The ID Update

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Listen to these, and don't have a fight with someone on your cell phone while driving:

1.

Moving the Goalpost: How Darwin's Theory Survives

It's easy to win the game when you can move the goalpost.

On this episode of ID the Future, biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells explains how Darwinism, unlike football, has only one rule: survival of the fittest. The fittest are those who survive, and Darwinists are determined to survive at all costs—even if it means moving the goalpost.

Go here to listen.

(Note: This one is quite interesting because Wells talks about how his observation that a specific type of speciation needed by Darwinism has not been observed was recently distorted in a science mag to say that speciation - as such - has never been observed. This tells me that the commitment of many scientists to Darwinism is not to the idea of speciation as such, but to a broader philosophical commitment to a method by which it must happen, a method that supports broader philosophical ideas. Remember that 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists - no God and no free will.)

2.

Is the Cell Like a Computer?

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Donald Johnson, author of Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity. As both a chemist and a computer scientist, Dr. Johnson explains how the cell uses programming code, much like a computer, and he elucidates how the information is processed and converted from proteins into DNA. Listen in as Dr. Johnson shares the science of how the cell is like a computer.

Donald E. Johnson holds PhDs in Computer & Information Sciences from the University of Minnesota and in Chemistry from Michigan State University. He can be reached at his website,ScienceIntegrity.net.

Go here to listen.

(Note: In two important way, cells are not like computers. When my machine is bust, it is just bust, and my local nerd must visit. If I need a new one, it must be bought and unpacked, and inevitably, I will need him back again as something is sure to go wrong. Millions of cells die every day and are replaced, with no loss of function. Fancy that, computer!)

3.

Alfred Russel Wallace: Champion of Natural Selection or Intelligent Design?

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Robert Crowther takes a look at Alfred Russel Wallace, who, along with Darwin, co-presented the theory of natural selection in letters to the Linnean Society of London over 150 years ago. Contrary to Darwin, Wallace actually believed that it was possible to detect design in nature. What would modern Darwin defenders make of Wallace today? Listen in and find out.

Go here to listen.

(Note: Actually, they have been doing a number on Wallace for centuries, as Mike Flannery points out. Go here or here for an example. Wallace, with thought design played a role in evolution, was just not as useful for propaganda purposes and was of a much lower social class than Darwin. Here is somewhat from my review of Flannery's book.)

4.

Deepening Darwin's Dilemma With Jonathan Wells

This episode of ID the Future features biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells, who explains why Darwin saw the Cambrian explosion as a serious argument against his theory. Darwin countered it by supposing that fossils of the ancestors of Cambrian animals once existed, but were destroyed.

Listen in and learn how the discovery of microscopic and soft-bodied Precambrian fossils makes Darwin’s excuse sound hollow.

Go here to listen.

(Note: It gets better. The Smithsonian sat on the Cambrian fossils for decades because they did not support Darwin's theory. Yes, yes, that Smithsonian, currently alleged to have pressured California Science Center into cancelling a Cambrian film that - I gather - raises the Cambrian problem. [Almost all modern phyla of life forms appeared rather suddenly about 550 million years ago. This is just not the story Darwin was telling and he knew it and so did his supporters, and now so do more and more people.])

Any chance all those dusty drawers in the Smithsonian's cellar will be seized as evidence? Maybe we could learn something, and not about the current functionaries' e-mails.

Free advice to the public in general, not to anyone in particular: Do NOT feed bones to the shredder. Nor paper clips. Never feed anything but paper to the shredder, and feed paper with staples only if the firm warrants that the shredder will accept staples.]

5.

"A Matter of Dismal Wet Plops": Stephen Meyer Interviews David Berlinski on Darwinism

This episode of ID the Future features a clip from the recent "Signature in the Cell" event in Tampa, FL, featuring Stephen Meyer, Michael Medved, David Berlinski and Tom Woodward. Listen in as Dr. Meyer interviews Dr. Berlinski about the questions that led him to criticize Darwinism.

Go here to listen.

(Note: Besides being brilliant, Berlinski, a mathematician, is as funny as heck - not always a common combination. We are all familiar, I suppose, with the genius who doesn't get a joke. Well, that's not him, as the title of this pod suggests. I had a lot of fun reading his Devil's Delusion, a shot at publicly funded nonsense in science, of which many people are getting royally tired. Science advisor to Marie Antoinette, check your e-mail.

Never forget: Most people fund science because they think it will help find cures for cancer or get one's country a Nobel Prize in physics [and ain't we proud!] or offer one's kid a stable, respectable job wearing a lab coat. So take that away - make science mean folly about Stone Age Man, exposed e-mail plots, court cases about broken contracts, reasonable doubts subjected to inquisition and persecution - and what happens?

One thing that might very well happen is that people who used to just sigh and pay the bill might start thinking differently. As in ... we've got the headache already, Now, where is the payload?)

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Professor Steve Fuller is known as a prolific author whose analysis of the scientific enterprise is iconoclastic. He was famously involved as a defense witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) trial, for which he has received a great deal of flak. The essay cited below provides an explanation of his involvement and a challenge for other qualified people to ensure that their voices are heard.

"I believe that tenured historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science - when presented with the opportunity - have a professional obligation to get involved in public controversies over what should count as science. I stress 'tenured' because the involved academics need to be materially protected from the consequences of their involvement, given the amount of misrepresentation and abuse that is likely to follow, whatever position they take."

Why are so few willing to follow this advice? (Source here)

Those who want to read specific comments on the trial should read the essay. My interest here is in the broader issue of what science studies brings to the discussion of origins. Fuller is dissatisfied with the limited scope of the discourse to date because the dominant voices have functioned as "underlaborer[s] to science". He points out "two types of public exemplars" that have been associated with science studies:

"On the one hand, there is the Michael Ruse figure who supplies a historical and philosophical hinterland to the dominant scientific paradigm so as to complement its purely empirical success with a broader cultural and conceptual grounding that will appeal to those unfamiliar with the technical science. On the other hand, there is the Robert Pennock figure, more typical of the younger generation, who outright collaborates with established scientists in their research, providing a running legitimizing narrative in co-authored articles published in technical and popular forums. In both cases, the science studies scholar functions as an underlaborer to science, as opposed to a true metascientist."

Science studies need to rise above partisanship and develop robust contributions to knowledge that do not need the endorsement of the 'scientific consensus' to justify their validity.

"A metascientist evaluates science from a standpoint that does not presuppose the legitimacy of the dominant paradigm. He or she starts by asking why we pursue science in the first place - the question of ends - and then turns to consider the extent to which the normal pursuit of science satisfies those ends. This is the role I have tried to exemplify. [. . .] The approach is 'constructivist' without being 'relativist' in the way these two terms are normally understood in epistemology."

These social epistemological principles are then applied to the origins controversy. Fuller is interested in this debate because it presents so many important and interesting issues needing rational discussion. However, Fuller finds that far too much bigotry has been expressed and has concluded that something needs to be done to raise the level of debate.

"In terms of the evolution-creation controversy, the bottom line for me, then, is not to satisfy the wishes of particular communities by allowing creationism to be taught, but to avoid the opportunity costs to everyone if creationism is not allowed to be taught."

These opportunity costs are worthy of elaboration. Fuller identifies several of these. The first draws attention to the history of science and the fact that many scientists have done good work motivated by the presupposition that the natural world is the handiwork of an Intelligent Designer. Those who say that toleration of ID will be the death of science and the beginning of a new dark age are in denial of history.

"Here I have in mind the overwhelmingly positive role that belief in an intelligent designer has played in motivating religious people to enter and stick with scientific careers, which have resulted in findings that command the assent of even those who lack faith."

The second opportunity cost is academic freedom. Fuller has already made it clear that he thinks tenured academics should be taking the lead in challenging the dominant paradigm. It is simply too risky for others to stick their heads above the parapet - they are easy targets and they get hurt. They are treated as guilty by association and their ideas are deemed unworthy of any further consideration.

"When we start to judge ideas rather than texts, intentions rather than practices, we become complicit in the erosion of academic freedom. Perhaps the most widely publicized recent case to cross that line was the forced resignation of Michael Reiss as director of science education for the Royal Society. Reiss had the temerity to suggest that science teachers should take seriously - albeit critically - creationist queries raised by their students. Reiss, who also holds a chair at the University of London's Institute of Education, based this judgment on his own research on science pedagogy. It is worth noting that he did not propose that teachers should themselves introduce the creationist ideas - yet the Royal Society deemed he still had to go."

The third opportunity cost is concerned with the quality of debate. Academics are supposed to use their minds when defending a position or critiquing others. However, the origins issue reveals people ruled by emotions, prejudices and ideologies.

"The pervasive anti-Christian bigotry surrounding the evolution-creation debate has had other knock-on effects on the conduct of intellectual discourse. It becomes an excuse to lower the tone in both academic and public discussions. Anyone prepared to defend any form of creationism should expect enormous negative attention in the blogosphere, ranging from occasional derision to outright invitations to trash the defender. At first I believed that my own intervention would clarify misunderstandings but it only seemed to intensify them, not least because I addressed my opponents in the spirit they addressed me. They were not prepared to entertain the idea that it was they and not I who misunderstood."

These three opportunity costs deserve the serious attention of all who are engaged in the controversy. However, the dominant response has been to ignore these points and persist in old patterns of thinking and tired polemics. Some have expressed their frustration with Fuller for his bad judgment. One of these is Michael Lynch, Professor of Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University, who has published several articles condemning Fuller's role as an expert witness in the Dover trial. One of these was in the same journal Spontaneous Generations that carried the essay under consideration here, to which Fuller has recently responded. He pointed out that his "game" is not for short-term gain but for long-term success.

"In that context, I undertake a risky performance in the spirit of a living experiment, the results of which should prove instructive not only to myself but also to others who in the future are similarly well-positioned to bring science studies to bear on public policy. The only mistake would be for others not to repeat the experiment."

Fuller is prepared to criticize Ruse and Pennock for being "traitors to their training" and guilty of "intellectual treason". He is prepared to say that Barbara Forrest's tactic has been to shift the argument from evaluation of ideas to the "intentions of those promoting them", thereby following in the footsteps of John Dewey who used this approach to earn a reputation as "one of the foremost Red-baiters in the US philosophical establishment in the 1940s and '50s". These charges are not ad hominems but are based on analysis of their arguments. The issues are far too important to allow room for complacency - academic freedoms are being eroded, young scientists are fearful of expressing any positive views on design, parental responsibilities for the education of their children are being eroded (with charges of "child abuse" being thrown around), and much more. But Fuller is also prepared to press upon tenured academics the obligation he thinks they have to use their positions of relative security to contribute to public controversies about the nature of science. There is an urgency about the situation. The least that can be said is that Fuller is a trail blazer. No one can criticize him for not acting out what he is encouraging others to do.

Science Studies Goes Public: A Report on an Ongoing Performance
Steve Fuller
Spontaneous Generations, 2(1), (2008), 11-21

First para: I believe that tenured historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science - when presented with the opportunity - have a professional obligation to get involved in public controversies over what should count as science. I stress 'tenured' because the involved academics need to be materially protected from the consequences of their involvement, given the amount of misrepresentation and abuse that is likely to follow, whatever position they take. Indeed, the institution of academic tenure justifies itself most clearly in such heat-seeking situations, where one may appear to offer a reasoned defense for views that many consider indefensible. To be sure, the opportunities for involvement will vary in kind and number, but I believe that we are obliged to embrace them. In the specific case of 'demarcation' questions of what counts as science, the people who possess the sort of general and comparative knowledge most relevant for adducing this matter are historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science - not professional scientists unschooled in these areas.

Response to Lynch
Steve Fuller
Spontaneous Generations, 3(1), (2009), 220-222.

See also:

Lynch, M. Going Public: A Cautionary Tale, Spontaneous Generations, 3(1), (2009), 212-219.

Tyler, D. A "teachable moment" regarding the departure of Michael Reiss, ARN Literature blog (25 September 2008)

Tyler, D. Michael Reiss and the science-religion issue, ARN Literature blog (17 September 2008)

Over the years, there has been much interest in the design of running shoes, with product designers building in protection against impacts and other perceived hazards. However, continuing reports of repetitive strain injuries warrant further research and product re-design. The topic has come to the surface recently with a comparison of the forces experienced by feet of habitually shod versus habitually barefoot runners. It emerges that barefoot runners make contact with the ground in a way that avoids impact-related discomfort and injury.

On the left, a habitually shod Kenyan who is heel-striking; on the right, a Kenyan who has never worn shoes and who is forefoot striking in the way most barefoot runners land. Below are representative force traces (in units of body weight) showing how the two styles of running differ in the force generated when the foot collides with the ground. The barefoot runner lands with no collisional force. (Image: Daniel E. Lieberman, Source here)

As a matter of observation, most habitually shod runners first contact the ground with their heel. This is referred to as heel-striking or rear-foot strike. Modern running shoes have been designed to reduce the impact forces with the help of additional cushioning at the heel. Barefoot runners first contact the ground with the front part of their feet and bend their ankles more as they run. This is referred to as fore-foot or mid-foot strike. This mode of running results in reduced collision forces and enhanced comfort.

"People who don't wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike," says Daniel E. Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University and co-author of a paper appearing this week in the journal Nature. "By landing on the middle or front of the foot, barefoot runners have almost no impact collision, much less than most shod runners generate when they heel-strike. Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world's hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain. All you need is a few calluses to avoid roughing up the skin of the foot. Further, it might be less injurious than the way some people run in shoes."

Since this is a topic where there are numerous agents with commercial interests, the authors of the research paper have felt the need to issue a disclaimer that their reported work is essentially empirical in nature.

"Please note that we present no data on how people should run, whether shoes cause some injuries, or whether barefoot running causes other kinds of injuries. We believe there is a strong need for controlled, prospective studies on these problems." (Source here)

However, the authors go well beyond the empirical data in their analysis when they ground their work in a framework of evolutionary biology. This is also the starting point for Jungers' commentary on the research: "A commitment to walking and running on two legs distinguishes humans from apes, and has long been the defining adaptation of the hominins - the lineages that include both humans and our extinct relatives. This form of locomotion (bipedalism) has been around for millions of years, and we have been unshod for more than 99% of that time." The view, therefore, is that the context for understanding running is that it has evolved as an adaptation under the influence of natural selection.

"Our feet were made in part for running," Lieberman says. But as he and his co-authors write in Nature: "Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning."

There is another perspective on this, which is that of design. Design advocates will affirm: 'Our feet were designed in part for running'. Humans live in many different environments, and the design issues are affected by the need to walk, jump, climb, carry and run in these different environments. A sensitivity to design means that we need to understand how our feet work best in different conditions, so it follows that runners should adopt a biomechanical and physiological approach to developing good running habits. Runners should train to develop the full potential of the design features of their bodies. An evolutionary story of how ape-like animals developed bipedalism is simply a veneer overlying the empirical data.

Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners
Daniel E. Lieberman, Madhusudhan Venkadesan, William A. Werbel, Adam I. Daoud, Susan D'Andrea, Irene S. Davis, Robert Ojiambo Mang'Eni & Yannis Pitsiladis
Nature 463, 531-535 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08723

First para: Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.

See also:

The Barefoot Professor: by Nature Video

Jungers, W.L., Barefoot running strikes back, Nature 463, 433-434 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463433a

Tyler, D. The human body is built for running, ARN Literature blog (29 October 2009)

Review Of Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues
ISBN 978-0-8254-2781-7

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

The debate over whether or not our universe was designed with a purpose is one that centers not around philosophical questions but over "competing scientific explanations of the data". That is the central argument expounded by Phillip Johnson in Intelligent Design 101, a book that aims to bring into sharp focus the central tenets of the intelligent design (ID) movement. Contrary to a popular misconception, the modern day controversy over design in biology is not one that arose from some push to force Judeo-Christian beliefs into the science classroom. It is instead one that extends back thousands of years to the time of Plato and Xenophon in ancient Greece.

Today the educational literature defines all aspects of biology in purely naturalistic terms. What is more, evolution has become the "monolithic fact" that we must all embrace. Even though there is incontrovertible evidence that defies such a factual status, evolutionists have bent over backwards to make naturalism fill in the glaring inconsistencies in the data. As a vociferous opponent of the macro-evolutionary aspects of Darwinism, Johnson has attempted a "divide and conquer" approach to break such a stronghold. By separating philosophical naturalists such as Richard Dawkins from scientists with a sound objective outlook, Johnson's much-publicized Wedge Strategy has sought to prize neo-Darwinism away from its "pedestal of philosophical naturalism". Attacks on Johnson's initiative have focused on the religious backgrounds of its supporters rather than on the sound scientific arguments that they put forward. Still, as Johnson remarks those who today maintain that ID is all about religion ignore the counter claim that the theory of evolution is not exactly all about science.

Addressing this point in a later chapter of the book, philosopher J.P Moreland re-emphasizes a long-standing denial- ID makes no theological commitments to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other religion and does not set us on a "slippery slope" of religious interference of science. Instead ID has scientific legitimacy evidenced by the observation that those who argue against it do so by attempting to falsify its scientific claims.

What are the scientific foundations upon which ID stands? Geologist and lawyer Casey Luskin, biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher Jay Richards remind us of the widely-disseminated ID arguments in their respective chapters of Intelligent Design 101. Complex information-rich objects such as those that lead to the inference of intelligent activity in archaeology and forensic science also exist in the molecular world. Behe builds on Luskin's platform by treating us to an exposition of how irreducible complexity in nano-molecular machines continues to present "a conundrum for Darwinism". Richards then gives us a comprehensive rebuttal of the materialistic interpretation of the Copernican principle challenging science popularizer and television celebrity Carl Sagan's assumption that "the universe is all there is" and listing the features that are necessary for a habitable planet such as our earth to exist. Rather than being winners of a "grand cosmic lottery", our earth's habitability coupled with its prime 'real estate' position for making scientific discoveries argue in favor of design and purpose.

Evolutionary stalwart Julian Huxley famously opened the centennial of the publication of The Origin Of Species with the proclamation that naturalistic evolution explained the totality of life's existence. Nevertheless the more recent struggles between creationists on whether the universe is thousands or billions of years old have done little to quell the rising tide of scientists who feel uncomfortable with the Darwinian endpoint. In Johnson's assessment ID has become the umbrella movement that unites "people of many viewpoints who were once divided on side issues". Today there exists a tremendous dissatisfaction with the Darwinian synthesis amongst reputable scientists who are unconvinced by the supposedly unarguable evidence that Darwinists hold on to. Within such a setting, Johnson equates his volume Darwin On Trial to "a match that lit the tinder beneath a stockpile of logs".

In his chapter entitled Philosophical Implications Of Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design, philosopher Eddie Colanter brings to the reader's attention the religious undertones of the so-called strong form of Neo-Darwinism which holds that (i) all of life is the product of purely materialistic forces, (ii) any reference to God is superfluous and (iii) any moral values that humans place on their comportment are purely arbitrary and subjective (this latter point has important ramifications for how we view contemporary social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the definition of personhood).

Intelligent Design 101 then concludes with a broad overview of the historical landscape upon which ID has made its impact. What is made explicit is that ID is not simply a modern extension of the Christian creationism that featured in prominent legal cases such as those surrounding the Tennessee anti-evolution laws of the 1970s. In the words of distinguished theologian H Wayne House, it is a movement that carries with it an "empirical method of argument [and a] lack of allusion to the fundamentalist wing of Christianity and Christian theology".

As we approach Darwin day with its accompanying festivities and plans to parade his namesake through museum halls across the nation, we cannot ignore the vast body of evidence that today is feeding the ID counter-attack. Intelligent Design 101 is an invaluable resource for those seeking to understand the twisted fables of the anti-ID lobby. If those who oppose ID have nothing to fear, they should be prepared to entertain competing points of view and to let truth and reason become "the final arbiters".

2010 sees the beginning of a new series in Spanish exploring key findings from contemporary science that support the intelligent design inference. The series Passeos Por La Naturaleza (A Walk Through Nature) aims to further strengthen the global influence that the Intelligent Design movement already enjoys and raise awareness of important academic resources that are today challenging orthodox Darwinism and revitalizing the call for a fresh perspective on scientific discourse.

First installment can be found at:

Paseos Por La Naturaleza

Evolucion de la comunicacion en las ballenas? Los darwinistas deberian estar preocupados, by Robert Deyes and Carolina Deyes (transl: Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned)

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is my post at Examiner on why. I thought it would never happen, actually. But I should have remembered - all psychology fads are inherently ridiculous because they are attempts to evade the depth of the human condition with some silly new idea.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

The first species to have its genome decoded by 'next-generation-sequencing' (NGS) machines is the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). The individual animal was known previously to the world as the mascot of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Scientists have been excited by the report because the NGS approach is significantly cheaper and faster than other methods. It is not the purpose of this blog to assess the robustness of the method, but it is important to be aware that the reported sequence utilizes previously determined genomes as a reference platform: dog and human genomes in this case.

"Using evidence-based gene prediction, the human and dog genes [. . .] were projected onto the panda genome, and the gene loci were defined by using both sequence similarity and whole-genome synteny information."

The iconic giant panda's genetic makeup reveals degradation (Source here)

The estimated size of the giant panda genome is said to be 2.40 Gb (compared with 2.45 Gb for the dog genome and 3.0 Gb for humans) making up about 21,000 genes (similar to humans). "Overall, we found that the quality of the predicted panda genes was comparable to that of other well-annotated mammalian genes." Although the panda eats only bamboo leaves, genes associated with carnivory are present in the panda:

"Of interest, our analysis of genes potentially involved in the evolution of the panda's reliance on bamboo in its diet showed that the panda seems to have maintained the genetic requirements for being purely carnivorous even though its diet is primarily herbivorous."

There was no trace of genes that encode enzymes for digesting cellulose, raising questions about how the panda can possibly survive on bamboo. The hypothesis proposed is that the bamboo diet "may instead be more dependent on its gut microbiome". Confirmation of this will require further work. A related dietary factor concerns the sense of taste. The authors refer to the five components of taste: sweetness, saltiness, sourness, bitterness and umami. The giant panda has lost the capability of sensing umami, which means that meat has become unappetizing.

"Umami is sensed through the T1R family. In the panda genome, T1R2 and T1R3 are in an intact form, but T1R1 has become a pseudogene - we found that [. . .] two panda T1R1 exons contain transcript errors."
"Two frameshift mutations occurred in the third and sixth exons of the panda T1R1 gene. The third exon contained a 2-bp ('GG') insertion; the sixth exon contained a 4-bp ('GTGT') deletion."

A possible genetic factor affecting the giant panda's low fecundity rate was identified. Nearly all of the mammalian reproduction genes were mapped, and "a putative pseudo follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) [beta]-subunit gene (giant panda-FSHB2)" was noted. The authors comment:

"At this stage, whether the pseudo FSHB2 gene contributes to the reproduction features of the giant panda remains to be determined."

Some have considered whether the panda genome helps resolve the animal's taxonomic status. Although most place the panda in the bear family (Ursidae), a case has been made that it belongs elsewhere - in the raccoon family (Ailuridae). Since we do not have the genomes for any of these possible relatives, there is little more that can be said on the matter. However, even if other genomes were sequenced, does the "genome" tell us much about what makes a bear differ from a raccoon or a dog or a human? The genome can be described as the repository of housekeeping genes; it provides the materials needed for the organism to function - but something much more than this is needed to inform taxonomy. The ENCODE project (along with many others) has revealed rich functionality in the non-coding DNA (alias 'junk DNA'). Consequently, it is probable that the gene sequencers are just scratching at the surface of genetic information.

If the giant panda is correctly assigned to the Ursidae, the new research contributes significantly to the way we understand the speciation of this animal. Before genome sequencing, we could say that it has diversified significantly from ancestral Ursidae stock. It has a reduced number of chromosomes, 42, whereas most bears have 74. It has a wholly vegetarian diet and it has a modified sesamoid bone which it uses to strip bamboo leaves from stems. The panda genome findings provide the background for understanding herbivory: the panda still retains the genes for carnivory but mutations have destroyed the taste trigger for it to eat meat. Although the panda cannot make enzymes for digesting plant food, communities of gut microbes are the most likely explanation of its continuing survival. The reproduction problems experienced by giant pandas may also be linked to a mutation affecting follicle stimulation.

The overall picture is one of speciation/diversification linked to genetic degradation. Natural selection, which has often been portrayed as all-powerful and capable of building exquisitely complex structures, has failed to provide the giant panda with any enzymes for digesting plant food. We do not know whether the modified sesamoid bone is an evolutionary innovation, a part of the degradation story or information neutral. The News & Views essay that accompanies the research paper calls the panda China's "national treasure" - and so it is. However, from the perspective of genetics, the giant panda is not in a healthy state. Whatever else may be relevant, this case has strong affinities with speciation by gene pool reduction. From the perspective of Darwinism, the giant panda genome testifies to the failure of Darwinian mechanisms to overcome problems caused by mutations. From the perspective of design, we have a story of how a superbly designed carnivore has managed to survive the effects of genetic degradation. From a conservation perspective, without human intervention, the chances of long-term survival are slender.

There is also the finding that Jingjing's genome has a high degree of genetic diversity, but she is unlikely to be representative of the panda population taken as a whole. It is more prudent to assume that the relatively isolated panda enclaves harbour problems of inbreeding and that Jingjing is an example of the benefits of breeding across enclaves - further supporting the case for human intervention.

The sequence and de novo assembly of the giant panda genome
Li, R. et al.
Nature 463, 311-317 (21 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08696

Abstract: Using next-generation sequencing technology alone, we have successfully generated and assembled a draft sequence of the giant panda genome. The assembled contigs (2.25 gigabases (Gb)) cover approximately 94% of the whole genome, and the remaining gaps (0.05 Gb) seem to contain carnivore-specific repeats and tandem repeats. Comparisons with the dog and human showed that the panda genome has a lower divergence rate. The assessment of panda genes potentially underlying some of its unique traits indicated that its bamboo diet might be more dependent on its gut microbiome than its own genetic composition. We also identified more than 2.7 million heterozygous single nucleotide polymorphisms in the diploid genome. Our data and analyses provide a foundation for promoting mammalian genetic research, and demonstrate the feasibility for using next-generation sequencing technologies for accurate, cost-effective and rapid de novo assembly of large eukaryotic genomes.

See also:

Worley, K.C. and Gibbs, R.A. Decoding a national treasure, Nature 463, 303-304 (21 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463303a

Qiu, J., Genome reveals panda's carnivorous side, 13 December 2009, Nature News | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1141

The debate between Darwin and design is coming to Tampa, Florida with a major one-night event featuring some of the leading voices challenging Darwinian evolution...Michael Medved, Stephen C. Meyer, David Berlinski. The event will occur Thursday evening, January 28th.

Info HERE...

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

David Warren is a Canadian journalist who writes for the Ottawa Citizen. He often expresses skepticism about Darwinism. Here he reflects on the "just-so" story usually used to explain Darwinian evolution:

The account of the Beginning of the Armadilloes, in the High and Far-Off Times -- and on the banks of the turbid Amazon -- is especially instructive. It supplies a theory of the convergent evolution of the clever armadillo, from the Stickly-Prickly Hedgehog and/or his friend the Slow-Solid Tortoise, under the ministrations of the Painted Jaguar.

Consulting it today, I realize that my skepticism toward the dogmas of neo-Darwinism might well originate from that story. It is not that I prefer Kipling's account of the origin of species, which was a quite intentional (and very amusing) farce. Rather, that it spared me from developing a taste for quite unintentional farces.

In logic, a "just-so story" is known as the "ad hoc fallacy." The Latin means "for this," and it applies to any "pourquoi" explanation of things, given for the express purpose of supporting an otherwise unprovable hypothesis.

The perfect example would be the whole pseudo-science of "evolutionary psychology," which seeks to explain why man is the way he is, by means of evolutionary plausibilities. We start from the hypothesis that everything in nature, as Darwin says, adapts exclusively to the end of survival. And then we return to the same place, by a logical circle.

Here are more of Warren's columns on this subject. (The first one begins with a reader's letter on one of his columns.)

Here are more stories on evolutionary psychology.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

In ENV...Discovery Institute is gearing up for the celebration by supporting what Darwin supported: academic freedom.

Academic Freedom Day couldn't come at a better time, as academic freedom is threatened around the country. We have seen Darwinists launch cyber attacks on a pro-ID conference website in Colorado and engage in an illegal coverup in the censorship of a pro-ID film in California.

It's time like these when Darwin's own words should instruct everyone on how to have an open and honest debate over evolution and intelligent design.
In On the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." This quote is the cornerstone of the Institute's Academic Freedom Day efforts.

More...