Core Concepts: Evolution

The AAAS document, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education, defines five core concepts for biological literacy. Evolution is at the top of the list, right where it belongs.

1. EVOLUTION:

The diversity of life evolved over time by processes of mutation, selection, and genetic change. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was transformational in scientists’ understanding of the patterns, processes, and relationships that characterize the diversity of life. Because the theory is the fundamental organizing principle over the entire range of biological phenomena, it is difficult to imagine teaching biology of any kind without introducing Darwin’s profound ideas. Inheritance, change, and adaptation are recurring themes supported by evidence drawn from molecular genetics, developmental biology, biochemistry, zoology, agronomy, botany, systematics, ecology, and paleontology. A strong preparation in the theory of evolution remains essential to understanding biological systems at all levels.

Themes of adaptation and genetic variation provide rich opportunities for students to work with relevant data and practice quantitative analysis and dynamic modeling. Principles of evolution help promote an understanding of natural selection and genetic drift and their contribution to the diversity and history of life on Earth. These principles enable students to understand such processes as a microbial population’s ability to develop drug resistance and the relevance of artificial selection in generating the diversity of domesticated animals and food plants.

I would have written a different description—one that placed emphasis on Darwin's contribution but did not imply that his views represent modern evolutionary theory. I would also have mentioned genetics, especially population genetics, as the key to understanding modern evolution.

Nevertheless, one can't argue that evolution is the number one core concept in the biological sciences. Are we teaching it correctly in undergraduate courses. No, we are not. Are we teaching it enough in our undergraduate courses? No, again.

I think the main problem was completely ignored by the committee that drew up this document. The problem is that most professors don't understand evolution well enough to integrate this core concept into their courses. It's not enough for everyone to agree that evolution is a core concept. You also have to understand the core concept in order to teach it properly.

I see evidence in the description above suggesting that even the committee members were fuzzy on the core concept. What, for example, is "the theory of evolution"?

---

Vision & Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: Bruce Alberts

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has published a document called Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education. Over the next few days I'm going to introduce the main recommendations and hopefully stimulate some discussion.

Today, we'll start with a video from Bruce Alberts the former head of the National Academies and currently editor-in-chief of Science magazine (published by AAAS). Pay attention to what he has to say. I agree with everything.¹

Bruce Alberts understands that we (university professors) are the problem and it's up to us to fix it.

... the future of science education ... depends on what college professors do in their teaching much more than I would ever have expected ...

Dr. Bruce Alberts’ Message to Vision and Change

---

1. Bruce was my Ph.D. supervisor.

Are You a Canadian between the Ages of 18 and 25?

---

Evidence for Miracles?

A Sandwalk reader, Mike Sherlock, took some exception to my talk on Friday night and sent me this email message. He has given me permission to post it. I don't agree with his position. What do the rest of you think about miracles?

In the course of your talk you asserted that there was no evidence to support miracles, thereby implying that a belief in miracles was a superstitious belief. During the question period I suggested that it might be a good thing if we could concede that our philosophical opponents have a plausible case, notwithstanding the fact that we're bound to believe the case for our own position is stronger. Such a concession would imply that arguments and evidence require interpretation, and that the weight one gives to an argument or piece of evidence may legitimately vary according to a wide range of factors such as temperament, upbringing, what we already believe, what we would like to believe, etc., etc. Insisting, however, that the contest between naturalism and supernaturalism is nothing more than a contest between cold white truth and stark unreason, while it may simplify one's argument, immensely complicates the problem of human communication. The tendency will be to talk about the opposition rather than to the opposition--after all, what's the point of talking to self-deluding fools. Their arguments are only going to irritate.

At the risk of irritating, I will quickly present the case for miracles as a theist might make it:

Hume famously remarked, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established those laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be." But we only know that the "experience" against miracles is "firm and unalterable" if we already know that all reports of miracles are false. And we only know that all reports of miracles are false if we already know that miracles never occur. Both naturalists and supernaturalists accept that it is a logical fallacy to argue in a circle, that you must not assume in your argument what your argument purports to show.

Moreover, the theist claims that so far from the case against miracles resting on "firm and unalterable experience," there is a vast amount of unimpeachable evidence in favour of miracles. The question, as John Stuart Mill rightly said, "can only be stated fairly as depending on a balance of evidence: a certain amount of positive evidence in favour of miracles, and a negative presumption from the general course of human experience against them."

Now if it were purely a question of volume of evidence, then the volume is overwhelming. Every century, every race, every culture, every kind of person has contributed to the ocean of testimony bearing witness to the possibility of interference with nature by supernatural power--in other words, we have a situation here that is very different from that of mere logical possibility, like Russell's orbiting teapot. If the explanation of this evidence be in dispute, the naturalist has to provide a series of ad hoc explanations. He explains one incident by hallucination, another by fraud, a third by faulty observation, a fourth by forged documents, a fifth by inaccurate diagnosis and so on. The supernaturalist advances one explanation which covers all the alleged facts. He claims that the supernatural exists and that supernatural beings intervene from time to time in the natural order. He cuts through a tangle of assorted explanations with the sharp edge of Occam's razor: "Explanations must not be multiplied without a reason."

Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, as you may know, is a hematologist and an atheist. Some 20 years ago she was asked to provide expert testimony--she analyzed blood samples from a leukemia patient--that was used to advance the canonization of Canada's first saint, Marie-Marguerite d'Youville. She says the Vatican's forensic work in establishing miracles is rigorous. Duffin is also a Queen's University professor and author of the 2009 book "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing in the Modern World." It was only after the research for her book, which chronicles her investigation into 1,400 supposed miracles, that she concluded that there are things that happen--cures, for instance--that cannot be explained scientifically. Her view differs from the Vatican's in one important area: "I disagree, because I am an atheist, that God did it." Scientists believe there must always be an explanation, she adds. "Even if we don't have an explanation, we're confident it must exist. That is a belief--it is like religion."

Dr. Duffin admits that her rejection of miracles is based on the fourth definition of faith (in my desktop dictionary): "a strongly held belief or theory." Her belief, which she says is "like religion," is that all phenomena are material in origin, and therefore any alleged miracle has a naturalistic explanation, irrespective of whether science can discover it or not. I think that position is honest and unassailable. Note, however, how her position differs from that of Hume, who tells his readers that they needn't worry their minds about any evidence for miracles because he can give them general reasons why they should reject ALL evidence in favour of miracles IN ADVANCE. Not only are there obvious philosophical objections to Hume's attitude, but it is sharply at odds with the scientific method as famously laid down by Francis Bacon. That method requires theory to emerge from the evidence, unguided by preconceived notions--especially metaphysical notions.

It seems to me that all of Hume's arguments only carry weight if you are a convinced naturalist to begin with--usually for reasons that have nothing to do with miracles, such as the conviction that no omnipotent, benevolent Being would create the sort of world that we live in. In other words, Hume's whole argument is underwritten by the sceptic's answer (solution?) to the problem of evil. Fair enough. The problem of evil has always been the main reason given by philosophers and non-philosophers alike for why they can't believe in a personal God. Though not a disproof of supernaturalism, the fact of evil (and tragedy) will always be a powerful suasion for naturalism.

Obviously, not everybody who prays for miraculous healing can expect to be healed. If everybody who prayed was healed then miracles would be accepted as one of the stranger facts of life--such as the evolution of the first cell from inanimate matter. Everybody would believe because everyone would know someone whose prayer had been answered--in many cases their own. If, on the other hand, miracles were exceedingly rare, then they would lose their evidential value even for supernaturalists. The Gospels make it clear that miracles were meant to have evidential value. Here's my favourite passage, but there are a number of others: "Now John had heard in his prison of Christ's doings, and he sent two of his disciples to him; Is it your coming that was foretold, he asked, or are we yet waiting for some other? Jesus answered them, Go and tell John what your own ears and eyes have witnessed; how the blind see, and the lame walk, how the lepers are made clean, and the deaf hear, how the dead are raised to life, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is the man who does not lose confidence in me." (Matt 11: 2-6) There are also Gospel passages to indicate that Jesus did not claim a monopoly on healing, and that miracles could be expected in the future.

To me, the incidence of miracles seems just about right--except, of course, when one could use a miracle oneself. But the naturalist is bound to think otherwise. An interesting example is Emile Zola, self-proclaimed father of French naturalism (in literature). He wrote a novel, entitled "Lourdes", during the research for which he had a chance to meet Marie Lebranchu (Miracle #16, 1892) at the Medical Bureau of Verifications. In his novel he altered the facts. Having depicted Marie Lebranchu as a hopelessly ill person, using the name of La Grivotte, he made her die on the train home! Yet, she lived in perfect health until 1920. Zola, unable to explain the cure at Lourdes which he had investigated, stated, "I do not believe in miracles: even if all the sick in Lourdes were cured in one instant I would not believe in them." Interestingly however, after witnessing several healings he no longer dismissed the evidence: "No, I do not, or, better, I cannot believe in the Lourdes miracles. What I have seen is amazing, grandiose and moving to the utmost degree, but ultimately explainable by the natural laws."

Interesting too is Jacalyn Duffin's response at the end of an interview on CBC's "The Current" (Oct 15/10 - Pt 1: Brother Andre; 13:50 minutes in). The interviewerconcludes by saying, "It does shake your faith as an atheist, I'm guessing?"
"Oh yes it does. And it makes me very happy."
She's not contemptuous of miraculous healings, whatever the explanation, and I'm betting that she's not contemptuous of those who believe their cause is supernatural--despite the fact she remains a naturalist.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/10/oct-1510---pt-1-brother-andre.html

I realize that anybody who wants to remain a naturalist must steadfastly resist the idea that "miracles" ever have a supernatural cause, however impressive the evidence. I respect that attitude, and think it can be justified by one's personal response to the problem of evil, by the fact that we don't know everything about nature, and by the fact that many strange things happen. But the conviction that miracles don't happen is not one that is rationally binding on everyone.

---

Speaking of Delusions ....

I post this for entertainment purposes only.

Denyse O'Leary had a contest. She asked her readers to "predict Darwin's doom."

What do you see as the timeline for Darwinism to be replaced by a more inclusive theory of evolution? If ever. And if not, why not?

Today she announced the winning IDiot, it's someone named "Bantay at 10" (What in the world were its parent thinking when it was born?)

Here's the best prize-winning answer the IDiots could come up with. (Yes, folks, they are serious.)

5 years –
Significant scientific discoveries will enhance a relatively new scientific paradigm we know today as “ID” – As additional discoveries buttress a design framework from which new scientific discoveries can be predicted, we will see more scientists and materialists distance themselves from Darwinism (like Marulis and Fodor).

10 Years –
Significant numbers of academicians from biologists to astronomers, philosophers to office secretaries, will be talking about a design framework for the future of their scientific fields in a professional setting, without fear of legal reprisals.

20 years –
Someone will win a landmark legal case that will have a result of ID being shown to be good science, not religion. Scientists who are on the anti-ID side will be expelled from their jobs, suffer public embarrassment for their fearmongering (Barbara?) and will be regretting that they didn’t break ranks while the going was good. Also in 10 years, a movie will be made about the Dover trial and there will be renewed controversy when the credits roll “ACLU Document”

40 Years –
More than 50% of the Big Academy will be non-materialists and agnostics, with atheism showing a steady decline from it’s already lowly numbers to an even lesser significance. The beginnings of post-Darwinist history revisionism will rear its ugly head, with surviving Darwinist hold-outs fighting amongst themselves over who claimed what fossil was a precursor to man (but strangely will forget that none of them were).

60 Years – Darwinism will be relegated to a small, obscure paragraph in science text books, probably as a footnote. All of today’s living fundamentalist Darwinists will be dead, their Machiavellianism and unscientific fearmongering and back-pats a thing of the past. Meanwhile, the exciting world of science will be renewed with advances in technology that will enable scientists to reverse engineer the parts in the cell itself, helping to elucidate secrets of its design previously unknown. On the global design front, advances in technology will reveal orders of magnitude greater levels of design in the universe.

---

The Accommodationist Wars: Winston vs Harris

Robert Winston is a stem cell researcher with a strong interest in science education. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist who writes about the conflict between science and religion.

They recently debated whether science and religion are compatible [Is there any place for religious faith in science?].

This is part of the accommodationist wars. Winston argues that there is no conflict between one's personal religious belief and science.

accommodationist

one who adapts to or compromises with an opposing view

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
This "war" is supposed to be about whether science and religion are in conflict or whether they are compatible. If they are compatible then it's perfectly reasonable for someone to support scientific reasoning as an important and valid way of knowing while, at the same time, believing the major tenets of some religion. However, as you can see in this debate, the accommodationist position is often confused. It's easy for them to forget the question and stray into other issues that upset them.

One of the things that upset accommodationists isn't the real question but whether it is polite or civil to "attack" the beliefs of legitimate scientists.

As Robert Winston puts it ...

You quote Collins in your book: "as I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful waterfall hundreds of feet high, I knew the search [for God] was over." You write, in commentary, "it is astounding that this passage was written with the intent of demonstrating the compatibility of faith and reason". But he is making his own personal judgement about his circumstances, not preaching to the world. Your writing is lovely, funny, but I don't think the denigration of a serious scientist like Collins does a lot of good. We should be very careful about criticising other scientists, except when their science is clearly at fault.

The problem for Winston is not really whether the scientific approach is consistent with evangelical Christianity but whether it is appropriate to even raise the issue because it "denigrates" compatibilists. As expected, Winston takes a few swaps at the attitude of the New Atheists.

The quotation from Winston also highlights another aspect of the accommodationist wars. Winston focuses on the ability of Francis Collins to "do science" as though that's what it's all about. ("But do his views detract from the outstanding work [Collins] has done?") This is not what the debate is about. As Sam Harris points out, there are Young Earth Creationists who do science but nobody would argue that Young Earth Creationism and science are compatible. Similarly, I have argued that there are scientists who believe in homeopathy and astrology but that does not make those subjects compatible with science.

The debate is about whether the principles of scientific reasoning are in conflict with the beliefs held by people of faith or whether the scientific way of knowing is compatible with another way of knowing that lies outside of science.

Whether one side or the other is being rude doesn't address the question. Whether a scientist can still pipette accurately while believing in silly things isn't relevant.

We need to keep the accommodationists focused on the main point and not on strawmen that have no bearing on the question. It's hard for us to do that but we need to keep trying.

---

[Photo Credit: David Levene: guardian.co.uk]

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

The Accommodationist Wars

Don't forget to join us tonight at the Fox & Fiddle, 27 Wellesley St., Toronto for an event sponsored by the Association for Science and Reason (ASR).

I'm going to be talking about The Accommodationist Wars.

Professor Moran will talk about the conflict between two types of atheists: those who think science and religion are not compatible, and those who think religion and science are not necessarily in conflict. The accommodationists believe it’s important to ally with moderate religious leaders to combat the intrusion of religious beliefs into our schools and political systems. An important part of this strategy is recognizing that science and religion can be compatible. The other side agrees that such alliances can be fruitful but that should not prevent atheists from speaking out against even moderate forms of religious belief. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the USA is a prominent accommodationist organization and so are the science organizations such as the National Academies and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). All of these organizations take a position on the compatibility of (some) religions. Many scientists think that these organizations should not be defending religion.

---

Casey Luskin Is Confused (Again)

The IDiots have painted themselves into a corner and they don't know what to do. They have been ranting against "Darwinism" for so long that they've come to believe that their silly version of evolution is what is being taught in the schools. When scientists objected to the "Darwinist" version of evolution the IDiots assumed that this was an objection to evolution. Gradually it seems to be dawning on them that there are legitimate scientific debates over the mechanisms of evolution and the relative contributions of various processes. These controversies have nothing to do with the FACTS of evolution.

But now the IDiots are in a bind. They can't retreat by admitting that their characterization of evolution has been wrong for the past few decades. That would make them look foolish. On the other hand, they can't continue to ignore the fact that major critics of "Darwinism" (or the "Modern Synthesis" or "Neo-Darwinism") are strong supporters of evolution and opponents of creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism. Oops!

What to do? Watch how Casey Luskin squirms as he tries to get out of the corner in Recant! Pushing Creeds as Damage Control for Darwin.

When writing in technical journals, evolutionary biologists like McPeek or Koonin admit stark problems with neo-Darwinian evolution--i.e.:

"elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists" (McPeek)

"The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" (Koonin)

But when their criticisms are cited by a proponent of intelligent design, they quickly toe the materialist party line, designed to reassure the masses that the paradigm has everything in order. Thus, when called upon by the NCSE to publicly defend the paradigm, Koonin eagerly endorses Dobzhansky's creed. As Newton eagerly boasted:

As the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said - and as Eugene Koonin explicitly agreed - "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Since when do creeds take precedence over the evidence?

None of this, however, changes the fact that Koonin, McPeek, and many other scientists are writing technical papers stating that the neo-Darwinian model is flawed at its very core. Koonin undoubtedly believes Dobzhansky's statement is true, but I doubt he would say "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of neo-Darwinism." Why, then, must this model be taught to students as unadulterated fact?

Do you see the strategy? The IDiots are going to claim that their silly misunderstanding of evolution ("Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism") is the "fact" of evolution that's being taught in the schools. Thus, it's not their fault that their understanding of evolution is wrong—blame it on the evolutionary biologists.

Yeah, that'll work! :-)

The alternative is to admit that the IDiots are, well .... idiots. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I suppose we should be happy that they are finally beginning to see the very problem we've been telling them about for 25 years. They simply don't understand the real scientific version of evolution.

---

[Image Credit: I got it from James Preller's Blog.]

Do Not Vote for the Anti-Science Green Party

There is no party platform that perfectly reflects my views on all issues. However, there is one thing I look for when deciding to support a political party and that's how they arrive at a particular policy. Is it scientific? Does the policy depend on evidence, healthy skepticism, and rational thinking?

The Green Party of Canada has outlined their platform in a document called Vision Green. Here's what they say in the introduction ...

Vision Green presents a well-researched analysis of critical environmental, economic and social challenges facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and presents practical solutions that can be achieved if there is the political will and leadership to take forward-looking action. It was developed by our Green Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. Our vision is based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Sound promising. They don't actually say that their policies are based on sound scientific reasoning but it sounds like "well-researched" might be a synonym for "good science."

As you scan this document you encounter many positions that seem somewhat dogmatic and considerably beyond what the scientific evidence actually says. The Green Party is opposed to genetically engineered organisms, for example, and they propose to, "Phase out the use of genetically modified food products and ‘terminator’ seeds" (p. 74).

The Green Party is opposed to nuclear power and advocates a ban on new nuclear power plants and a shut-down of existing ones. The party proposes to ban uranium mining and refining. While some of their arguments are valid, the overall tone does not sound scientific.

But the real give-away comes when the document discusses health care. Here's one of the promises from page 70.

Provide funds to expand provincial health insurance to cover proven alternative therapies that are less expensive and invasive such as chiropractic, massage, acupuncture.

It is simply not true that these "alternative therapies" are proven in any scientific sense. What this tells me is that the Green Party platform is not based on scientific reasoning.

That's disappointing.

Everybody wants to promote good health. It's a motherhood issue. What's important is whether a political party has a realistic policy to achieve this goal. Most don't but the Green Party actually makes things worse ...

Health promotion is about more than health care or health education. It is about recognizing the profound health impacts of determinants of health outside the formal healthcare system and working with many stakeholders (policy-makers, NGOs, health agencies, multiple levels of government, the private sector, and most important, affected communities themselves) to reduce, eliminate, or overcome those factors that harm health or act as barriers to health enhancement, and to promote those factors that enhance the health, well-being and quality of life of all Canadians.

We will promote complimentary health care – through support of chiropractic, naturopathic, homeopathic, and other non-western practices. The Green Party of Canada recognizes the value of good health as a fundamental human right, and also the key to the most vibrant, inclusive and sustainable Canadian society possible.

I will never vote for a political party that promotes naturopathy and homeopathy in such a prominent manner. Naturopathy and homeopathy are examples of anti-science quack medicine. The fact that the leaders of the party would even include this in their platform tells me that scientific thinking is not part of their worldview and it calls into question their positions on everything else.

The Green Party wants to use my tax dollars to support these quacks.

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians.

This is very wrong.

Do not vote for the Green Party. If you want to cast a protest vote then spoil your ballot or vote for some other party that cannot be elected in your riding. Every vote for the Green Party is a vote against science.

---

[Hat Tips: Zak at Canadian Atheist: The Green Party Platform and Mitchell Gerskup at Skeptic North: Voting Green? Read This.]

Hunting and Gathering in Washington D.C.

Laurel Kartchner is a Biochem/MCB major at the University of Arizona. She is attending the Experimental Biology 2011 conference in Washington.

Laurel visited all the display booths and collected all the available free loot. Here's her collection. Congratulations, Laurel!



Her poster will be up tomorrow ...

Kartchner, L.B., Malinowski, P., and T-S.Tsao Role of glutathione S-transferase and endoplasmic reticulum chaperone DsbA-L in the assembly of adipocyte hormone adiponectin.

---

Storm

This video is posted everywhere. In case you haven't watched it before you should do so right now. It's brilliant.

Imagine that you're at a dinner party and someone announces that all knowledge is relative, alternative medicine is better than real medicine, and science relies on faith—just like religion. That's the situation Tim Minchin found himself in. Here's how he struggled to keep quiet but eventually .....

---

Guess Who I'm Voting For?

---

Springtime in Washington

I'm off to Washington D.C. on Saturday to attend the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) 2011 Annual Meeting [ASBMB]. It's part of a larger meeting called Experimental Biology 2011.

One of the reasons for going is to get together with the other members of the editorial board of the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education journal [BAMBED].Many of them are fellow textbook authors.

There's going to be a wild party on Sunday night when we all get together to talk about the citric acid cycle and free energy.

I should have recovered by Monday noon in case anyone in the Washington area wants to meet up for some more exciting discussions about biochemistry and molecular biology.

---

Jonathan, Moonies, and Junk DNA

This video is supposed to support the evolution side versus the Intelligent Design Creationists. There are two major flaws in this presentation.

First, it spends too much time on the background of Jonathan Wells. While it's interesting to know where he's coming from, his motives are less important that the "scientific" case he's making. His religious motivation explains WHY he gets the science wrong but the important point is that the science IS wrong.

Second, it does a poor job of explaining the actual scientific controversy over the amount of junk DNA in our genome. It almost seems to imply that scientists don't believe in junk DNA.

This is a complicated issue. I don't expect the IDiots to get it right but I do expect scientists to explain it correctly.

---

IDiots vs Francis Collins

Here's a video where several IDiots take on Francis Collins and his book The Language of God,. Jonathan Wells is prominently featured in this video and much of the attack is concerned with junk DNA. Wells makes his position very clear. He claims that modern scientific evidence has overthrown the "myth" of junk DNA and those of us who still believe in junk DNA are guilty of a "Darwin of the gaps" kind of argument. That's because, according to Welles, we don't have an explanation for junk DNA therefore we attribute it to Darwinian evolution (6.00 minute mark).

There is a lot of positive evidence that much of the DNA in our genome is non-functional. Wells is dead wrong about this. Furthermore, assuming that this junk DNA is non-functional and assuming that species share a common ancestor, we can explain many observations about genomes. IDiots can't do this. They have yet to provide an explanation for shared pseudogenes¹ in the chimp and human genomes, for example. And I haven't heard any IDiot explain why the primate genomes are chock full of Alu sequences derived from a particular rearranged 7SL RNA sequence while rodent genomes have SINES from a different rearranged 7SL sequence and lots of others from a tRNA pseudogene [Junk in Your Genome: SINES].


Did Francis Collins use the existence of junk DNA as support for Darwin's theory of evolution? Here's what Wells says in the video (50 second mark).

If fact he relies on so-called junk DNA—sequences of DNA that apparently have no function—as evidence that Darwin's theory explains everything we see in living things.

I searched in the The Language of God for proof that Wells is correct. The best example I could find is from pages 129-130 where Collins describes the results from comparing DNA sequences of different organisms. He points out that you can compare coding regions and detect similarities between humans and other mammals and even yeast and bacteria. On the other hand, if you look at non-coding regions the similarities fall off rapidly so that there's almost no similarity between human DNA and non-mammalian genomes (e.g. chicken). This is powerful support for "Darwin's theory of evolution" according to Francis Collins. First, because you can construct phylogenetic trees based on DNA sequences and ...

Second, within the genome, Darwin's theory predicts that mutations that do not affect function (namely, those located in "junk DNA") will accumulate steadily over time. Mutations in the coding regions of genes, however, are expected to be observed less frequently, since most of these will be deleterious, and only a rare such event will provide a selective advantage and be retained during the evolutionary process. That is exactly what is observed.

I leave it as an exercise for Sandwalk readers to figure out how to explain this observation if the regions that accumulate fixed mutations aren't really junk but functional DNA. Your explanation should consist of two parts: (1) why the DNA is functional even though the sequence isn't conserved (provide evidence)², and (2) why coding regions show fewer changes and why comparisons of different species lead to a tree-like organization.

I wasn't able to find where in Origin of Species Darwin discuss this prediction but I'm sure it must be there somewhere. Perhaps some kind reader can supply the page numbers?

---

1. Every knowledgeable, intelligent biologist knows that pseudogenes exist and they are junk. That's not in dispute. I haven't heard any Intelligent Design Creationists admit that there are thousands of functionless pseudogenes in our genome.

2. I can think of two or three possibilities but no evidence to support them.