism in light of 150 years of post-Darwin research, has four parts..." Jerry Coyne, "Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name," in John Brockman, ed., Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement (New York: Random House, 2007), p. 6. Coyne is far from an isolated example, as the usage of these terms is also commonplace in textbooks on evolution. Douglas Futuyma's 2005 textbook Evolution defines "neo-Darwinism" as "[t]he modern belief that natural selection, acting on randomly generated genetic variation, is a major, but not the sole, cause of evolution." Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinaeur, 2005), p. 550. Strickberger's textbook Evolution defines "neo-Darwinism" as the "modern synthesis," which is "a change in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation, with natural selection considered as the most important, although not the only, cause for such changes." Monroe, W. Strickberger, Evolution (Jones & Bartlett, 3d ed., 2000), p. 649. It's disturbing that Pearson is apparently not aware that neo-Darwinism remains the standard, leading paradigm of evolution today.

[3.] Michael A. Bell, "Gould's Most Cherished Concept," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 23: 121-122 (2008) (reviewing Stephen Jay Gould, Punctuated Equilibrium (2007)).

[4.] William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

[5.] David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis," Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).

[6.] Eugene V. Koonin, "The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?," Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted).

[7.] Ibid.

[8.] Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, "Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87: 991-1024 (2012).

[9.] Ibid.

[10.] Mushegian et al., "Large-Scale Taxonomic Profiling of Eukaryotic Model Organisms: A Comparison of Orthologous Proteins Encoded by the Human, Fly, Nematode, and Yeast Genomes," Genome Research, Vol. 8: 590-98 (1998).

[11.] Degnan and Rosenberg, "Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 24:332-40 (2009).

[12.] Antonis Rokas and Sean B. Carroll, "Bushes in the Tree of Life," PLoS Biology, Vol. 4(11): 1899-1904 (November, 2006) (internal citations and figures omitted).

[13.] Elie Dolgin, "Rewriting Evolution," Nature, Vol. 486: 460-462 (June 28, 2012).

[14.] Leigh et al., "Evaluating Phylogenetic Congruence in the Post-Genomic Era," Genome Biology and Evolution, Vol. 3: 571-587 (2011).

[15.] Bapteste et al., "Networks: expanding evolutionary thinking," Trends in Genetics, Vol. 29: 439-41 (2013).

[16.] Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009).

[17.] W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284: 2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

[18.] Partly quoting Eric Bapteste, in Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," (internal quotations omitted).

[19.] Partly quoting Michael Syvanen, in Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," (internal quotations omitted).

[20.] Michael Syvanen, quoted in Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life."


[21.] Trisha Gura, "Bones, Molecules or Both?," Nature, Vol. 406: 230-233 (July 20, 2000).