Teaching Tree-Thinking to Undergraduate Biology Students

The Great Clade Race, at Evolution 2010 meeting in Portland back in March:
link (Quote)

Richard,

Thanks so much for this valuable resource. I will definitely use it to improve my teaching of evolutionary concepts. And thanks for providing the free link as well.

Can't wait for the creopigeons to come crapping all over this one..

Students just don't seem to get enough exposure to phylogenies when they take biology courses. I have found that when I lecture on phylogenies to audiences outside of evolutionary biology, they are mystified as to what the branches mean and what the order of tips means. Just having more opportunities to see evolutionary trees and play around with them would help a lot.

I don’t recall ever having had to respond to that question, “If we man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

And I have not encountered anyone who, to my knowledge, has difficulty with tree thinking.

But for those of you who have encountered it, what would be their response to the question, “If we are descended from cousins, why are there still cousins?”?

It seems to me that difficulty with tree thinking points to even deeper issues with reasoning and relationships. Has anyone explored the cognitive development of this ability?

Good paper. I love the "tree-thinking" research.

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t recall ever having had to respond to that question, “If we man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” And I have not encountered anyone who, to my knowledge, has difficulty with tree thinking.

Venus Mousetrap said: Really? I've hardly met a single creationist who understands that common descent = nested hierarchy tree. I've tried explaining dozens of times why the finding of nested characters is huge evidence for common descent, and creationists either have nothing to say, or they don't think it's good enough evidence, or they don't understand that common descent can only ever produce this pattern. Can you believe there are people at UD who think that common descent is still 'an unsettled issue' because they don't understand the tree of life?

I'll posit 2 general sources of difficulty. One would be that nested hierarchy thinking is not an obvious or emphasized mode of thinking. Biologists and Object Oriented programmers are the only 2 groups I can think off the top of my head that do this regularly. The second difficulty aside from the novelty of the structure is that typology plays a big role. I've never thought to actually do the experiment, but I'd bet given a tree labeled only at the tips, and asked students to describe the creature at each node they would almost certainly pick one of the two species and call it that or some variation. That's for students who've had some exposure to the concept. The notion and ability to articulate that the node represents a population in itself with it's own genepool and variety of traits. The last is an advanced but absolutely critical piece to realize to actually be using the tree correctly.

To Richard looking at your references, might I recommend Arnold Arons book Teaching Introductory Physics. There is a lot to be said for port his methodology to biology classrooms particularly since I think it helps to address some of the findings of Lederman and his colleagues on helping students understand nature of science.

To Richard looking at your references, might I recommend Arnold Arons book Teaching Introductory Physics. There is a lot to be said for port his methodology to biology classrooms particularly since I think it helps to address some of the findings of Lederman and his colleagues on helping students understand nature of science.

Genealogy can be a double edged pedagogical sword however Mike because it creates the misconception of a single entity at the node instead of a population.

"Mind mapping" software is great for tree thinking. I use Freemind, which is free, for project management (nested tasks), writing (nested ideas), and sometimes for programming (nested objects, as JGB mentioned). I imagine it could also be very helpful for teaching phylogeny.

JGB said: Genealogy can be a double edged pedagogical sword however Mike because it creates the misconception of a single entity at the node instead of a population.

Oops,Richard Meisel's paper, not your paper.

"Tree thinking" just doesn't sound exalted enough.

How about "dendrophrenia"?

Pierce R. Butler said: "Tree thinking" just doesn't sound exalted enough. How about "dendrophrenia"?

just wanted to say how much i appreciated the appearance of the term "boy howdy" ... an indispensable tool for mocking gullible and undereducated amazement. i don't believe mockery is ever the first resort, but some arguments eventually insist upon it. incidentally, boy howdy is also my intended future gay pornstar name

I love the concept of tree-thinking because that thinking led Darwin to think seriously of evolution. It was his moment of euphoria, so to speak, when he sketched a crude phylogenetic tree aboard HMS Beagle as it was sailing back toward England (I think this was while the ship was sailing either in the Indian Ocean or off the coast of Africa.).

Former teacher here. I remember when set theory was introduced and I had to teach it to 10-year-old children. I expected a really hard time, but to my amazement kids grasped and loved it. Since then I've been wondering if one should forget about teaching the tree model and start immediately with nested hierarchies.

Richard Potts, curator of the Hall of Human Origins at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., discussed reactions to the museum’s new “Human Origins” exhibit. The exhibit explores human evolution and the question, “What does it mean to be human?” It is intended to make the science approachable and meaningful and to encourage conversation with the public, he said. In contrast, many public surveys emphasize conflict between religion and science, he said, perhaps because of the wording of the polling questions. Many of the polling questions situate “aspects of science in a framework of belief,” Potts said. The questions force people to make a choice between religion and science. “What we’ve found is the general public who go onto our Web site or come to our exhibition wish for a more nuanced approach such that they can be excited about the discoveries of science while enabling themselves to enrich their religious understandings of the world,” Potts said. Teachers and school groups who come from conservative Christian schools where evolution is not taught are among the visitors to the “Human Origins” exhibit who wish for a more nuanced approach to science and religion, he said.

The pre-meeting activities began tonight with a private tour of the David H Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Curator Rick Potts led the tour, providing his personal perspective on the realization of his 25-year quest to present to the public the latest data relevant to human origins. The exhibit poses the question, “what does it mean to be human?” Instead of answering the question, it encourages us to answer, providing us intriguing clues to what it might have meant in the past. The exhibit is breathtaking in its scope and realistic portrayal of what life may have been like in the past. I was impressed that the recurring message was “How do we know that?” at every step, allowing us to ascertain the basis for the information. It was amazing to see how in the last decade or two, new technology has enabled scientists to ascertain in much greater detail what past beings ate and how they lived. It was particularly striking to see how two of the greatest impact on human development were social interaction/learning and climate change. As the climate fluctuated, the ability to adapt helped early hominins to survive and flourish. One of the puzzling elements in this topic is what to call the numerous species that have been discovered that are part of our heritage in some way. Are they hominids? Yes, but that includes the great apes as well. Are they hominins? Yes, that is unique to species after the breakaway from the chimps and bonobos. Are they early humans? Yes, they are early indeed. Are they human? Ah, that is the question. And we are challenged to understand at a deeper level just what that means. I give Rick Potts and his team enormous credit for a tremendous job in putting together such an impressive display of discoveries and for presenting them in such a clear and understandable way. It will stimulate thoughtful discussion for a long time to come.

Students need to understand the nature of science. A scientific theory is a consistent mathematical framework along with partial empirical verification. While the math must be fully consistent, the verification can never be complete. See "Teaching and Helping Students Think and Do Better" on amazon.

Standards-Based Outcomes This activity provides opportunities for all students to develop abilities of scientific inquiry as described in the National Science Education Standards. Specifically, it enables them to: formulate descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using evidence, think critically and logically to make relationships between evidence and explanations, and recognize and analyze alternative explanations and predictions. In addition, the activity provides all students opportunities to develop fundamental understandings in the life sciences as described in the National Science Education Standards. Specifically, it conveys the following concepts: In all organisms, the instructions for specifying the characteristics of the organism are carried in DNA, a large polymer formed from subunits of four kinds (A, G, C, and T). The chemical and structural properties of DNA explain how the genetic information that underlies heredity is both encoded in genes (as a string of molecular "letters") and replicated (by a templating mechanism). The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors. Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities that reflect their evolutionary relationships. The species is the most fundamental unit of classification. ... Instructional Strategy: Part I Engage Ask the students: When you hear the word "evolution," what do you think of first? Have the students explain what they understand about evolution. For many people, the first thing that comes to mind is often the statement "Humans evolved from apes." Did humans evolve from modern apes, or do modern apes and humans have a common ancestor? Do you understand the difference between these two questions? This activity will give you the opportunity to observe differences and similarities in the characteristics of humans and apes. The apes discussed in this activity are the chimpanzee and the gorilla. Explore Review Table 1, Characteristics of Apes and Humans, with the class. Make sure the students know that gibbons, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are four groups included in the ape family. Chimpanzees and gorillas represent the African side of the family; gibbons and orangutans represent the Asian side of the family. We focus only on the chimpanzee and gorilla in this activity. The only modern representative of the human family is Homo sapiens, although paleontologists have found fossil remains of other members, such as Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") and Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Next discuss how the students can use the data to determine the relationships between humans, apes, and other animals. It might not be obvious that closely related organisms share more similarities than do distantly related organisms. Guide the students to the idea that structures might be similar because they carry out the same functions or because they were inherited from a common ancestor. Only those similarities that arise from a common ancestor can be used to determine evolutionary relationships. Use the transparency of the Morphological Tree, Figure 1, for this discussion. http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309063647/gifmid/83.gif Diagrams called branching trees illustrate relationships among organisms. One type of branching tree, called a morphological tree, is based on comparisons of skulls, jaws, skeletons, and other structures. Look carefully at the morphological tree. Explain Ask the students to find the part of the morphological tree that shows the relationships between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. They will notice that there are no lines showing relationships. They should work with partners and develop three hypotheses to explain how these organisms are related. On a sheet of notebook paper, they should make a diagram of their hypotheses by drawing lines from Point A to each of the three organisms (G = gorilla, C = chimpanzee, H = human, A = common ancestor). Allow the students to develop their own hypotheses. Give them help only if you see they are not making any progress. Three hypotheses the students might propose are shown below (although not necessarily in the same order). Possible evolutionary relationships: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/xhtml/images/img00087.jpg

Dr. Sanford Aranoff said: Students need to understand the nature of science. A scientific theory is a consistent mathematical framework along with partial empirical verification. While the math must be fully consistent, the verification can never be complete. See "Teaching and Helping Students Think and Do Better" on amazon.

Rich Blinne said: The following is a high-school-level curriculum that was recommended by the NAS in 1998. [Emphasis mine] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=81

Standards-Based Outcomes ... Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities that reflect their evolutionary relationships. ... For many people, the first thing that comes to mind is often the statement "Humans evolved from apes." Did humans evolve from modern apes, or do modern apes and humans have a common ancestor? Do you understand the difference between these two questions? This activity will give you the opportunity to observe differences and similarities in the characteristics of humans and apes. The apes discussed in this activity are the chimpanzee and the gorilla. ... Only those similarities that arise from a common ancestor can be used to determine evolutionary relationships. ...

In my opinion this is also helpful concept in dealing with popular misconceptions introduced by ID. There is not some great chain of being with the higher end of the chain having more of some ill-defined sense of information. We also don't come from apes but we both come from a common ancestor. In my opinion it's imperative that this is taught at the high school level since most people don't go on to take college-level biology. Finally, I appreciate the concern of dealing with the concept of populations and all. My concern is that given the necessity for the public to understand this in order to be good citizens that introducing the concept would unnecessarily complicate things. There may be students who might get this but they will probably be going on to being involved with science at a professional level. I want to reach the majority who won't.

Can you believe there are people at UD who think that common descent is still ‘an unsettled issue’ because they don’t understand the tree of life?

Students need to understand the nature of science. A scientific theory is a consistent mathematical framework along with partial empirical verification.

John Kwok said: A number of people who have posted here have Ph. D. and/or master's degrees (present company included) and have felt no need to advertise their credentials.

Malchus said:

John Kwok said: A number of people who have posted here have Ph. D. and/or master's degrees (present company included) and have felt no need to advertise their credentials.

What remarkable obtuseness you display, John. To condemn others' display of credentials while simultaneous plugging your own strikes me as quite hypocritical.

Malchus: After a while, you get used to it. Sort of.

John Kwok said: You're a f**kwit: I'm not touting my own credentials, jerko. There are several scientists posting here with Ph. D. degrees, including Joe Felstenstein, I might add. Aronoff stops by and wants everyone to know that he is Dr. Aronoff and that he has published - apparently privately published - a book on helping students learn mathematics. That's touting one's credentials, asshole:

Malchus said:

John Kwok said: A number of people who have posted here have Ph. D. and/or master's degrees (present company included) and have felt no need to advertise their credentials.

What remarkable obtuseness you display, John. To condemn others' display of credentials while simultaneous plugging your own strikes me as quite hypocritical.

MrG said: Malchus: After a while, you get used to it. Sort of.

MrG said: Malchus: After a while, you get used to it. Sort of.

Malchus said: You mean that he really doesn't understand that he's being a hypocrite?

Joe Felsenstein said: Of course one does not want to confuse the students by bringing in every conceivable complication, but I am worried about the level of oversimplification in many textbooks and museum displays. It would be ideal if we typically had characters in which we could reliably identify derived (apomorphic) states, and where parallelism and reversal never occurred. The real world is messier, and that is not conveyed to students or museum-goers. Another problem is the equivocation on whether we are descended from apes. We of course are not descended from present-day apes. But we are apes. I know that I am descended from apes because I am descended from my mother and my father, and, like me, they were apes. Fifty years ago biologists had (mistakenly) concluded that apes were a clade, a sister group to the human lineage. They then could say that “humans are not descended from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancestor”. This was comforting to many people who would be upset to think that they were descended from apes. By thirty years ago this phylogeny had been replaced by one in which we were part of the clade of apes, and soon after we were understood to be a sister species to the two species of chimpanzees. I am worried that we are still encouraging people to believe that the common ancestor of humans and apes was not an ape. It's convenient, reassuring ... and wrong.

Malchus said: Very interesting. The immediate resort to vulgarity is also quite interesting, as is his apparent obsession with PZ Myers.

There are certainly challenges to overcoming the misconceptions, however I don't think any of the simplifications listed is beyond the ability of a high school student (I admit to believing that the typical high school student can do much more than what is asked of them). They are conceptual level issues that can be dealt without having to know differential equations and the like.

The danger though in talking about whether this should be taught is that the real limit is time. High school students can have a pretty reasonable understanding of a wide variety of modern science topics, but real understanding takes time. When curricula are designed with the we need to include this... they always end up doing too much skimming, and not enough delving to really create understanding in most students.

It seems to me that an obvious tree diagram analogy for phylogenies with which students would likely be familiar with are genealogical diagrams. While the usual family tree is inverted, from oneself back to ones multiple ancestors, I think that students could easily follow a tree diagram of descendants from a common ancestor. The idea expressed above that one is not descended from ones cousins, readily follows from this. Extrapolation to other life forms should not be difficult.

Gee, it looks like the Darwiniacs have learned to draw non-pornographic pictures to illustrate their fetid, godless religion.

Christians have already drawn more accurate tree pictures to represent evolution.

Hygaboo Andersen said: Christians have already drawn more accurate tree pictures to represent evolution.

PS: I was poking around on OBJECTIVEMINISTRIES and got into the little paper models page:

"Make your own Mr. Gruff the Atheist goat. Children can keep him on their desks and practice witnessing techniques on him in between homework."

I would find the G*d wars a lot less boring if they were more often like this instead of exchanges of rants.

MrG said:

Hygaboo Andersen said: Christians have already drawn more accurate tree pictures to represent evolution.

OK, I did have some lingering doubts that you were having us on, HA, but that item was a laugh riot. I would place a bet -- well, maybe not odds -- that it was sourced out of: http://www.objectiveministries.org If they didn't make it themselves, I'm sure they appreciate it.

Yeah, yeah, preach to me bro.

Actually, I don’t believe that. What I believe is that there are people who are authoritarian and biased in their thinking. They are determined to “fight against” the theory of evolution and common descent. They will will deny any supporting evidence and at least superficially “concur” with any argument against it. All they need to “understand” is that “evolution is the enemy”.

— harold

Frank J said:

Actually, I don’t believe that. What I believe is that there are people who are authoritarian and biased in their thinking. They are determined to “fight against” the theory of evolution and common descent. They will will deny any supporting evidence and at least superficially “concur” with any argument against it. All they need to “understand” is that “evolution is the enemy”.

— harold

Thanks. I am so tired of hearing the blanket assertion that "creationists" don't "understand" evolution, nested hierarchies, natural selection, etc. Certainly most of the rank and file don't, but we simply can't assume that of the activists. Especially since some of them have plainly conceded that common descent, if not their "Darwinism" caricature of the cause of speciation, is the best explanation. The question that I always ask myself is "What would anti-evolution activists say if they did understand evolution?" Given their admitted prior commitment to "save the world," the only answer I can come up with is "the same exact thing they say now." More importantly, I hope we all agree that it it futile to try to change the minds of committed anti-evolution activists, or the rank and file followers who are so hopelessly confused and/or compartmentalized that they will never concede evolution under any circumstances - 2 groups who total only ~25% of the population. But most of the rest have doubts and/or serious misconceptions of evolution, so techniques such as "tree thinking" would definitely help them.

Rationalists see some set axioms or presuppositions as obvious and true, and these set them down a very specific path. They have a tight, well defined, epistemology. It is remarkable how these discussions have gone on for centuries. The positions and details may evolve, but the common thread is those who are sure vs those who are not and are suspending judgement. If this is too much theorizing for you, here are a couple of examples. Evolutionists are sure that nested hierarchies and the cyctochrome c sequences are a slam dunk confirmation for evolution. Others have said much the same thing using other, equally flimsy evidence. Evolution must be a fact.

Folks this is a great example. We have evidence that the human lineage underwent a chromosomal fusion. OK, fine. But this, therefore, is compelling evidence for evolution? How can this be? This has nothing to do with common descent or evolution? And when this is pointed out, the claim is defended by asking for a better explanation. If you can't supply the rationalist with an explanation, then his is right.

I would also like to see much more taught about when various events in natural history (origin of universe, earth, life; Cambrian, K/T, human/chimp split, etc.) occurred. That not only would give a better context to those who don't have problems with evolution, it would also force evolution deniers to confront their own irreconcilable differences.

The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.

Rich Blinne said: Once people are aware of the evidence they cannot be so easily conned. This is why the application of the study we are discussing to non-scientists is so vital. Just because the leaders of the ID and YEC movements are immune to the truth doesn't mean all of their followers are.

Rich Blinne said:

Frank J said:

Actually, I don’t believe that. What I believe is that there are people who are authoritarian and biased in their thinking. They are determined to “fight against” the theory of evolution and common descent. They will will deny any supporting evidence and at least superficially “concur” with any argument against it. All they need to “understand” is that “evolution is the enemy”.

— harold

Thanks. I am so tired of hearing the blanket assertion that "creationists" don't "understand" evolution, nested hierarchies, natural selection, etc. Certainly most of the rank and file don't, but we simply can't assume that of the activists. Especially since some of them have plainly conceded that common descent, if not their "Darwinism" caricature of the cause of speciation, is the best explanation. The question that I always ask myself is "What would anti-evolution activists say if they did understand evolution?" Given their admitted prior commitment to "save the world," the only answer I can come up with is "the same exact thing they say now." More importantly, I hope we all agree that it it futile to try to change the minds of committed anti-evolution activists, or the rank and file followers who are so hopelessly confused and/or compartmentalized that they will never concede evolution under any circumstances - 2 groups who total only ~25% of the population. But most of the rest have doubts and/or serious misconceptions of evolution, so techniques such as "tree thinking" would definitely help them.

Correct. The following is an excerpt of a post Cornelius Hunter made in 2005 on the ASA listserve. Note that how he readily accepts the evidence. In other words, he gets it.

Rationalists see some set axioms or presuppositions as obvious and true, and these set them down a very specific path. They have a tight, well defined, epistemology. It is remarkable how these discussions have gone on for centuries. The positions and details may evolve, but the common thread is those who are sure vs those who are not and are suspending judgement. If this is too much theorizing for you, here are a couple of examples. Evolutionists are sure that nested hierarchies and the cyctochrome c sequences are a slam dunk confirmation for evolution. Others have said much the same thing using other, equally flimsy evidence. Evolution must be a fact.

Folks this is a great example. We have evidence that the human lineage underwent a chromosomal fusion. OK, fine. But this, therefore, is compelling evidence for evolution? How can this be? This has nothing to do with common descent or evolution? And when this is pointed out, the claim is defended by asking for a better explanation. If you can't supply the rationalist with an explanation, then his is right.

Note the audience here. Christians who are literate not only in science but also key aspects of evolutionary theory. He has to admit the evidence because he gets it and knows that it's undeniable. He goes on to claim that we're rationalists when we are being good scientists. If we have a theory with good explanatory power then we change our mind only when there is another hypothesis that explains the evidence better. Cornelius Hunter simply refuses to do that.

I would also like to see much more taught about when various events in natural history (origin of universe, earth, life; Cambrian, K/T, human/chimp split, etc.) occurred. That not only would give a better context to those who don't have problems with evolution, it would also force evolution deniers to confront their own irreconcilable differences.

What you are discussing is what I label as the law of evolution versus the theory of evolution. When creationists and ID folk speak in churches I never hear any discussion on nested hierarchies or cytochrome c or fused chromosomes or pseudogenes or hERVs etc., etc. When the snake oil salesmen had to deal with an educated audience they had to do it on our turf and follow the ground rules of science (which is why I like the NOS focus of the paper). Bringing the evidence particularly of common descent and macroevolution to the non-scientists will help out immensely because then the creationists and ID proponents will have to admit as they do to us there really is evidence and they are being denialists. Educated lay people make for very "entertaining" Q&A sessions. The creationists often bluster through but the person asking the pointed question has existing relationships with others in the church after the presenter leaves to present to the next set of victims. And I've seen educating lay people successfully done in practice. For example, when Terry Gray came into my church and taught a Sunday School discussing cytochrome c. Through this it became patently clear that the ID and creationist folk claiming there was no evidence were lying. Francis Collins does similar presentations on chromosomal fusion. Another case where the creationists tell scientifically literate Christians one thing and illiterate another is on radioactive dating. The creationist RATE project admits "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" and "The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth." Nevertheless, the shorter, cheaper version of the "research" is entitled Thousands not Billions stating that the reliablility of a young earth can be confirmed. ASA's executive director summed up RATE this way:

The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.

Once people are aware of the evidence they cannot be so easily conned. This is why the application of the study we are discussing to non-scientists is so vital. Just because the leaders of the ID and YEC movements are immune to the truth doesn't mean all of their followers are.

There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

Great post, Rich. Ken Miller also mentions chromosomal fusion in humans in his talks.

— John Kwok

John Kwok said: There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

John Kwok said: There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

DS said:

John Kwok said: There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

Exactly. That is why I recommended that that term be used starting last year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin. Now if only we could get the term to catch on with the publishers of textbooks. Or may be should convene a secret meeting of the Evilutionist Society, or the Freemasons or whoever makes these decisions. Maybe we should get the real Evolution Society or the National Academy to issue a statement. That would sure piss off the creationists, but at least they might STFU about "it's only a theory". Somehow, "it's only a law" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It might also be more appealing to the authoritarian minded. I mean, come on, one hundred and fifty years of testing is enough already.

One thing that needs to be emphasized (imnsho) is that the reason scientists accept evolution theory is not any one piece of data taken by itself (e.g., chromosome fusion, broken C gene, or whatever), but that there are several consistently observed patterns across all the relevant data, and those patterns are direct logical consequences of the premises of evolution theory (i.e, it explains them).

John Kwok said: Great idea. If there are any members of the Society for the Study of Evolution (which publishes the scientific journal Evolution) reading this, maybe you can petition the executive leadership to draft such a statement:

DS said:

John Kwok said: There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

Exactly. That is why I recommended that that term be used starting last year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin. Now if only we could get the term to catch on with the publishers of textbooks. Or may be should convene a secret meeting of the Evilutionist Society, or the Freemasons or whoever makes these decisions. Maybe we should get the real Evolution Society or the National Academy to issue a statement. That would sure piss off the creationists, but at least they might STFU about "it's only a theory". Somehow, "it's only a law" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It might also be more appealing to the authoritarian minded. I mean, come on, one hundred and fifty years of testing is enough already.

Henry J said: One thing that needs to be emphasized (imnsho) is that the reason scientists accept evolution theory is not any one piece of data taken by itself (e.g., chromosome fusion, broken C gene, or whatever), but that there are several consistently observed patterns across all the relevant data, and those patterns are direct logical consequences of the premises of evolution theory (i.e, it explains them).

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: Great idea. If there are any members of the Society for the Study of Evolution (which publishes the scientific journal Evolution) reading this, maybe you can petition the executive leadership to draft such a statement:

DS said:

John Kwok said: There is so much proof for the fact of biological evolution (including the points Frank J raised) that we need to speak of a law of evolution. You're not the only one to make this superb point.

Exactly. That is why I recommended that that term be used starting last year on the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin. Now if only we could get the term to catch on with the publishers of textbooks. Or may be should convene a secret meeting of the Evilutionist Society, or the Freemasons or whoever makes these decisions. Maybe we should get the real Evolution Society or the National Academy to issue a statement. That would sure piss off the creationists, but at least they might STFU about "it's only a theory". Somehow, "it's only a law" just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It might also be more appealing to the authoritarian minded. I mean, come on, one hundred and fifty years of testing is enough already.

It's good to go over with lay people what any theory of origins needs to explain and it can be surprisingly simple. For example, Francis Collins lead an interviewer into his kitchen where there was a glass of wine and a bowl of rice. He then noted that one of the biggest surprises of the Human Genome Project was how few genes humans have. Then he pointed at the wine and the rice and noted that there was more genes and thus more information in the grapes and the rice than in humans. Any theory of origins needs to deal with this but ID goes in the wrong direction here. A year ago I visited Venice. The tour guide wanted to impress on us Americans how ancient the city was. She pointed at the clock tower in St. Mark's Square. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Venice_clocktower_in_Piazza_San_Marco_%28torre_dell%27orologio%29_clockface.jpg Then she asked what was strange about it? The answer, the earth was in the center of the universe. Since that was the case it just shows how old Venice is. Thinking back for second, how did we get from the clocktower to now? It was because of the retrograde motion of the planets combined with a theory that explained the observations better than epicycles. At least to Ptolemy's credit he had a complex mechanistic explanation rather than Goddidit. The question arises is what would happen if Copernicus refused to deal with the retrograde motion of the planets? All our clock towers would need to look like the Venetian one and all our space probes would miss their respective targets. We need to put the spotlight on Creationist Retrograde Motion and make sure they explain what is going on and then contrast it with a theory that's been well-tested over 150 years.

In fact this is an important thing to stress with respect to the nature of science. Namely, the use of multiple lines of evidence. It’s the fact that so many different approaches come up with the same answer whether it’s dating things or common descent or anthropogenic global warming that produces scientific consensus. We’re a contentious and competitive lot and consensus amongst us rarely happens absent consilience.

— Rich Blinne

Rich:

A few more comments on "We’re a contentious and competitive lot." I can vouch for that in my 30+ years as a chemist. I can also say, sadly, that the great majority of nonscientists either are unaware of that or refuse to believe it. Every uncritical acceptance of every "kind" of pseudoscience - creationism, astrology, etc. - all imply that basic misconception. At best these people are compartmentalized about it, i.e. ask them if scientists are competitive and mostly honest and they'll say yes, but criticize their pet pseudoscience and they'll accuse mainstream science of a "conspiracy" to "expel" their "underdogs."

Then she asked what was strange about it? The answer, the earth was in the center of the universe. Since that was the case it just shows how old Venice is. Thinking back for second, how did we get from the clocktower to now?

— Rich Blinne

Henry J said: One thing that needs to be emphasized (imnsho) is that the reason scientists accept evolution theory is not any one piece of data taken by itself (e.g., chromosome fusion, broken C gene, or whatever), but that there are several consistently observed patterns across all the relevant data, and those patterns are direct logical consequences of the premises of evolution theory (i.e, it explains them).

Rich Blinne said:

Henry J said: One thing that needs to be emphasized (imnsho) is that the reason scientists accept evolution theory is not any one piece of data taken by itself (e.g., chromosome fusion, broken C gene, or whatever), but that there are several consistently observed patterns across all the relevant data, and those patterns are direct logical consequences of the premises of evolution theory (i.e, it explains them).

The curator of the Smithsonian's Hall of Human Origins, Rick Potts, is doing precisely that right now at the ASA meeting as I post this. He was invited to give a special lecture on "Challenges to Understanding Human Evolution in a Religious Context". Much of his lecture talks about the accumulated and diverse evidence for human evolution. Other major questions he is focusing is on: "What does it mean to be human?" and the relationship between human evolution and climate change. Once his talk gets posted on our web site I'll give the URL. We greatly appreciate Dr. Potts attending as he left his work in Kenya just for our meeting. Rick mentioned to one of our members that Kenya was his second home and he has worn a Massai (sp?) wrist band since the late 80s. This shows his dedication to improving the dialog between science and faith.

Rich Blinne said: Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Rich Blinne said: Rick's talk is here: http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2010Potts.m4a Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Rich Blinne said:

Rich Blinne said: Rick's talk is here: http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2010Potts.m4a Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Since this is an audio-only file, here's some visuals of some of the multiple lines of evidence for the law of human evolution that Rick presented last night: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Casey told our executive director that he enjoyed the talk and thought it was great but didn't go into any details beyond that. I plan on presenting this with this endorsement. Time will tell if the pattern of ID telling us one thing, laypeople other, and the court a third still holds. Well ... if you consider listening to the high-pitched whining of a Luskito "interesting". I couldn't tell you what words he'll write down, but I have zero doubt as to the tone.

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Well ... if you consider listening to the high-pitched whining of a Luskito "interesting". I couldn't tell you what words he'll write down, but I have zero doubt as to the tone.

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Well ... if you consider listening to the high-pitched whining of a Luskito "interesting". I couldn't tell you what words he'll write down, but I have zero doubt as to the tone.

Rich Blinne said:

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: Note: Casey Luskin attended this talk. It will be interesting to hear his reaction. :-)

Well ... if you consider listening to the high-pitched whining of a Luskito "interesting". I couldn't tell you what words he'll write down, but I have zero doubt as to the tone.

One thing I think Casey will find "interesting" is whom Rick considers partners for the conversation. Rick concluded his talk with, "if not the ASA who?" He also dismissed as not parties to the conversation those who would redefine science. I wonder who that is? It would be helpful here to define what is meant by conversation. It does not, for example, mean agreement. It does mean a commitment to integrity where the other side is not misrepresented along with a commitment to listening and understanding. Casey Luskin and ID could be parties to this conversation if they merely stipulate that what Rick presented was an accurate description of the science. They don't have to agree with it and they are free to advocate for intelligent design. But I can guarantee that if I played the lecture with the comment that Casey Luskin found it "great", jaws would drop in my church.

John Kwok said: You realize of course that Casey and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers which to redefine the very definition of science so that it could encompass the "study" of supernatural phenomena. This is essentially the admission which lead plaintiff attorney Eric Rothschild forced out of DI Senior Fellow Michael Behe during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial:

John Kwok said: You realize of course that Casey and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers which to redefine the very definition of science so that it could encompass the "study" of supernatural phenomena. This is essentially the admission which lead plaintiff attorney Eric Rothschild forced out of DI Senior Fellow Michael Behe during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial:

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the “tree of life” are established facts. One recent opinion article argued, “The evidence that all life, plants and animals, humans and fruit flies, evolved from a common ancestor by mutation and natural selection is beyond theory. It is a fact. Anyone who takes the time to read the evidence with an open mind will join scientists and the well-educated.”1 The take-home message is that if you doubt Darwin’s tree of life, you’re ignorant. No one wants to be ridiculed, so it’s a lot easier to buy the rhetoric and “join scientists and the well-educated.” But what is the evidence for their claim, and how much of it is based upon assumptions? The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data.

Rich Blinne said: That's Casey Luskin talking to us. Casey Luskin talking to the lay folk ...

MrG said:

Rich Blinne said: That's Casey Luskin talking to us. Casey Luskin talking to the lay folk ...

Yep, exactly the high-pitched whining tone I expect from the Luskito. I can no longer even LOOK at EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS. My brain rebels and refuses to parse the text.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: You realize of course that Casey and his fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers which to redefine the very definition of science so that it could encompass the "study" of supernatural phenomena. This is essentially the admission which lead plaintiff attorney Eric Rothschild forced out of DI Senior Fellow Michael Behe during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial:

He's going with the tell different things to different crowds chameleon approach. This is the gist of what he told us this morning. Evolution is good. Teach it. Common descent? Fine. Methodological naturalism? OK Just need that little extra. ID completes the picture. That's Casey Luskin talking to us. Casey Luskin talking to the lay folk: http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the “tree of life” are established facts. One recent opinion article argued, “The evidence that all life, plants and animals, humans and fruit flies, evolved from a common ancestor by mutation and natural selection is beyond theory. It is a fact. Anyone who takes the time to read the evidence with an open mind will join scientists and the well-educated.”1 The take-home message is that if you doubt Darwin’s tree of life, you’re ignorant. No one wants to be ridiculed, so it’s a lot easier to buy the rhetoric and “join scientists and the well-educated.” But what is the evidence for their claim, and how much of it is based upon assumptions? The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data.

Luskin pontificated thusly:

"Some of these ad hoc rationalizations may appear reasonable — horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes — but at the end of the day, we must call them what they are: ad hoc rationalizations designed to save a theory that has already been falsified. Because it is taken as an assumption, evolutionists effectively treat common ancestry in an unfalsifiable and unscientific fashion, where any data that contradicts the expectations of common descent is simply explained away via one of the above ad hoc rationalizations. But if we treat common descent as it ought to be treated — as a testable hypothesis — then it contradicts much data."

Right. Look dude, it's a complicated theory. It has to account for all of the evidence, all of it. That means that we must discover what actually happened, no matter how complicated it was.

As for horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, differing rates of evolution (rapid evolution is conveniently said to muddy any phylogenetic signal), fusion of genomes, etc. all of these thing are well documented. None of them calls into question the idea of descent with modification. All of them are completely consistent with the tree of life. Man this is like saying that if you have evidence for endosymbiosis then evolution can't be true! Or perhaps Luskin has an alternative explanation for the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities and all of the other lines of independent evidence. Perhaps he has a better explanation of how ID predicts or even explains the things? Thought not.

Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

DS said: Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

DS said: Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

MrG said:

DS said: Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

Of course the basic fraud is that, though evolutionary theory continues to "evolve", as it always has, as we learn more about the mind-boggling complexities of life -- it gives less and less cause for hope that "unseen agency" is part of the structure. It becomes an ever more tangled bank that looks ever less like a Design. The complexities simply give the Luskins of the world more opportunity to spread confusion.

Rich Blinne said:

MrG said:

DS said: Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

Of course the basic fraud is that, though evolutionary theory continues to "evolve", as it always has, as we learn more about the mind-boggling complexities of life -- it gives less and less cause for hope that "unseen agency" is part of the structure. It becomes an ever more tangled bank that looks ever less like a Design. The complexities simply give the Luskins of the world more opportunity to spread confusion.

The damage the Luskins of the World have done goes far beyond the particulars. They've created an expectation that things should be simple when they can get complicated and because of this they can sit in judgment of any true expert without any training or preparation. It's also epistemologically corrosive. Conduits of DI such as Focus on the Family's "Truth Project" claim to support absolute truth. In reality, they promote the most extreme form of relativism and post-modernism, even nihilism. As John Kwok and Rick Potts noted (and Michael Behe was forced to admit when under oath) ID seeks to redefine science. The reason why they redefine science is they cannot compete otherwise. From someone on the inside of the religious community I want to challenge the concept that this is because they reject ontological naturalism. Many scientists also reject that the material is all there is and yet stay within the confines of science. The difference between these two groups is that ID is incompetent and is forced to resort to rhetorical tricks such as redefining and slandering science to defend its position. A detail that Rick Potts noted is also important. It's those who claim to be inside science that redefine science that are the problem. Because the oversimplifiers claim to be real scientists my friends think they also can think simply and easily dismiss what the scientific community has to say without little or no thought. That intellectual laziness has produced a decay in the social fabric that is now obvious where any long-term, difficult, problem is answered with bumper-sticker slogans or just plain no.

John Kwok said: Am in complete agreement here, Rich:

Rich Blinne said:

MrG said:

DS said: Next time you catch Luskin agreeing to any audience about the basics of evolutionary biology, tape it. Then play it for the audience that he denies these things to. The duplicity is astounding.

Of course the basic fraud is that, though evolutionary theory continues to "evolve", as it always has, as we learn more about the mind-boggling complexities of life -- it gives less and less cause for hope that "unseen agency" is part of the structure. It becomes an ever more tangled bank that looks ever less like a Design. The complexities simply give the Luskins of the world more opportunity to spread confusion.

The damage the Luskins of the World have done goes far beyond the particulars. They've created an expectation that things should be simple when they can get complicated and because of this they can sit in judgment of any true expert without any training or preparation. It's also epistemologically corrosive. Conduits of DI such as Focus on the Family's "Truth Project" claim to support absolute truth. In reality, they promote the most extreme form of relativism and post-modernism, even nihilism. As John Kwok and Rick Potts noted (and Michael Behe was forced to admit when under oath) ID seeks to redefine science. The reason why they redefine science is they cannot compete otherwise. From someone on the inside of the religious community I want to challenge the concept that this is because they reject ontological naturalism. Many scientists also reject that the material is all there is and yet stay within the confines of science. The difference between these two groups is that ID is incompetent and is forced to resort to rhetorical tricks such as redefining and slandering science to defend its position. A detail that Rick Potts noted is also important. It's those who claim to be inside science that redefine science that are the problem. Because the oversimplifiers claim to be real scientists my friends think they also can think simply and easily dismiss what the scientific community has to say without little or no thought. That intellectual laziness has produced a decay in the social fabric that is now obvious where any long-term, difficult, problem is answered with bumper-sticker slogans or just plain no.

The reason why Ken Miller has observed in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" and elsewhere that Intelligent Design is far more dangerous than other forms of creationism is because its advocates - including, for example Behe - wish to rewrite the very rules under which science has operated for centuries. They wish to supplant the scientific method - methdological naturalism - with something that would include a "serious" attempt at stuyding supernatural phenomena, which is exactly what Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath during the 2005 Kitzmiler vs. Dover Area School District trial. And these "scientists" like Behe want you to believe what they are doing is right simply because they have the right credentials. Just ignore the sad, and inconvenient, facts that they opted to forsake science the moment they felt it necessary to reject the scientific method and credible science like modern evolutionary biology.

Rich Blinne said: I crib heavily from Ken Miller in general and that book in particular. The reason I quoted Rick Potts rather than Ken Miller is to show that moderates like Rick and myself: 1. Agree with Ken Miller here. 2. And more importantly are not fooled by the song and dance. Unfortunately, it appears a necessary condition to not being fooled is to be a professional in the sciences. (I'm talking about the evangelical community here.) Because the ASA is a professional society it's that characteristic that makes it an ideal partner for Rick's efforts. It's not because it's dominated by TEs. We're dominated by TEs because we are a professional society. Because the obfuscation has been so successful, however, all our outreach to non-scientist evangelicals has been met with universal failure. I do think, though, that even non-specialists understand saying different things to different audiences is indicative of a lie. (This is why even conservative judges consistently rule against ID.) The evangelicals that I know really want to live lives of integrity and if they understand how ID has stolen their honor from them, then I think it just might break the "spell".