Arrested Development in Socratic Parasites

Arrested Development since the Arrest of Socrates
In the 4^th Century BCE, soldier and scholar Xenophon of Athens put to papyrus his arguments contesting charges by the Athenian court that his esteemed mentor had been corrupting the City's youth with inappropriate religious teachings and an anti-democratic message. The defensive rhetoric laid out in his document included transcriptions of past dialogues made by the accused that served to demonstrate allegiance to the accepted religious dogma of Athens. By detailing the religious notions of his indicted teacher, Xenophon was confident that he'd prove the court's charges to be unjustified and thereby win his teacher's freedom. In one of the work's incorporated dialogues, the accused teacher - Socrates - affirmed his religious adherence by describing what he believed to be evidence of divine creation:

"Do you not think that he who created man from the beginning had some useful end in view when he endowed him with his several senses?... The eyeballs, being weak, are set behind eyelids, that open like doors... with such signs of forethought in these arrangements, can you doubt whether they are the works of chance or design?... do you suppose that wisdom is nowhere else to be found, although you know that you have a mere speck of all the earth in your body and a mere drop of all the water?

---Socrates (from Xenophon's Memorabilia, circa 371 BCE)

In the mind of Socrates, the mutually beneficial relationship exhibited between the feebly endowed human eye and its divine door-like benefactor the eyelid, represented mechanistic proof positive of heavenly design. The relationship of biologic form and function that he observed seemed too perfect and far too complex to have been borne of a lowly, earthly apparatus. Giving what we know today as the scientific method a miss, Socrates explained his observations from the teleological perspective; meaning not through the organic processes of nature, but from a preconceived notion of a god-governed intent. To Socrates humans weren't a byproduct of physics, chemistry and biology; rather they were the realization of a blueprint rendered from the draft table of the gods. Unfortunately, and despite Xenophon's heartfelt efforts, written accounts indicate that not all of the gods Socrates had credited with nature's humane work were deemed acceptable to the 501 Athenians gathered as jurors during his trial of 399 BCE. For the sins of his impiety Socrates was sentenced to drink a poisonous concoction of paralyzing hemlock; thereafter he numbly passed into the void of history.

Although Socrates has long gone, his teleological arguments and the idea of 'irreducible complexity' still persist to the modern day. Unsurprisingly, far from being refined with time, these archaic arguments remain utterly the same - as if frozen in time. In terms relevant to developmental biology, the process that is actually responsible for the making of Socrates' divine doors, we might even say that irreducible complexity has suffered an induced a state of 'arrested development.'

Beyond its analogous application to the petrified argument of irreducible complexity, the term 'arrested development' as applied in the biological sciences can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In the sense of modern medicine, arrested development generally refers to a condition of ceased physiological growth or maturation. In this meaning the expression may be used, for example, by a doctor to describe an embryo that has failed to reach the benchmarks associated with its growth to a fetus. Slightly more broadly, the science of developmental biology often uses arrested development in detailing the phenomena of 'neoteny' - a process in which adults of a species come to express the physical characteristics previously exhibited only by its juvenile members. Also referred to as 'juvenilization,' neoteny played an important role in course of human evolution; however, because that's a big topic in itself, I'll mention another frequently cited example of neoteny - the species of salamander called the axolotl.

Even when adulthood and reproductive maturity is obtained by the axolotl, a lack of thyroid stimulating hormone causes them to appear as though they're still in a larval stage of growth. Instead of looking like sure footed terrestrially adapted salamanders, axolotls look more like jumbo tadpoles, complete with feathery external gills and a fully aquatic lifestyle. Although, axolotls come across as juveniles frozen in time, they can still reproduce; they obtain sexual maturity without ever enduring metamorphosis or without ever 'growing-up.' Just like Socrates' original suggestion of irreducible complexity, their continued development has been arrested.

Although, a pronounced lack of adult refinement characterizes the arrested development displayed by both axolotls and creationists, I admittedly find the comparison between the two species somewhat inaccurate, and in all honesty, disrespectful. After all, axolotls, unlike creationists, are physically and behaviorally adapted to their environment - the high altitude lakes they call home. Creationists on the other hand, have suffered from such complete and total developmental arrest that they remain today only as anachronisms, psychologically better suited for long degraded and extinct habitats; like those settings more common to the time of Socrates. To show a little respect and give axolotls their due credit, perhaps there is in existence another developmentally arrested species that creationists more closely resemble..? I'll come to that shortly.

Over the nearly 2500 years since Socrates' less than elucidating interpretation of the natural world, the science of biology has - to put it mildly - grown by leaps and bounds. And, although the process of science is (and will always be) an ongoing endeavor, it has been un-tethered by the self-defeating presumptions of irreducible complexity for quite some time... Despite this, since the Socratic inception of the irreducible argument, the only evolutionary journey embarked on by archaically-minded creationists has been to vary the organic structure pointed to as proof of divinity. As science sharpens its resolution of the nature world, refuted creationists seek their holy grail at an ever dwindling scale. In the time of Socrates it was the eyelid, later the eye itself, a few years ago it was bacterial flagellum and the intricacies of the immune system; recently (with Stephen Meyer/Discovery Institute's latest contrivance ) it's the structure of DNA.

Part of the creationists' outdated strategy is to target features of contemporary science that are not fully understood by the public at large. To these aspects of science, creationists obscure knowledge with misinformation and slight-of-hand. Once the ignorance-countering effects of education have augmented immune response sufficiently enough to resist a particular attack, the creationist pathogens move on to new hosts. Rather than adapting their fundamentalist principles to the reality of contemporary understanding, creationists infest new hosts and shelter as a perpetually reproducing and ever developmentally arrested pestilence. Considering this opportunistic and patient strategy, creationists aren't much like axolotls at all... Now that I think about it, they seem more akin to parasites - perhaps something like trematodes.

The Miscellaneous Misadventures of Alaria marcianae

Trematodes are flukes of nature in that they've evolved an astonishing, almost incomprehensible level developmental plasticity. Like creationists, they can induce a state of arrested development at the drop of a hat. Most have evolved the ability to subtly manipulate their rates of growth and sexual maturation to track the resources available in the environment. For the parasitic nematodes, their environment is manifested by the internal chemistry of their victims. The digestive enzymes, hormones and antibodies expressed through the physiology of their hosts help the trematodes gauge the probability of reproductive success and to tune their own developmental process accordingly. This fantastic capacity for flexibility is of benefit because should a trematode happen to find itself immersed in the body of an unsuitable host, it can induce a state of arrested development and shift its metabolism to complete dormancy while awaiting transmission to a more favorable chemical climate. As a natural corollary, if the trematode succeeds in locating its target host (aka, its 'definitive host') it can quickly push development into overdrive and achieve reproductive adulthood in short order, thus maximizing the opportunity to its individual advantage. Being unrestrained by the ticking-clock of reproductive efficacy, trematodes can migrate from host-to-host and even between species with relative ease. As a case study, consider the misadventures undertaken by the trematode species named Alaria marcianae.

Alaria marcianae is a fascinating organism known to target, as definitive hosts, the kittens of the Florida Panther (Puma concolor couguar). The Florida Panther holds a critically endangered status and, as the common name strongly suggests, resides in the state of Florida. The tawny colored Florida Panther is one variety of a widely recognized group of felids that are also known by the names cougar, mountain lion and puma. The panther-intersecting life cycle of Alaria marcianae is complex with several possible vectors of transmission, but in choosing an arbitrary starting point for the purpose of description, we can assume that its convoluted journey begins within the intestines of an adult panther.

Having recently been deposited in the intestinal tract of an adult feline, members of Alaria marcianae start their lifecycle as eggs. The eggs, unembryonated germ cells, intermix with the partially digested remnants of raccoons, armadillos and other common delicacies found in the panther's system, and are then excreted with the animal's feces. On being submerged by the inundated wetlands for which south Florida is renowned, water stimulates the eggs to internally develop embryos. Once these embryos have achieved sufficient maturation, sunlight triggers the eggs to hatch free swimming, cilia-driven, paramecium-looking critters called miracidia. The miracidia are not adult Alaria marcianae, rather they represent a sexually immature stage of development that is specialized for seeking out a very specific (obligate) intermediate host. To ultimately succeed in stalking a panther, the miracidia of Alaria marcianae must first locate and infect a ram's horn snail of the genus Helisoma.

On locating a ram's horn, the miracidium attaches itself to the soft exposed flesh of the snail and, by excreting tissue-degrading enzymes, sheds its cilia-bearing outer layer. It then penetrates into the snail's body cavity. Having shed its ciliated epithelium, the miracidium becomes an immature sporocyst. Although sporocysts still lack the ability to reproduce sexually, by embedding in the snail's nutrient rich organs they acquire the power to produce additional replicates of themselves - clones called 'daughter sporocysts.'

To further advance on the panther, the new daughters promptly leave their mother's side and venture to the snail's gonads. Mollusk hormones produced by the gonads fuel special cells within the daughters as they morph into tailed, tadpole-looking larval forms called cercariae. The cercariae swim to, and exit from, the snail's shell-producing mantle. From there, they return once again to the open water as free-swimmers.

Leaving the snail behind, the cercariae swim to the water's surface and hunt down the true tadpoles of the leopard frog (Rana pipiens) - their second intermediate host. Hijacking the leopard frog's tadpoles for transport, the cercariae drop their own tail and burrow into the tadpole's skin. There's no need for self-propulsion when riding inside a tadpole. Once inside the developing frog, Alaria marcianae, now at a stage where they're referred to as mesocercaria, cease further development and undergo another round of asexual cloning. As numbers continue to multiply, they patiently rest, waiting for the tadpoles to carry them landward as adult leopard frogs.

In time, the mesocercaria-bearing tadpoles grow into leopard frogs and move their parasitic cargo to land. On terra firma the leopard frogs are hunted by a wide range of predators; occasionally falling prey to yet another preferred host (aka, a 'paratenic host') of Alaria marcianae, the raccoon. After catching an infested frog, the raccoon's digestive enzymes make short work of the frog's flesh - in the process releasing the mesocercaria. As with its previous host, the mesocercaria multiply in the raccoon, but continue to maintain a state of arrested development - they are not yet adults.

Did I mention that raccoons in south Florida happen to be a favorite prey item of the endangered panther? Utilizing methods similar to those during the frog-to-raccoon transmission, Alaria marcianae find their way into adult panthers by contaminating raccoons - panther prey. During the process of raccoon digestion, mesocercaria are liberated from tissue and enter the bloodstream by penetrating the intestinal wall.

Now, if the panther they find themselves parasitizing, by chance, turns out to be a lactating female, her hormones will stir the mesocercaria into migrating to her mammary glands where they will transmit (trans-mammary) to the digestive system of her kittens'. The term used to describe the situation in which a mother acts as a paratenic host to her own offspring is called 'amphiparatenesis.'

Here, amphiparatenesis results in the imbibing of mesocercaria-laden milk by the kittens. As with the mesocercaria residing within their mother, the parasites in the kittens will penetrate the intestinal wall and enter the blood stream. They'll surf the blood stream until reaching the lungs where they become metacercaria; as metacercaria they harden the surrounding lung tissue forming protective cysts. Having profitably acquired housing in their definitive host, the cysts in the lungs will eventually be coughed-up the trachea and swallowed into the esophagus. Once back in the intestines, Alaria marcianae accelerates its developmental process, achieves sexually reproductive adulthood (as sequential hermaphrodites), and deposits the next generation of eggs in the intestine. Thus the cycle comes full circle.

Conclusion: A Tenuous Analogy???

Hypothetically, the argument could be made that the reason why Alaria marcianae exhibits such an elaborate life cycle is that its success as a parasite has been rivaled with increased immunity in each sequential host. Deep in its evolutionary past, the parasite might have been able achieve a sexually mature adulthood by infecting just the snail. But, once the snail's immune response blocked the development of Alaria marcianae, its only option was to gain what little it could from the mollusk and to then seek resources in other organisms, like the frog. Likewise, in time the frog's body became incompatible with full maturation and, once again, the parasite was forced to expand its host range. The process repeated until one day the parasite infected the Florida Panther.

Essential to the success of the range expansion in Alaria marcianae was its ability to enter a state of arrested development. While in an arrested condition, the parasite will be tolerated by the host just long enough to gain strength for its continued transmission - its continued assault on other organisms. To ultimately defeat the parasite, and to prevent continued transmission of the pathogen, a host must become wholly intolerant of the parasite. Anything less and the disease will be spread.

This is analogous to creationists BECAUSE...

Davies, S. (2003). Developmental plasticity in schistosomes and other helminths International Journal for Parasitology, 33 (11), 1277-1284 DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00161-9

Foster, G., Kinsella, J., Sheppard, B., & Cunningham, M. (2009). Transmammary Infection of Free-Ranging Florida Panther Neonates by Alaria marcianae (Trematoda: Diplostomatidae) Journal of Parasitology, 95 (1), 238-239 DOI: 10.1645/GE-1749.1


Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 229. ISBN 0810865697.

Axolotl Photo by Pabloneco

Panther Photo by MrClean

Trematode Photo by Chris Blaner

Socrates Photo by Dithie

The Inflation of Infantile Denialism

I felt that the below article was worth re-posting here, especially after just having watched Jesse Ventura’s ‘documentary’ on the global warming conspiracy - give me a break…

The below was written by Steven Newton; the public information project director for the National Center for Science Education. It originally appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on 12/24/09.


Science denial is on the rise
From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself.

Recent foment over stolen e-mails from a British research group inspired an American creationist organization to pronounce that "a cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media" has sought to "professionally destroy scientists who express skepticism" about climate change. The Discovery Institute usually uses this kind of over-the-top language to attack evolution, so it was remarkable to see it branch out to climate-change denial.

Despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic. Once at a minimum level of education and competence, anyone can participate, ask a challenging question of even the most respected scientist, or submit papers to scientific journals, where research is judged by the data and methodology. Esteemed scientists face relentless criticism. This is how science works.

Even when a scientific consensus based on evidence emerges - as it has for evolution and climate change - there is opportunity for dissent. As the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing. Sometimes progress is slow. But through a difficult and often frustrating process, we learn more about the world.

Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio count for more than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Denialists often appeal to the ideal of fairness, arguing schools should "teach the controversy" and address "evidence for and against" science, as in then-Sen. Rick Santorum's proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001. But they apply the ideal selectively to science they dislike: evolution, climate change, vaccines. They hope to cloak themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements.

If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.

Understanding science has never been more important than it is today. Critical issues such as climate change and the threat of newly evolved flu strains demand greater scientific literacy among the public and politicians. As long as scientists must squander their time defending their work from denialism, we will fall behind on our fundamental responsibilities.

What an Unlearned Presidential Hopeful can teach us about Evolution

ABC News reported earlier this week that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is ‘absolutely taking a look' at making a run for the White House in 2012. Although I find Santorum’s fundamentalist and ideologically laden history disheartening - and the possibility of his presidential candidacy downright terrifying - the recent disclosure of his political aspirations provides a great opportunity to disprove a commonly held misconception about evolution – the idea that evolution progresses towards perfection.

One of the common misconceptions about biological evolution is that the process pushes organisms towards a pinnacle of perfection in which the ‘most evolved species’ maintain dominance over ‘less evolved’ or ‘lower organisms.’ Often closely associated with this mistaken belief is the erroneous idea that, by virtue of braininess, our own species – Homo sapiens - currently holds sovereignty over evolution’s hypothetical pinnacle. These egocentric assumptions of human grandeur are simply not wrought out by available evidence. In contrast to teleological intentions fashioned with foresight, evolution is a process driven by hindsight; the ‘apparent fit’ that we observe in nature is the result of a filtering process.

As Stephen J. Gould spoke to at the Faxon Institute Colloquium on Scholarly Communication in 1997, “adaptations to a changing local environment do not imply movement to a higher level or an improved state. Change is simply change, with no value judgment implied.”

And the best evidence that we do not necessarily move to a higher level may be Rick Santorum.

Time and time again, Rick Santorum has proven himself to be antithetical to the notion of evolutionary perfection. For example, back in 2000 he was an outspoken proponent of a new amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment, which later became known as the ‘Santorum Amendment,’ was to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools and to include in the curriculum the teaching of Intelligent Design. During the presentation of the amendment to the Senate, Santorum quoted fellows from the Discovery Institute (see my post Darwin’s Dilemma for further info on the Discovery Institute) and argued that U.S. schools should be platforms for the “teaching of the controversy” surrounding evolution.

This proves that humans are not the pinnacle of evolution; because, had Santorum truly been perfection incarnate he would have known that there is not the slightest controversy in regards to the existence of evolution. Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution holds the same scientific credibility as does Gravitational Theory, the Special Theory of Relativity and the Germ Theory of Disease. Introducing an amendment that requires teaching alternatives to evolution is the equivalent of presenting an amendment that requires that evil spirits be taught as possible vectors of disease – it’s completely asinine.

Far from ‘evolving’ over time, Santorum’s idiotic and anti-scientific mindset has remained stagnate since its emergence from the fundamentalist primordial sludge in which it was born. During a lecture at a Christian school in South Carolina on Thursday, he explained to students that there is an ongoing “war of ideas” in which the religious are being challenged by the secular minded people of academia and public education. After insisting that there is a “controversy” he continued to say,


"There are real consequences to climate change, there's real consequences to evolution, that have to do with not just truth, but your own faith: Whether there is a God. Whether this God is sovereign. Whether this God was a creator. As opposed to… That there is no God. That we are all just a matter of random chance to have arrived at where we are. There's no truth. There's no moral law. There's no lawgiver..."


Now, I’m not a theologian but it seems to me that Mr. Santorum has missed the point of both science and faith. He clearly doesn’t comprehend science if he thinks that the findings of science can be variably applied to suit the particular religious leanings of the person interpreting it. Although he refers to only “this god,” there are in actuality hundreds of mutually excusive religions worldwide; but, there’s only one science standard - it applies to Muslims, atheists, and even un-evolved fundamental creationist Christians. Furthermore, Santorum evidently doesn’t think that faith is something that should be held despite a lack direct evidence for a god; quite the opposite, it seems to me that he predicates his adherence to faith on objective - though not understood - science. His bible thumping rants give the impression that religion will fall if science is accepted. It’s as though he’s telling students to contest science, because should it prevail god will be no more. He portrays his faith like a frail and fleeting wager.

He continued,


“All of these things, whether it's climate science, or whether it's evolution science, have that huge issue hanging over us."


I’m not even going to get into Santorum’s mention of “climate science” because, for one, this is an evolution based blog, and two, Santorum is also a correspondent for Fox News – thus his knowledge of climate science is limited to personal revelation and the four out-of-context email lines central to ‘climategate.’

To close this post, let me reemphasize three points;
1- Evolution is not goal oriented or progressive

2- The Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact regardless of ‘belief’

3- Rick Santorum is an ignorant ideologue that shouldn’t be trusted to represent anyone


Reference:
D'Angelo, K. (1997). Faxon institute colloquium on scholarly communications issues Serials Review, 23 (2), 91-96 DOI: 10.1016/S0098-7913(97)90058-7

Conclusion: Darwins Dilemma, Creationist Propaganda and Corrupt Christians

This post is the conclusion of a four-part series. The preceding post can be found here, the introductory 1st post is linked here.




According to “many published scientists,” there is a “story being told by Darwinists” that DNA and genetics play a role in evolutionary development, protein synthesis and the ontogeny of the physical characteristics displayed by animals. In hopes of edifying the masses of wayward “Darwinists,” these same “many published scientists” point out in Darwin’s Dilemma that DNA lacks the potency and mechanical know-how required to undertake these tasks. In actuality - according to “many published scientists” - all of life is derived from non-genetic “information” that is harbored within each irreducibly complex cell. Furthermore, this “information” does not arise from earthly processes, rather these “blue prints” are “preordained” by an “intelligent source.”

Many published scientists, many published scientists and many published scientists.

At this point in the science ‘doctrine-mentry,’ piles and piles of cover pages from published articles are shown on screen. Included with these publications are those to be found in THE JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, which is visually emphasized in the film.

So, the bestowment of consecrated ‘information’ from the heavens has reportedly been shown to be a fact? Who are these “many published scientists?”

As introduced in the film, the ranks of these scientists are held by not only the Discovery Institute’s scientists, but also those from the world acclaimed Biologic Institute in Washington State. Among the “many” – which I counted as three – are Dr. Stephen Meyer, Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Douglas Axe. Incidentally, did I mention that the world acclaimed Biologic Institute, like Discovery Media (the producers of Darwin’s Dilemma), is funded by the Discovery Institute? But unlike Discovery Media, the Biologic Institute is tax exempt as it is a chartable organization!

Regardless of their employers and obvious unscientific motives, if these three ‘esteemed scientists’ have conducted valid research there is no reason to discredit their work. Their individual publications should be evaluated on the merits of established protocol and peer review. For example, just because the intelligent design article credited to Meyer was published to the journal of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington by then editor RICHARD STERNBERG during his last day on post doesn’t mean that the research is necessarily invalid… Of course, the subsequent statement released by the Biological Society of Washington’s Council doesn’t help Meyer’s or Sternberg’s case very much:

“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, in vol 117, no 2, pp 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council…would have deemed the paper inappropriate… subject matter represents a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content…”

As for the momentous work by Douglas Axe that was published in THE JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY… Well, it doesn’t actually say anything about intelligent design, or divinely driven biological processes. The paper, titled Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, essentially reports that mutational rates found in an enzyme that breaks down penicillin (beta-lactamases) are very rare. The exact rarity of these mutations, as estimated by Axe, is determined to be in a range with a high-end value of about 10 to the 74th power- very rare indeed. From this estimation of a rare mutation rate, Axe makes inferences (far reaching) to the evolution of proteins. Once these findings are sifted through the god-filter of creationists, the end result is a pronouncement in Darwin’s Dilemma that the chance of mutation is so rare as to prohibit the process of evolution from occurring. So rare, that in fact the only possible explanation for life is divine creation. Wow, now that’s an impressive leap! The total destruction of modern biology in a single paper; I’m curious as to why thousands of independent researchers the world over continue to study evolution… Must be a conspiracy!

And then, having decimated the fossil record, slandered Darwin, Simon Conway Morris, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen J Gould, AND having misrepresented the whole of modern scientific understanding, the tale of Darwin’s Dilemma comes to an end. Fin.

To draw this novel length critique of Darwin’s Dilemma to a close, let me re-emphasize that although lacking historical accuracy, scientific legitimacy and professional integrity the film’s production value and underlying truth-manipulating strategy make it a dangerous opponent to education and reason. The people behind the film are dishonest, unethical and immoral; they lie, doctor evidence and misrepresent science as a whole. In the process of attacking evolution, they falsify history and tear down the sciences of geology and chemistry.

Though they are fundamentalists and propagandists, they are also cunning and well funded… Take caution.






Axe, D. (2004). Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds Journal of Molecular Biology, 341 (5), 1295-1315 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.06.058

Part 3 - Darwins Dilemma, Creationist Propaganda and Corrupt Christians

The previous post is available here.

Having ‘proved’ that fossils predating the Cambrian radiation are non-existent, and that all modern animal phyla appeared out of nowhere - in what the narrator describes as a “burst of creativity” - Darwin’s Dilemma the movie, then proceeds to ridicule Darwin the scientist. In their distorted reasoning, the creationist filmmakers think that if they can discredit a scientist that lived 150 years ago in Victorian England, somehow the audience will be convinced that the whole of modern science is erroneous. To initiate the strike against their biology bent Beelzebub, another carefully cropped quote is thrown to screen;

“Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion…” - Stephen J. Gould

For some unknown reason, creationists love Stephen Gould. Their infatuation may have something to do with a distorted view of Gould’s ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model; perhaps somehow the idea of a long stasis followed accelerated change translates to divine creation in the minds of simpletons? At any rate, Stephen Meyer or some other failed scientist from the Discovery Institute must have gotten this Gouldian morsel shorthand in a text message. They certainly didn’t get it from the page 238 of The Panda’s Thumb, the book in which Gould uses it to illustrate the lack of discrepancy between long past Darwinian predictions and modern paleontology.

It is certainly true that Darwin struggled with the lack of fossils predating the Cambrian radiation, speaking to intermediate fossils in Chapter 10 of the Origin of Species he wrote;

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Of course, as with the Richard Dawkins quote yesterday and the Gould quote above, Darwin is here using the presupposition of a question as a lead to his explanation. And although the film in question is in the habitat of mining only the presumptive portions of these literary tools, the authors’ answers usually follow. In the case of Darwin’s true dilemma alluded to in the Origin of Species quote, he explains later in chapter 10 that,

“The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record…. we continually overrate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. In all cases positive paleontological evidence may be implicitly trusted; negative evidence is worthless, as experience has so often shown…
Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished or even disappear.”

Basically stated, what Darwin was implying was that, due to erosional processes, fossils are rare in the first place, and the oldest of all-the-fossils on Earth are rarer still. And he further predicts that despite these natural conditions, predecessor fossils are there and will be found as time proceeds and paleontological excavations are made. Darwin was right on-target with this prediction. In the 150 years since publication of the Origin of Species, numerous fossils have been unearthed, including those of the Ediacara biota, some from the Doushantuo formation and even the fascinating Markuelia fossil embryos – all predating the radiation vent! But, alas I guess these fine fossils don’t count… After all, as Paul Chien the head of the Discovery Institute’s paleontology section tells us in the film,

“to the paleontologist, the lack of intermediate fossils is well known.”

And Paul Chien should know, because he’s Chinese! As he later explains, “the Chinese community is honest about these problems and tries to explain them outside of Darwin.”

In addition to having an Asian heritage on his side, Paul Chien is a fellow of the Discovery Institute where he helps ‘spread the good word’ by translating Christian pseudo-science into the Chinese language. The worst part of Chien’s resume is that he’s also a biology professor at the University of San Francisco – tsk tsk San Fran.

Chien’s appearance marks a second transition point in the film’s diabolical plot. Leaving the fossils in the past, the modern sciences of evolutionary development and molecular genetics take center stage. In concert with this changeover is implementation of a new strategy – drawn the audience with science-ish jargon and convince them of life’s irreducible complexity. Leading this new front is Steven Meyer himself; holstered at his side is information theory. Brandishing this weapon he aims to shoot down “Neo-Darwinist storytelling” – by showing that modern genetics has nothing to do with evolution…


CONCLUDED - IN PART 4



Condon, D. (2005). U-Pb Ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China Science, 308 (5718), 95-98 DOI: 10.1126/science.1107765


Dong, X., Donoghue, P., Cunningham, J., Liu, J., & Cheng, H. (2005). The anatomy, affinity, and phylogenetic significance of Markuelia Evolution Development, 7 (5), 468-482 DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2005.05050.x

Morris, SC (1995). Ecology in deep time Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 10 (7), 290-294

Part 2 - Darwins Dilemma, Creationist Propaganda and Corrupt Christians

Before picking up with the Richard Dawkins quote used to close yesterday’s post (Part 1 Available Here), I’d like to provide a little more background on some of the nefarious figures that contributed to bringing the fundamentalist film Darwin’s Dilemma to my living room.

The movie was produced by the Discovery Institute’s associate organization ‘Illustra Media.’ In this instance I use the phrase ‘associate organization’ very loosely because for all practical purposes Illustra Media is synonymous with the group known as ‘Discovery Media.’ Both media groups, Illustra and Discovery, receive the bulk of their funding from the Discovery Institute and both have Stephen Meyer as a lead consultant. Meyer is one of the Discovery Institutes original founders, and a key organizer of the intelligent design faction. For those readers unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute itself, I’d strongly encourage you to view Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which details a 2004 federal court case in Dover, Pennsylvania. The NOVA documentary is provided free online by the Public Broadcast Service and very accurately summarizes the Discovery Institute’s deceitful and underhanded attacks on science education. To provide a little insight as to the Institute’s shameless objectives, consider that their mission statement outright states that the “point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason;” and that Discovery Media includes in its mission “to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of God's existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research". Irrespective of one’s personal religious beliefs, sound scientifically minded inquiry can not be born of blatant biases and preconceived notions of causation. This is simply not how science works. To say that the Discovery Institute may be susceptible to high rates of confirmation bias is giving them too much credit. Speaking of biases, yesterday I reported that my in-home showing of Darwin’s Dilemma was courtesy of the Trinity Broadcast Network (TBN). Although you might be inclined to think that TBN suffers from the same religious biases as the Discovery Institute, that doesn’t appear to be the case; TBN has an altogether different bias – one that favors cold hard cash.

The Trinity Broadcast Network is the largest Christian television network provider in the United States and has media holdings in more than 70 other countries. I can sum up TBN credentials in six words- “It was founded by Jim Bakker.” Yes, Jim Bakker the televangelist, Jim Bakker the accused rapist, and yes Jim Bakker the convicted felon. If more evidence of the TBN’s ill repute is needed ponder that they are proud proponents of the religious practice known as the ‘prosperity gospel.’ Basically, the prosperity gospel teaches that a sinner can be forgiven for her/his wrongs if she/he donates money to the network. Yes, TBN is selling admission into heaven! I’m not sure what the price is though… And unfortunately, I can’t tell you how much income TBN makes from selling moral amnesty, because they refuse to disclose financial information for public inspection, or for that matter to Christian watchdog groups. So, in addition to dumbing-down its adherents with fake-science, TBN also steals their cash. In the science community this is referred to as a positive feedback cycle; the more dumberest you become, the more money you lose.

Getting back to the science…

Yesterday, I described how the high production quality of Darwin’s Dilemma allows for a visually exciting and even captivating viewing experience. As scary as this may be to admit, it’s absolutely true. The film is by far the ‘best’ anti-science propaganda film I’ve ever seen. The animation, narration and scene transitions are smooth and coherent; pseudo-science and misinformation aside, the film is good enough to rival most any that would appear on National Geographic or the History Channel. In regards to the science content presented in the film, at least up to the Richard Dawkins quote, a skeptic with some understanding of evolution and paleontology will see it for what it is – creationism; however, if seen through an uncritical eye it would appear wholly informative. Indeed, even those with a general understanding of science may at first be drawn to accepting the film’s premise; this in large part due to the awe and wonder inherent to the Cambrian Radiation itself. However, at about forty minutes into the feature the film takes a creationist turn; this happens right around the Dawkins quote. After Simon Conway Morris’s critique of the pre-radiation fossil record, the screen gives itself to the quote;


“It is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history”

-Richard Dawkins


In my assessment, this snippet is the first serious indicator of the film’s underlying evil purpose. Not only does the above Dawkins line – while out of context - seem to suggest the existence of a ‘planter’ and a shortfall in evolutionary knowledge, but it also happens to be one of the most frequently ‘abused’ evolution quotes in existence. It has been used and reused by creationists and fundamentalists the world over. This assertion can be verified by simply copying and pasting the whole sentence into a Google search engine; undertaking this exercise, I got back more than 10,000 hits. Incidentally, the quote itself has been clipped from page 229 of Dawkins’s 1996 book The Blind Watchmaker; when in context the quote is used in explaining that both he (Dawkins) and Stephen Gould agree that one, the pre-radiation fossils are few, and two, that the thin fossil record is no way indicative of divine intervention. Far from an admission of divine creation, the quote is used in The Blind Watchmaker to affirm that even biologists with differing perspectives on evolutionary mechanisms (see the citation below for an independent assessment of their incompatibilities) wholeheartedly endorse evolutionary agents as instigators of the Cambrian Explosion. At any rate, in Darwin’s Dilemma the Dawkins quote is used simply as a cap to Simon Conway Morris’s testimony, from there the film moves on to Creationism’s most hated of scientists – Charles Darwin. There we learn about the origins of Darwin's 'dilemma.'


ONCE AGAIN, CONTINUED - HERE's Part 3


Reference:
Shanahan, T. (2001). Methodological and contextual factors in the Dawkins/Gould dispute over evolutionary progress Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32 (1), 127-151 DOI: 10.1016/S1369-8486(00)00025-X

The Discovery Institute Sues CA Science Center

The Discovery Institute, a PR group that seeks to promote misinformation and quash science, has filed a lawsuit against a California Science Center for refusing to disclose certain public documents. The lawsuit follows the Science Center’s cancelation of a pro-intelligent design video at their IMAX Theater.

The film in question, “Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record,” features evolutionary scientist Simon Conway Morris - a recognized expert on the Cambrian Explosion and the Burgess Shale. Morris’s involvement in the film has raised questions, though he has stated during interviews that he wasn’t aware the film was a creationist documentary until after its release.

“Darwin’s Dilemma” was broadcast earlier this week on a fundamentalist christian network that’s included with my DirectTV subscription; the movie anxiously sits on my DVR awaiting review – I’m curious to see Morris’s role in the propaganda.

For more info on the suit see this news article.

To read more about the Morris controversy click over to this September post at Laelaps.