h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A couple more interesting articles from this week's New Scientist.

After around 20 years of campaigning to get Creationism (and/or ID) classified as science and taught in classrooms, and having had that bid roundly rejected by the most pro-Creationism judge they are ever likely to get, it appears that Creationists have found a new strategy. Increasing numbers are withdrawing their kids from the school system and teaching them at home. Of course, this is illegal unless the parents are qualified teachers, or they have a religious reason for withdrawing them. So, in one of the most blatant U-turns in American political history, (some) Creationists are now trumpeting that their beliefs are entirely religious.

Not quite sure how to score that one, but since it's a new 'front' opened by Creationists with some success (over 5% of all US schoolchildren now being taught at home, double what it was 2 years ago, the vast majority by Creationist parents), I'm giving a point to Creationism.

The second article concerns a new project to sequence the nuclear DNA of neanderthals. Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has already been 'done', of course, but nuclear DNA is both more taxing and - potentially - more informative. This is work to be done in the future, so no points for anyone yet. However, the article outlines in some depth exactly what the researchers expect to find, a series of predictions based on the assumption that evolution is correct.

They emphasise strongly that they do expect some surprises - not leastly a chance to answer definitively whether or not neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern humans. They will also be looking with interest at the FOXP2 gene, shown to have a link to speech. However, neanderthal DNA must be much closer to human DNA than to any other living animal's, with the differences presumably closer to chimp DNA that to anything else. They are even able to calculate how different it should be, based on the time since the lineages diverged.

The chances against getting all this right by guesswork alone are staggering. Creationists would struggle to come up with any explanation for them at all, and certainly cannot confidently predict them (except if they acknowledge on some level that evolution does make accurate predictions).

So, in 2 year's time, when this is (hopefully) complete, I fully expect to award a point to the evo side (if this is still going). But, if the evolutionary predictions are bourne out, 'point scoring' would be a rather futile exercise - on the basis of this alone, evolution would be one of the best-attested scientific theories we have.

Obviously, similar predictions have already been made and tested, but are inadmissable here under the rules from post 1.

14.5 - 5

Gif

Somewhat to my surprise, some preliminary results from the Neanderthal DNA sequencing project(s) have already been released. Tentative and incomplete at this stage, so no points yet (plus see above).

Would anyone like to guess which way they are pointing?

More interestingly, they appear to weigh against the idea that humans (meaning h. sapiens) and Neanderthals interbred.

All still tentative at the mo - watch this space!

Gif

I confidently predict that the ancient neanderthal DNA bears NO resemblance to human DNA whatsoever.

Or possibly that it's identical to modern human DNA. Either way, current theories of evolution are in trouble.

I mean, seriously, what are the chances of it coming out more similar to human DNA than any other living creature, yet too dissimilar to actually be human DNA, with half the differences more chimp-like than human DNA is and the rest unique to Neanderthals? Pretty unlikely on the face of it, isn't it?

btw Ste, do you know of an online listing of cytochrome c sequences anywhere? I've found about 2 dozen, mostly vertebrate.

Gif

GenBank should have 1000s:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=nucleotide

Ah. 63,753 to be precise...

Ste

Ta Ste.

This week, an observed instance of natural selection in action. Lizards legs grow to help them run over a few generations after a predator is introduced. This is exactly as predicted in advance by ('evolutionist') researchers. Over further generations, their legs shortened to aid them in climbing to escape those predators - again, as predicted.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/hu-pbp111406.php

15.5 : 5

Gif

You should write an article for the post based on this thread - "Evolution vs. Creation - The Matchup of the Centurrrrryyy". It would be like a commentary of a rugby game or something.

Hmm, might do that - could take me a while though.

No news of any relevance this week. Interesting interview with a (or possibly "the"?) Creationist geologist in New Scientist. He freely admits that the evidence contradicts his beliefs - must be interesting reading for anyone who believes that 'many geologists know that the Earth is young, but are scared to speak out'.

Gif

It's been a little quiet around here, but finally some more news.

Another unusual fossil has turned up. Volaticotherium Antiquus is a flying-squirrel-like creature that predates any known bird fossils, being roughly 150 million years old. I should make clear what this is not - it is not a land mammal / bat transitional, so it does not provide direct support for evolution. In fact, it raises some interesting questions, such as why Volaticotherium failed where birds later succeeded. None of this, however, is nearly enough to provide points in either direction.

For the second week running, New Scientist has had a major article on creationists. This week it's the turn of the Biologic Institute, a research institute set up by the creationist pressure group Discovery Institute. First up, this is creationists doing actual proper real scientific research, so definitely a point on the PR front. Biologic has been going for around a year now, and so far has produced no evidence to support creationism or challenge evolution. It does not appear to have produced any peer-reviewed papers so far. (Indeed, New Scientist imply that it is modelled on the 'research' programmes funded by the tobacco industry to 'prove' that smoking does not cause cancer.) Of course, science works by testing theories. Thus, failure to disprove evolution is itself evidence that evolution is correct. Shall we say a point per year on the scientific front to evolution if Biologic fails to find any evidence? We'll skip this year's point, since it will have been a 'setup' year. It's also worth noting the extreme secrecy that seems to surround Biologic, with one board member being fired, apparently for speaking to the press about Biologic and its aims.

I'm getting bored of waiting for the Pope to renounce evolution, so I'm rescinding the point I awarded for this 'imminent' anouncement months ago. You can have it back when you learn to play nicely.

All of which leaves things unchanged on 15.5 to 5 (in favour of the evo side). It remains 9.5 to 1 if we stick to the actual science.

Gif

Missed one!

Lab experiments have managed to (partially) reverse the Krebs cycle. In other words, a chemical method has been found of turning atmospheric carbon dioxide into biological molecules. Further, this uses as a catalyst one of the products of the Miller-Urey experiment.

This therefore gives strong evidence that life could have come about on the early Earth by purely chemical means.

10.5 to 1 on the science, 16.5 to 5 overall.

Gif

Last blood of 2006 goes quite clearly to the creationists. Following a question raised in the House of Lords, the Minister for Schools, Lord Adonis, has announced that 'Intelligent Design' is to be permitted in school RE lessons, with guidelines to be issued by March 2007. This follows a letter to the government asking for creationism to be taught as science, signed by 12 academics, including Antony Flew (the former atheist) and 3 members of UK pressure group 'Truth in Science'.

I for one was surprised to see Flew's name on this list, as he has previously admitted that he 'made a fool' of himself (his words) by believing similar creationist propaganda.

Strangely, pro-creationist groups (procreators?) such as 'Truth in Science' (who currently have a website containing over 20 factual errors known to its authors) seem to be pleased by this, rather than incensed that their 'science' has been confined to a religious field. A cynical observer might infer that creationists are more interested in having their beliefs taught to children than in either truth or science. I will restrict myself to saying that I would rather see students taught methods to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and noting that TiS has been the subject of a letter signed by several (40+) MPs condemning its sending of misleading creationist propaganda to schools.

Reaction from both scientists and religious leaders has been almost universally hostile. Jeremy Davies, Precentor (whatever that is) of Salisbury cathedral, was quoted in the Sunday Times as saying “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies." By contrast, 'Lord Pearson, a Tory peer and supporter of ID, ... said: “Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.”' (again, quoted from the Sunday Times).

I for one would be fascinated to see this evidence. Especially interesting is the contention that it has been demonstrated that complexity implies design, and thus that randomness equals simplicity.

I have decided against restarting the scoring for 2007, due to the long lag-time before I get to hear of many of these developments. Or perhaps the scoring system is not complex enough and I should introduce a 'points in 2007' category also!

Meantime, final scores for 2006 are: 16.5 to 6 in favour of evolution, or 10.5 to 1 sticking to scientific points only (and the one is dubious).

Gif

An article based on this thread has been submitted to PR. The review thread is at A3806566.

Ste - do you know anything about plants of the genus Gnetum? http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/46/65/

Truth in Science have taken down their page with the old 'duck-billed platypus disporves evolution' canard and replaced it with 'Gnetum disproves evolution'. I suspect that the same flaws apply and they are deliberately using a more obscure organism so that people are less likely to spot the error.

Gif

Nice article in New Scientist this week on atavisms.

Not even nearly new, so no points though.

Gif

"Dr" Kent Hovind was sentenced on Friday to 10 years in jail (see posts 7, 8 & 18 in this thread).

No change to the scores, partly because this has come up before but mostly because I think it would be rather bad taste. 10 years is a very long time and longer than I was expecting him to get, but it's not unreasonable given the nature of his crimes.

Gif

It's been real quiet here for a real long time...

Yesterday was 'Evolution Sunday'. Over 500 US churches (10% up on last year) came together to refute the idea that evolution is 'atheistic'.

On the other hand, research shows that morraines can be formed by glaciers much more rapidly than was previously thought. I seriously considered giving creationism a point for this (on the grounds that creationist have always claimed that all geological processes occur much more rapidly than geologists think), but I just can't justify it. Not leastly because it is based on observations of a morraine being formed under Antarctic ice - strongly confirming that geologists' theories about morraines being formed during an ice-age are accurate.

Also further work on Neanderthal DNA, confirming that Neanderthals are 99.5% identical to modern humans (compared to chimps being 99.0% identical to H. sapiens). I've already given a point for this, so I'm not going to give another for more detail on the same point.

17.5:6

Gif

It's been very, verry quiet round here for the last couple of months. (You can tell not much is happening when morraines are breaking news.)

The Wellcome Trust, a medical research charity, has distributed an anti-creationist pamphlet to every secondary school science department in the country. This is an obvious riposte to the 'Truth in Science' creationist propaganda mentioned earlier. Though the leaflet could have been more evidence-heavy in my opinion, it does concentrate heavilty on showing pupils how to distinguish science from pseudoscience (testability, predictions, bias, evidence, etc) which is an obvious plus.

Perhaps the best testament to the quality of these materials is the desparation with which Truth in Science have attempted to find flaws in them: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/229/63/

18.5 : 6

Gif

Another few points to consider:

When two independant lines of evidence point to the same conclusion, that is generally taken as strong support for the truth of that conclusion. So, for example, the fact that family trees deduced from fossils closely match family trees deduced from genetics is itself strong support for the reality of those trees.

Now, a new line of evidence has come to light. It turns out that parasites and their hosts often have the same phylogenies (family trees) as deduced from their genomes. Gophers and their lice and humans and pubic lice have been examined in this way (it turns out we most likely originally caught lice from gorillas - possibly after stealing their bedding).

Another science point to evolution.

And now a point for creationism. Marcus Ross, a Doctor of Palaeontology, has been 'outed' as a Young-Earth Creationist. During the week, he writes scientific papers in which he fully accepts the standard dating (he specialises in a group of reptiles that he accepts became extinct 65 million years ago, along with the dinosaurs). But on Sunday, he puts together pro-ID materials and believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because scripture says so.

This lends credence - at least in the public view - both to the creationist claims that there are increasing numbers of scientists who support creationism (used to be 0 palaeontologists, now it's 1. It's really impressive as a percentage increase) and to the idea that scientists 'keep quiet' about their beliefs because they are afraid of ridicule or damage to their careers. Ross has been lampooned from all sides for his contradictory beliefs (which he justifies by saying that science and religion are separate). Although he has no justification for his views (so now science points), the likely public interpretation is of a 'creationist martyr'; hence the point for creationism.

And finally - a genuine, honest-to-goodness science point for creationism. Oh yes. There is increasing evidence that Neanderthal man was capable of interbreeding with Homo sapiens. Mit DNA findings seemed to show that this was not the case, but more recent nuclear DNA does strongly support limited gene transfer (i.e. hybridisation) between the two species - which means that they are not technically separate species at all. Creationists have of course long claimed that sapiens and neanderthalensis are the same species, and the scientific orthodoxy has now moved into line with this, with the two being reclassified by many and Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis - both sub-species of Homo sapiens.

A couple of caveats - neanderthals are still as physically different from modern humans as they always were. The creationist claims that the two are identical, or that the differences can be explained by pathology, as as incorrect as they always were. Secondly, the term 'species' strictly has a meaning only at a given point in time. The fact that neanderthals and humans were capable of interbreeding 350,000 years ago does not show that they were capable of interbreeding 24,000 years ago. However, the evidence appears to support the idea that the two populations interbred until close to the disappearance of neanderthal traits. Finally, this is a debate that has been back-and-forthing among palaeontologists for some time, so my decision as to whether it falls within the permitted dates for scoring points is slightly arbitrary. The point is awarded for the correct prediction that neanderthals are sapiens.

Current scores: 19.5 to 8 in favour of evolution
Sticking to science: 11.5 to 2 in favour of evolution

Gif

Oh yes ... something I've been meaning to note for a while.

Charles Darwin currently appears on the Bank of England £10 note. Periodically UK banknotes are redesigned with improved anti-fraud measures to make them harder to forge. When this happens, the design is totally changed and a new person is put on the notes. Sometime in the next few years, I therefore anticipate that Darwin will be removed from UK currency. Just in case some creationists try to spin this as 'UK government backing away from Darwin' - it won't be. Newton lost his spot when £1 notes were abolished - it doesn't follow that the UK government (which the Bank of England isn't) is disputing the accuracy of his work.

Redesign of the £20 note to feature Adam Smith rather than Elgar reminded me.

Gif

It appears that after a long quiet spell, we once again have a mini-burst of new evidence. Remind me to insert a fascinating essay on chaos theory and information transmission sometime.

Genetic analysis of bdelloid rotifers (cute microscopic little doodads) shows that they appear to have been asexual for 100 million years. This goes against the grain for many evolutionary biologists, who regard sexual reproduction as the key to variation and a major (if indirect) selective advantage, with asexual behaviour being the expressway to extinction. Nevertheless, the little rotifers seem to have managed to speciate by natural selection, becoming specialised (in the species under study) to living in the chest of a water louse or the legs of a water louse, mostly by adapting their jaw structure. This is backed up by a 40 million year old specimin found preserved in amber, so it appears that rotifer are smarter than evolutionary biologists. , sorry, smarter than evolutionary biologists thought.

Modern humans may be older than previously thought, with teeth being unearthed from around 160,000 years ago that are more similar to modern humans' than any other known hominid. (Hopefully that sentence makes some sort of sense.) The previous highest estimate I can find was 130,000 years ago.

And finally another transitional. Yanoconodon allini is transitional between reptiles and mammals, particularly with regards to the ear/jaw bones. Not a massively exciting find to the non-specialist, since it comes from an already well-studied area of the fossil record. Nevertheless, a transitional is a transitional is another tested and fulfilled prediction for evolution.

Kent Hovind is appealing his sentence. Don't hold your breath.

Oh, and Darwin's wife's diaries are now online.

I'll give points for the rotifer analysis (for showing change over millions of years and for strongly indicating natural selection as the sole cause of this) and the transitional - both scientific points in favour of evolution. Just as well, too. We were teetering on the brink of having less than 10 times the scientific support for evolution than for creationism.

21.5 : 8 overall
13.5 : 2 science

Gif

Ah! Chalk one up for creationism. A creation scientist has conclusively proven peanut butter falsifies evolution: http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/03/creationist_sez_peanut_butter.php

Ste