MICROBIOLOGY 101 INTERNET TEXT CHAPTER VI: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, EVOLUTION AND LIFE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image]Updated: 11/5/97 [Image] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GLOSSARIES MICROBIOLOGY: Very useful for this course CHEMISTRY: Very good GENETICS: Very good PROTEIN & CHEMISTRY: Very extensive, with structures If you find key definitions that have not been included, please inform the authors of these glossaries ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS * Scientific Method o The Scientific Perspective o The Steps in Carrying out Science * Thermodynamics * Evolution o Definition of Evolution * Pseudoscience o Differences Between Science & Pseudoscience o Table of Pseudosciences * What Evolution is and is Not o Evolution is o Why is there a Controversy about Evolution o The Scientific Arguement Against Evolution * How Evolution Actually Works * The Bible and Evolution * Final Thoughts on Evolution and GOD * Focus on Evolution: Strange and Exciting Examples of Evolution ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION A FAQ by nonscientists is: How can one tell the differences between what is science and what isn't science, or what is bad science and what is good science? ANSWER: Only by hard work and an open mind. The average citizen is bombarded in the written press, on radio and on TV with hundreds of claims per day that purport to be based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS or on a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. We are asked to buy items that will help us live better & longer based on claims of SCIENTIFIC PROOF. We are required to choose our elected representatives based on their understandings of SCIENTIFIC DATA. One day we read that a scientific study has PROVEN that fat is a deadly poison and a week later we read where another scientific study has PROVEN that fat prevents cancer; what is a person to believe? All too many people simply throw up their hands and say "to HŠ with it, if the scientists can't agree how can I be expected to know what is right?" and fall back on myths, rumor and superstition, which can kill them. There simply is no easy way, in many cases, to identify a SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, but below is some information that will make answering these questions a little easier for an educated, rational person. In short, science is a messy business, but the following will make it a bit less messy. Click here for an excellent discussion of the scientific method. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image]THE SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE [Image] PROTEIN MOLECULE BINDING TO A SPECIFIC BASE SEQUENCE OF DNA Science is the SEARCH FOR TRUTH, but only the truth of the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. Science has nothing to do with morality, justice, or religion. Science is nothing more than a PROCESS that scientists use in an attempt to understand how the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WORKS. For example, gravity is a FACT OF NATURE; it is neither moral or immoral, right or wrong, evil or good, Moslem or Christian, rather it just IS! Similarly the diseases that plague us (e.g. cancer, AIDS, cholera etc.) are neither evil or good, they just ARE. FAQ: Why are scientiests so uncertain about so many things? ANSWER: We're all seeking simple and clear explanations of how things are, but science, which claims to be on a quest for TRUTH, often seems to confuse issues more than clarifying them. The answer lies in the immense COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE. Scientists are like a children, entranced by the colors, sounds and motions they see on the TV, but having no idea how a TV works. So it is with scientists and the universe. Scientists today are like a child who has learned to control the TV knobs/buttons and thus has gained a measure of control and understanding of its workings. A child will explain how a TV works if you ask, but their degree of knowledge is sorely limited. Despite all the science we currently know, we are barely past the stage of "operating the knobs on a TV or VCR" in our understanding the universe. So scientists get a lot of things less right before they get them "more right". FAQ: Why do scientists speak such a funny language and use all those strange words, hard-to-learn words, that confuse and frustrate the rest of us to the point where we turn off to science? ANSWER: Scientific terminology is, like all language, a SHORTHAND for describing complex situations. For example, the word "STUDENT" is a shorthand term meaning "someone who studies and learns new knowledge and is usually found in an institution known as a school"; one word takes the place of 17 in this case. Thus when scientists use the term "pH", they are saying the "logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration"; i.e., pH = 9 words. In short, science uses another language just like the Germans and French do. Scientists are no more intentionally obtuse than are the French or Germans when they speak their native tongues in your presence. However, the language of science is UNIVERSAL, as scientists the world over speak to each other in this common scientific language. I spent a sabbatical in Germany and barely learned any German, because everyone in the lab spoke the current language of science, ENGLISH. FAQ: Why do scientists hedge so much; i.e., you can't ever get a STRAIGHT ANSWER out of them? ANSWER: Scientists know that their knowledge is woefully incomplete, so they are usually reluctant to speak in terms of absolutes. They know that it is entirely possible that tomorrow someone will present evidence indicating that what they state as the truth today is wrong to some degree. Thus they tend to use phases like: "it appears that a possible explanation for this is...." or "the present data certainly supports that explanation, however, there are valid alternative explanations." etc. Never-the-less, many scientists, being frail, egotistical humans, make dogmatic statements about subjects only to be proven entirely wrong later. Then they are made great sport of by their fellows, many of whom will eventually make the same trip down that rocky road. FAQ: Why do scientists disagree so much and who can I believe? ANSWER: They disagree because their information on most subjects is, as stated above, so limited. What usually occurs is that scientists obtain a bit of data and try to put it together so it makes sense. But it's like having a puzzle made of a zillion pieces and you work and work and manage to put a couple of thousand together and one person looks at it and says "that's the rear end of a cow", while a second person looks at the same information and concludes "it's the wing of an airplane". Eventually they go back to work and put a few more pieces together and try again to interpret the picture. Even when they finish a puzzle, it may look like a surrealistic painting that is difficult to interrupt because it is out of context; i.e. it is part of an even larger puzzle. As far as who to believe, all one can do is try to figure out who has done the BEST SCIENCE and assume that one has a somewhat better chance of being correct. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AN EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING THE ABOVE As you all know giraffes all have long necks. The common explanation for how the giraffes evolved these long necks that we all learned in grammar school was that a rare mutation in a giraffe's ancestor produced a slightly longer neck which allowed it to reach higher on trees to get a few more leaves. Thus when times were tough, the long-necked giraffes could survive marginally better than ones with shorter necks because they could eat the leaves higher up in the trees. Over time more mutations leading to slightly longer necks occurred occasionally and each time those giraffes survived better than ones with shorter necks. Gradually, over millions of years the giraffe we see today developed through the accumulation of these many long-neck mutations. Good, common sense explanation, right? Well some evolutionists don't buy it. They suggest that there are alternative explanations that make just as much sense. For example, we note that modern male giraffes fight it out to see who gets to breed the females and in these fights they use their necks extensively; the one with the stronger neck usually winning; i.e., maybe the guys with the longer necks got the females (hey, it happens). So here is a classical case of evolutionists disagreeing. Does this disagreement mean that the evolutionary theory is WRONG? Not at all. The Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest" is at work in BOTH scenarios, only the nature of the environmental selection factor is different. In the former, an environment such as times of drought that produce food shortage leads to the selection of long necks, while in the latter, longer necked male giraffe tend to win the mating contests. In either case the "winner/survivor" is more likely to produce offspring, which inherit Dad's neck length. Just as we will never know who the first person was that came up with the idea of a "wheel", we will probably never learn what the exact forces that shaped the evolution of many species were. However, the basic principle of the wheel is never in doubt any more than that of natural selection. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE STEPS IN CARRYING OUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: * STEP 1: The scientific method operates on the dual principles of OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENTATION. Curious persons observe a phenomenon (e.g. TIGERS HAVE STRIPES) and ask "why and how?" This leads to the formation of a HYPOTHESIS or an IDEA ON TRIAL. In the past the scientific method. often stopped at this point because the hypothesis neatly fits into the accepted "common-sense facts", such as the local social biases or the dogma of the currently dominant religion or political ideology, (e.g. the GODs made them with stripes). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image] CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION: Can you think of a recent case where religion or politics has "influenced" a scientific view? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * STEP 2: The hypothesis is TESTED by the gathering of additional "facts" through further observation and by experimentation. The observations & experimental results must be REPEATED with the proper CONTROLS over time and in different places and the results OBJECTIVELY and SKEPTICALLY assessed. If the repeated observations and experimental results support the hypothesis and they are said to be "REPRODUCIBLE", the hypothesis then becomes a THEORY. o An experiment without a CONTROL is worthless. A control is that which shows what happens if NOTHING IS VARIED. Every experiment or observation is ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS CONTROLS. In the laboratory scientists are more able to control ONE VARIABLE at a time in an experiment. For example, to determine if certain chemicals kill bacterial pathogens, the individual chemicals are mixed one-at-a-time with the bacterial samples and the bacteria's survival determined over time: [Image] Figure 1. The control consists of adding water to a sample of the same bacterial culture. The three cultures are then incubated under EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS and the bacteria's relative survival determined. If the control survives and the cells with the chemicals die, the data is easily interpreted. If neither die one can ask "did we add enough of the test chemical to see an effect?". Thus additional experiments have to be done. Most of the exercises you perform in the lab will have CONTROLS. Outside of the lab things are much harder to control. For example, one might investigate the effect of STUDY TIME ON STUDENT'S GRADES. Such an experiment might consist of following several 100 students over a period time, asking them to record the time spent studying and comparing this data with their ultimate grades. However, perhaps the study habits of the students varied widely from those that studied while watching TV, to those that studied in a quiet room or library. Perhaps the test group was not representative of the average student and was composed of students who were pre meds and pre vets. There is an obvious problem with such "open" situations in determining & running the proper controls. This explains why solid statistical explanations of many phenomena ( e.g. the weather or human behavior) are so difficult to obtain and why so many people are appropriately skeptical about statistical evidence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image] CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION: How would you set up a study designed to answer the above "STUDY-HABIT" question? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * STEP 3: As data is collected it usually causes the initial hypothesis to be CHANGED or MODIFIED. In many cases the original hypothesis must be completely DISCARDED and a new hypothesis must be proposed and tested. Sometimes dozens of hypotheses are tested before the correct one is discovered. In the scientific method. DATA IS KING and a hypothesis must CHANGE TO FIT THE DATA and [Image] never the other way around. Finally when a given hypothesis survives a lot of testing it advances to the stage of a THEORY. Theories then undergo a long period of testing and examination, sometimes for hundreds of years. New data often causes a theory to be "FINE TUNED", but occasionally compelling new data will be discovered that completely discredits an accepted theory and the whole process STARTS OVER FROM THE BEGINNING. Scientists often have a lot of trouble giving up a "favorite theory", even though we feel that this is part of being a scientist. Indeed, it is the responsibility of scientists to be SKEPTICAL of everything (in science and in life). I would further suggest that it is the responsibility of every citizen to be rationally skeptical about everything in life. * ARE YOU A SKEPTICAL PERSON? o An example of an ERRONEOUS THEORY is that of the cause of stomach ulcers. My generation was taught that ulcers are caused by stress and the medical treatment of ulcers reflected this belief. However, as you will learn #later, we now know that close to 100% of ulcers are caused by the infection of the lining of the stomach with the bacterium, Helicobacter pylori. The correct treatment is a short regime of antibiotics, which is almost 100% effective in clearing up ulcers and of preventing most stomach cancers. Ask your parents or someone over 40 what they think causes ulcers?; but don't argue with them when they tell you "stress". GUESS HOW THE PERSON THAT DISCOVERED THIS PROVED IT? * STEP 4: With the passage of time and the fact that no scientific data is found to discredit a theory, it eventually becomes a NATURAL LAW. Even natural laws can be discarded if new data appears that doesn't fit. It is said that science never PROVES anything, it just makes things LESS wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image] CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION: Do you know what happened to the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY when men landed on the moon? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THERMODYNAMICS. * 1. The study of energy and its transformations is called THERMODYNAMICS * 2. A study of life (biology) is a study of #metabolism and therefore a study of thermodynamics. * 3. "The eventual course of each and every chemical reaction or physical event in the universe is ultimately dictated by the nature of the energy content of the system of matter under consideration and the exchange of energy between this system and its surroundings.--LIFE IS ALL ABOUT ENERGY". R. E. Hurlbert * 4. All physical (biological) events are determined by laws of thermodynamics:The most important law of thermodynamics for life is the SECOND LAW, which states "the entropy of the universe tends to increase". ENTROPY REFERS TO DISORDER OR RANDOMNESS. ORDER----> DISORDER: Wood (order) + Oxygen produces heat + Carbon dioxide + water (disorder). Raw materials (disorder) + energy, (heat, work, electricity) produces TV sets, Cars, Babies (order). Click here to learn more about entropy. * 5. EVERYTHING we do is the result of CHEMICAL REACTIONS; every thought, big and small, every emotion (love, hate, fear) is the end result of an ordered series of CHEMICAL REACTIONS that require energy. In that sense living organisms are considered chemical machines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image] CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION: We may soon be able to induce that emotion we call LOVE by injecting a person with chemicals. What are your feeling about this? SOME POSSIBLE SCENARIOS: EXTRA CREDIT COMMENTARY (comment on all three) * Person A feeds person B the love chemical without A's knowledge and both "agree" to be intimate. Has a crime been committed? * If a person is judged to be a "bad parent", should they be given the love chemical so they will love and take care of their children? * If a person who was taking a "love" drug by prescription for a medical disorder told you they LOVED YOU, would you believe them? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EVOLUTION FAQ: WHY TEACH EVOLUTION IN MICRO 101? HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO MICROBIOLOGY? Evolution is taught in this class for the following reasons: * To acquaint you with the CORE CONCEPT OF MODERN BIOLOGY so that you can interpret the effect biology is having (& will continue to have) on your lives. * To inform and clarify common MISCONCEPTIONS & misunderstandings about evolution. * To remove some of the CONTROVERSY surrounding this topic so that we can all spend our limited time and resources on more important things. * To prepare you for a TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD so that our nation can remain competitive in the world. * To produce INFORMED CITIZENS that can deal with the important issue of what YOUR CHILDREN will be TAUGHT in school and to help this country MAINTAIN its technological prominence in the world. Americans are shamefully scientifically ILLITERATE; numerous studies have us near the BOTTOM of the scientific literacy list of developed countries. For example, surveys report that a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS believe the following : o To see how good your scientific literacy is answer the following questions and get some extra points in the process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXTRA POINT QUIZ FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT READ AHEAD INSTRUCTIONS: Label the Chapter # and under it lay out the numbers of the questions in a vertical column in your word processing program. Place the answer beside the appropriate number. Copy/paste the answers to your E-mail along with your name and ID# and E-mail it to me before I begin to talk about this chapter. If you get ALL OF THEM CORRECT you will receive 2 extra points. Look for the answers by clicking here which will be posted once I begin the lecture on evolution. DLS: To get this extra credit you must turn in your answers before I post the answers. 1. Humans and dinosaurs coexisted: * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. 2. That there is valid scientific proof of UFOs: * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. 3. That aliens (in space ships that is) have visited our planet: * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. 4. That the AIDS virus was developed by the CIA and KGB working together: * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. 5. That psychic phenomena like ESP, clairvoyance and astrology are scientifically valid: * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. 6. That some other animals besides man uses tools. * (A) There is some valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (B) There is a lot of valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. * (C) There is no valid scientific evidence to support this conclusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION: WHAT THE HECK IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? The theory that groups of organisms, as species, may CHANGE WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME so that their descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors so that they can no longer interbreed and thus become NEW SPECIES. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHAT IS EVOLUTION AND HOW DOES IT OCCUR? There are likely to be many of you reading this who either have been TAUGHT that evolution is WRONG, or even that it is evil, and others may have come to one or both these conclusions on their own. The American Society for Microbiology officially states that "Darwinian principles of evolution can provide an overarching theme to (microbiology courses)". Since evolutionary principles are the foundation upon which all biology is built, it is my professional RESPONSIBILITY to inform you about this crucial principle. All of the microbiology in this course is presented from an evolutionary perspective, therefore to grasp the nature of microbiology, an understanding of evolutionary principles is paramount. However, it is NOT A REQUIREMENT of this course that anyone ACCEPT EVOLUTION as a scientific truth. It is only necessary to learn the "facts" about evolution presented herein in order to answer the exam questions on evolution. I only ask that you give evolution a fair hearing. Be skeptical, not only of what I tell you, but what EVERYONE tells you past and future (including me). I include references on evolution, including ones on the Internet, if you wish to explore this matter further click here. [Image]Click here to see the entire text of Darwin's Origin of Species. I may ask questions from the first chapter. [Image] [Image] Newspapers the week of 3/4/96 reported that the Tennessee legislature was expected to pass a bill requiring that any teacher who "taught that evolution was true or that man evolved from lower species" had to be fired. The bill also required Creationism be taught in school. Do you favor such a bill? Do you know anyone who does? This bill was defeated by a single vote and is expected to come up in the next legislative session. [Image] [Image] EVOLUTION MEANS CHANGE. The science of evolution is the study of the PROCESSES of evolutionary changes. Evolutionary scientists try to document the changes in species through time. Evolutionary sciences include paleontology, which is concerned with studying the remains (fossils) of dead life forms and trying to relate these changes to the development of news species over time. Other evolutionists investigate processes like #mutagenesis, gene shuffling, gene jumping, gene duplication etc. so as to define the mechanisms and forces that bring about changes in living forms. Still others investigate the environment, both past and present, to determine how environmental conditions determined which mutations helped a life form survive while other didn't. Evolutionary scientists ask questions like "why do tigers have stripes?"; "when did man's ancestors first begin to walk upright?"; and "why did whales leave the land and return to the sea?". Recent References on evolution: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Sept. 1978; Feb. 1991; TIME Jan 15, 1990; Dec. 28 1992; Science 277:890(97). Click here for a site that has a lot of information on evolution from several sides of the controversy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Image]CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION: If you were given a 10 million dollar grant to do research on psychic phenomena, how would you go about it? What would you accept as scientific proof for or against it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPARISON BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE EXAMPLES OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: * Examples of pseudoscience are compiled in a table at the end of this section. Have you ever wondered if any of these things are true? It is kind of scary fun to think that they may be and after all lots of people have reported that they are true, so it is easy to believe that there is something to them. See Time Mag., Jan 29, '95 for an essay on Americans and pseudoscience. * I personally find the X-Files well done and very enjoyable; the product of superior imaginations, writing and acting, but I don't for a minute consider it true (they do a good job of sprinkling a few accurate scientific facts throughout the show along with exciting chunks of pseudoscience). * Just for fun go through a TV-guide and mark all the shows, movies etc. on the commercial channels that have to do with the paranormal/pseudoscience. Now mark all the shows that are based on or are about HARD SCIENCE. Does that comparison tell you something about how much entertainment pseudoscience holds? HOW CAN WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE? Here are some simple tests one can apply to tell the difference between TRUE SCIENCE and PSEUDOSCIENCE [Image] Pseudosciences are magical, they deal with myth, emotion, rumor, folk tales, mixed with prejudice and the fear of the unknown. They are emotional and based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE "...my grandmother could tell the future"; "my sister saw the ghost of our dead mother"; ".....a friend of my uncle was abducted by aliens"; "...my friend's brother made millions on the stock market by following his astrologer's advice". Such stories abound and they are fun to tell and to hear, especially when we're at a party and have had too much ethanol. They appeal to the child in us and send shivers of fear/fun up our spines don't they? * I have a relative that believes passionately in the predicitions of Nostradamus and another who swears she saw a ghost in the back yard of the home I grew up in (I never saw it in 20 years). How about you, do you know many people who believe in pseudoscience? [Image] Science, however deals with COLD HARD FACTS. Science is IMPLACABLE and requires lots of work to learn, to do and to understand. Science is only familiar to scientists and they sometimes make the rest of us feel inferior. Sciences talks about complex experiments and loads of boring data. Science frankly tends to be boring, particularly when we don't understand it. Science seems to destroy romance by turning such things as LOVE into dry chemical formula. [Image] Pseudoscience is easy and just plain fun; sort of "mind games". One can talk about ghosts, astrology or UFOs for hours and no one can prove you wrong. Pseudoscience lets you MAKE UP THE RULES as you go along. Pseudoscience relies on the imagination to bring it off. What you imagine becomes the TRUTH just by saying it. [Image] Science requires RIGOROUS testing and is held up to intense scrutiny. Science is PREDICTIVE; if you do a certain thing exactly the same way in New York, Pullman, London or Mars the results will always come out the SAME (borrrring). But Pseudoscience always has the excitement of the unpredictable, the unexpected; the ghost may or may not appear tonight; the spirit of a lost loved one may visit the medium this time, or NOT; etc. Pseudoscience never runs CONTROLS and if you suggest any, the believers in pseudoscience get angry. [Image] Anyone can take up Pseudoscience with minimum effort. Just buy a book on astrology on Monday, read it overnight and on Tuesday hang out your sign announcing that you are open for business. But science requires that you go to school for years. Science requires self control, hard work, skepticism and discipline; characteristics lacking in the Pseudosciences. [Image] The scientific method can't be applied to the Pseudoscience; after all, no self-respecting ghost is going to stay in a test tube long enough to be analyzed. Science DESTROYS beautiful imaginative myths with brutal, unromantic, heartless facts. After all which explanation of a rainbow is the more romantic and fun? One that says that fairies make them or the scientific one of light refracting through rain drops and breaking up into the composite colors? Click here for another discussion on the nature of pseudoscience. FAQ: "Why do I bother talking about pseudoscience in a microbiology course?" The acceptance of pseudoscience requires the embracing of irrationality and the denigration of logic and reason and thus is the antithesis of the scientific method. It is my opinion, and that of the scientific community at large, that the very existence of a society that clutters its social intellect with the detritus of pseudoscience is in danger. Very few people would support the view that the middle ages where superstition ruled, where thousands of people were burned alive as witches and sorcerers, where medicine was practiced by the ignorant with predictably gruesome and lethal results, where people cowered in fear of demons and devils every waking moment, was a fun time to live. Nor would most Americans wish to live today in a developing country that is ruled by similar superstitions, fears, tribal prejudices, etc. The embracing of pseudoscience as an answer to real, serious problems is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding the hard choices and the effort it takes to really learn about and deal with real problems. Pseudoscience fragments societies because of its irrationality does not allow any stable common consensus based on the rule of knowledge to form; since nothing is accepted as universal truth chaos tends to follows. For example, a scientist who claims that his findings are correct because he used "white magic" to get the desired results may feel gratified and may even attract believers, but his "data" can't be considered to be a truth that society could build on since, by definition it could be changed by other forms of "magic". In the list below I challenge the reader to come up with a single case where a pseudoscience on the list has contributed directly to the betterment of mankind; e.g., was responsible for an effective new drug, a beneficial invention etc. The following is a table of major pseudosciences for which there has never been presented any solid scientific evidence. Have I left out any important ones? If so write me. Nostradamus Palmistry Numerology Comets Remote Viewing Astrology Ghosts Evil Eye Telekinesis Pyramid Power Channeling ESP Atlantis Spiritualism Alien Abduction Big Foot Mystics Crystal Power Dowsing Crop Circles Tea Leaves Witches Loch Ness Ouije Board Bermuda Triangle Out-of-Body Seers Telepathy Sorcery Psychic Surgeons Horoscopes Tarot Cards Stereotyping Prejudice Spon. Burning Vampires UFOs Slavery Magic Rhino Horn White/Black Deer Antlers Bear Parts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHAT EVOLUTION IS AND IS NOT: * Evolution does NOT deal with [Image]PRIME QUESTIONS: o Where did the universe come from? o Is there a GOD? o What is HE/SHE like? o What is our PURPOSE here? o Where is the universe GOING? -------------------------------------- TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION Answer the following questions about this controversy: 1. The percent of working physicists and biologists that hold strong spiritual beliefs is: A. <1% B. >90% C. 40% D. 10% Answer the following TRUE or FALSE: 2. The Vatican has formally apologized for its arrest of Galileo. 3. The Vatican has acknowledged that "evolution more than a hypothesis". 4. It is uncommon for good scientists (e.g. Nobel Prize winners) to be believers in a Creator. 5. Science seeks to know the mechanisms of the universe, while religion seeks its meaning. 6. The main-line Christian, and most Judaism and Islam denominations, have stopped making claims that the Earth was only recently created. -------------------------------------- NO COMPETENT SCIENTIST CLAIMS THAT EVOLUTION CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. * Evolution is NOT a substitution for GOD. It is possible to have a deep faith in a GOD and still accept the fact of evolution. I use the definition of "faith" as believing in something that can not be proven by the scientific method. * Evolution is NOT a religion, although evolutionists can be aggressive, passionate and defensive about their position (just like religious folk), especially when poked in the eye with a sharp stick for teaching evolution. * Evolution is NOT anti-GOD or anti-RELIGION. Those who tell you that, may be using your fears for their own ends. * Evolution IS a way (a process) of describing HOW BIOLOGICAL THINGS WORK and EVOLVE--much like a description of how autos or computers are made, work and change (evolve) over time. * Evolution IS an attempt to describe how, in the framework of the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS and other physical/chemical laws, biological organisms work and why they work the way they do. * Evolution IS a description of a PROCESS of how living organisms change in response to environmental factors. It's like describing how the first cars EVOLVED to what they are today and how they interact with their environment. For example, when oil was in short supply cars EVOLVED to be smaller and more fuel efficient, because of the environmental factor of "an oil shortage"; when the social environment changed to make "safety" a consideration, cars EVOLVED air bags--that is "to survive in a competitive environment", cars had to change. Now electrical and natural gas cars are evolving. * Evolution IS both FACT & THEORY, as much as the sun coming up in the east is fact/theory. But not ALL THE FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION ARE CURRENTLY KNOWN so details change from time to time as new facts are discovered--because of this scientists refer to it as the "evolutionary theory". That is, it has moved from the status of a hypothesis to that of an accepted theory. What is occurring now is a "fine tuning" of the theory; tweaking it into sharper focus with each newly discovered fact. The arguments between scientists as to what exactly the new facts mean cause controversy with much shouting, name-calling and arm-waving, but it is not a matter of "questioning the basics of evolution". For example, not all the scientific facts are known about atomic energy, but that doesn't make the atomic bomb any less real; we talk about "atomic fact" and "atomic theory" in the same breath! These scientific "discussions" between scientists may be likened to the controversies that occur between religious sects. The various religious sects don't argue over whether GOD EXISTS, but only how to interpret his/her existence and what their GOD requires of them; i.e., when the various leaders of religion argue over "RELIGION", they are not questioning the existence of GOD in their minds. Evolution is unable to "repeat" the CREATION OF LIFE and thus prove the entirety of evolution, but experiments based on the principles of the evolutionary process produce the results that the "evolutionary theory" predicts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY IS THERE CONTROVERSY ABOUT EVOLUTION FAQ: "Well if so much is known about evolution, why is there so much controversy". The unspoken implication of this question usually is "where there's smoke, there's fire!". There are several reasons for this controversy: [Image] The problem of TIME: Humans live short lives, yet evolution occurs over such vast spans of time that it is INCONCEIVABLE to most people. The current scientific evidence indicates that the earth has been around for approximately 4 billion years. This is so long that very SMALL AND SLOW changes can ACCUMULATE to produce great and complex alterations. Most people accept the idea that mountains take millions of years to wear down through the combined forces of wind and water, yet we rarely are able in our lifetime to see the change in the land around us. For example, if you were allowed to move one rock/day from point A to point B, you could move only 365 rocks/yr. Over a lifetime of 75 yr. that isn't going to make a very big pile, but over a million years or a billion years the pile would become rather formidable. Click here for a discussion of the age of the earth. [Image] The COMMON SENSE perspective: People look at the way living things are designed and consider how well they work (e.g. the human eye) and they conclude that someone (GOD or the great WATCHMAKER) must have DESIGNED each of these structures with a plan in mind. That is, their common sense tell them that there had to be a GRAND PLAN and that only a GOD could manage such a complex plan. The idea that RANDOM CHANCE could have produced a human eye, a baby or a butterfly seems ludicrous in the extreme from this perspective. This is like looking at people wearing glasses and deciding that the nose and the ears were put there to hold glasses. [Image] The COMMUNICATION PROBLEM: The scientific community has FAILED TO COMMUNICATE its findings in a way that people can easily understand. Further, some scientists make arrogant statements using evolution to ridicule religion because of their own prejudices. This arrogance fosters fear and anxiety in many nonscientific people. [Image] Evolution is a NEW IDEA: Many people are fearful of new ideas and prefer to live with the comfortable myths they learned as children. They are threatened by new knowledge and the change that it brings (witness the Internet). Evolution is only ~150 yr. old. How many of you know people who HATE/FEAR computers, VCRs or even TV? [Image] The response of RELIGION: Many religions, either out of ignorance or fear feel that the evolutionary concept somehow challenges the concept of a CREATOR and hence threatens their religion. Some of this response is honest ignorance and misguided fear, but in many cases it is promulgated by individuals who use people's fear and ignorance to frighten and CONTROL THEM. For general discussion in this course, I group the religious foes of evolution as CREATIONISTS. Generally Creationist insist that the bible story of Genesis is true as written with regard to the 6 (24 hr) days of creation and that GOD created each animal life as we see it today, whole and in its final form, to remain so forever. Interestingly enough, many Creationists now accept the idea of MICROEVOLUTION occurring with microbes and domestic animals, plants etc., but they refuse to relate that to higher animals and, most particularly, to HUMANS. For a discussion focused on human evolution click here. EXTRA CREDIT COMMENTARY: Members of Micro 101 ONLY: Send your well reasoned comments on the section above, "Why is there an evolutionary controversity", as described in the syllabus. [Image] The attack on evolution is likely a "straw man" for what really angers and threatens many people. The real issue is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. After all the theory of evolution came out of the application of the scientific method to questions of the nature of life, its variations and changing forms etc. It is the application of the scientific method that challenges the myths, superstitions, prejudices etc. of people and is seen by many to undermine religion. Perhaps a good simile is the tobacco industry. The thousands of people who earn their living from growing, processing and selling tobacco products cling fiercely to the belief that tobacco products are NOT HARMFUL TO HUMAN HEALTH. These people are clearly threatened by the scientific data obtained by the scientific method that indicates that tobacco is a dangerous product that costs society billions of dollars in additional health care as well as the early death of those we love. Click here for a detailed discussion of the attempt to remove evolution from American textbooks. Click here to look at articles in the Skeptical Enquirer debunking common myths; try not to get too angry if they hit on one of your favor myths. Click here to find more articles on evolution from a variety of perspectives. -------------------------------------- SOME "GOD TALK" QUOTES FROM SCIENTISTS STEPHEN HAWKING (NPW = Nobel Prize Winner): The big-bang may reveal "the mind of God"; "The space available for God appears to be shrinking [as science explains more]." GEORGE SMOOT (astrophysicist): The background radiation may represent "the handwriting of God". FRANCIS COLLINS (geneticist): "When something new is revealed about the human genome, I enperience a feeling of awe at the realization that humanity now knows something only God knew before." "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?" RICHARD DAWKINS (geneticist): "Only the scientifically illiterate accept the 'why' question where living creatures are concerned." JOSHUA LEDERBERG (geneticist, NPW): "Nothing so far disproves the divine. What is incontrovertilble is that a religious impulse guides our motive in sustaining scientific inquiry. Beyond that it's all speculation." STEVEN WEINBERG (physicist, NPW): "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." "What we learn about physical law seems coldly impersonal and gives no hint of meaning or purpose." ALAN DRESSLER (astronomer): "People have given up the old belief that humanity is at the physical center of the universe, but must come back to believing that we are at the center of meaning." For more on this read Science 277:890('97). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS AGAINST EVOLUTION FAQ: "If there are solid scientific facts that support the creationist proposal, why shouldn't they be given equal time in science classes with evolution?" The largest group of individuals that oppose evolution call themselves CREATIONISTS. Generally they believe that the bible explains how all life on the planet, particularly human life, was created and that no further explanation is required. The extremist among them want to [Image]ban the teaching of evolution as an affront to GOD or, at least, to have "creation science" given equal time in science classes. Less extreme creationists, who are not concerned with banning evolutionary teaching, are not heard from much and thus are not politically significant. Below are some of the arguments creationists put forth to "prove" evolution wrong. [Image] Creation Science: Creationists claim that they have "scientific" data to disprove evolution. However, their data has not been obtained using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and there is no valid support for ANY such data. The Creationists often pose the argument "It COULD OF HAPPENED this way" meaning that if you can't absolutely prove something didn't happen, it must have happened--end of argument. Does this make sense to you? [Image] Paucity of data supporting evolution: There is overwhelming scientific data collected by thousands of scientists over 100s of yr. that support evolution. While we can't create a new earth and follow the development of life over 4 billion yr., evolutionists can do copious experiments that support the basic tenets of evolutionary theory. Farmers, as they select breeds of plants for improved yield are performing evolutionary experiments; breeders of cats, dogs and other animals use sound evolutionary principles in breeding new strains and varieties. The appearance of bacteria and insects resistant to antibiotics and insecticides respectively, are examples of evolution in action. Even humans demonstrate evolution. The various human skin colors etc. fit the evolutionary theory. We know that the Europeans of today are more resistance to tuberculosis, leprosy and the bubonic plague than they appear to have been in the middle ages when these disease decimated the human populations of Europe. This supports the SURVIVAL of the FITTEST. [Image] The lack of a MISSING LINK: Creationists point to the fact that the link between modern humans and our ape-like ancestors has NOT BEEN FOUND. However we have found, and are continually finding, remains of humanoids 3 to 5 million yr. old. The bones of these humanoids have similarities that support various degrees of relationship to modern man. The advantage of the Creationists' argument is that no matter what fossils are found, they will always declare that it is "NOT the M.L.", because there is no sharp line, only a gradual accumulation of change that we currently call MODERN MAN; it is a classical case of "I win, you lose" game playing. [Image]The massive disagreement between evolutionists: Evolutionists disagree as to the of meaning of the fossil finds & experimental data. Creationists frequently quote from the arguments between evolutionary scientists that disagree with the INTERPRETATION of various findings and experimental data. They argue that if the "scientists themselves can't agree, then clearly evolution must be wrong, as such a major NATURAL LAW should be easy to prove." The fallacy here is that the evolutionary scientists are only arguing about DETAILS, much like two people might argue over which make/model of car is best, or which is the best route to take to a given destination, or which religion, Catholic or Protestant is best. Another thought here is that given the history of religious disagreements over, not only what is the ONE CORRECT RELIGION, but over the details of meanings in the BIBLE etc., one could argue that perhaps religions are wrong because something a big as GOD should be easy to prove! [Image]Evolution goes AGAINST the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Since the ENTROPY of the universe increases and since life is the most organized thing known, life could only have come about if the CREATOR of the universe allowed it. The error in this argument lies in the true meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It actually states only that the universe is GOING to become totally random at some point in the future. But, as we know, it is possible to take the raw, disorganized materials in ore etc. and convert it into highly organized cars, TVs and computers without breaking the 2nd law. The organization comes about at the expense of a lot of ENERGY (from organized, energy-rich coal, oil etc.) in the form of heat, light, etc. that is broken down (DISORDER) so that some order (e.g. cars) can TEMPORARILY be made. The net process of building a TV set or a baby ALWAYS RESULTS IN A NET INCREASE IN ENTROPY at the end of the universal-day. [Image] Figure 2. The earth collects a tiny fraction of the entropy energy released by the sun (~4 pounds of light/second), but it is enough to fuel the life on this planet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW DOES EVOLUTION ACTUALLY WORK DAY-TO-DAY? Evolution works because of RANDOM MUTATIONS that change the physiology, and morphology of living organisms. These changes are subsequently TESTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT to determine which changes offers a better change of survival. If a given mutation does improve an organism's chances for survival, that mutated gene generally tends to be passed on to the future generations because those with the mutation have MORE BABIES that themselves survive to become reproducing adults. The process is called NATURAL SELECTION (NS) or SURVIVAL of the FITTEST. NS works because the environment constantly changes and selects for characteristics that improve an organism's chance for survival in the changed environment. The following are some examples to help you understand how NS works. * Selection of a "long-haired dog": A dog breeder, acting as the "AGENT OF NATURAL SELECTION", examines the pups a dog has. He, SAVES only those pups that have slightly longer hair than normal (the desired characteristic) and sells, sterilizes or destroys the shorter-haired pups. He then breeds the "long-haired pups" to get more long-haired dogs. By continuing to SELECT, SAVE AND BREED only the pups with longer-than-normal hair each generation, he eventually obtains a strain with much longer hair than what he began with. The mutations in the genes that produce the long hair are RANDOM EVENTS over which the owner has no control; he is only able to respond to what these random events give him by SELECTING OUT THE DESIRED MUTANTS AND ALLOWING THEM TO BREED. CAN CREATIONISTS EXPLAIN THIS? * Mutants invade the county fair: Next time you go to a county fair be sure and visit the flower, chicken, rabbit, and pigeon exhibits to see the variety of mutations that have been selected for. These selections mimic NS exactly. * Short Frenchmen: Napoleon demanded that his personal guard be composed only of men over 6 ft. So his agents drafted every healthy French male with this characteristic. When Napoleon's army was destroyed a large percentage of the tall men were killed, possibly because they made such tempting large targets. After these wars the records show that the average height of Frenchmen fell by about 4 inches. This is another perfect example of the action of an agent of NS, in this case WAR; i.e., the bigger the target the less chance for survival DUH!. * A problem with Bugs Bunny: Australia did not have any rabbits until they were imported for sport. Since the rabbits had no natural enemies or diseases in Australia, they REPRODUCED in prodigious numbers, destroying millions of square miles of valuable grasslands and the ranching that went with them. To deal with this problem, a viral disease of rabbits was imported from Europe, the natural habitat of the rabbits. As the Australian rabbits had no natural resistance to this disease it decimated them; millions of rabbits died in a short time and the rabbit problem seemed to be solved. However, two things (both predicted by evolutionary theory) happened to change that optimistic assumption. First, a few rabbits, which by PURE CHANCE had mutant genes that rendered them resistant to the virus, survived and bred. Secondly, the virus mutated to a form that was less virulent, i.e., the disease became less deadly. The result of these events was that Australia once again has a serious rabbit problem and they have had to build 1000s of miles of fences to keep the rabbits out of the prime grazing areas. The rabbits still get the virus and some die from it, but in most rabbits it produces a mild disease which they survive. The advantage for the virus is that there are always available hosts for it to infect and grow on as long as it doesn't eliminate all the rabbits. See Sci. Am. Feb. '95, pg. 24 for a new situation there. * The SCA gene: In parts of Africa the population contains a high frequency of the gene that causes SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA (SCA). This gene causes early death in people that carry TWO COPIES of the gene, yet it persists in the population. It turns out that this region is endemic in MALARIA which kills children. A person carrying only ONE SCA GENE is MORE RESISTANT to malaria than those that carry no SCA gene. The mathematics of NS thus comes down on the side of the SCA gene, since the people carrying this gene statistically survive malaria long enough to reproduce. There are numerous examples of "evolution in action" that apply to all life forms, including humans. For a more detailed discussion of evolution see the Net evolution page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE? Some individuals suggest that Ecclesiastics 3:18-19 and Genesis supports the concept of evolution. What do you think? For additional discussion on views on evolution click Internet. Write me your thoughts on the subject if you wish and I will compile them for the class to examine (without names). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL THOUGHTS ON EVOLUTION [Image] THOUGHT QUESTION: Is a GOD that arranged a universe such that the evolutionary PROCESS produced what we see around us today any less an ALL POWERFUL CREATOR than one that created everything in six 24 hr days? The former GOD allows us to experience KENOSIS. The problem people have with this perspective is that it eliminates GOD from our everyday lives; as one view expressed it "GOD set it all running and then walked away". For example, this would apparently mean that "prayers would not be answered" if GOD does not muck in human life. However, since there seems to be no scientific way to PROVE OR DISPROVE that GOD exists, much less that HE/SHE answers prayers, then it is left up to a personal matter of faith of each individual. Nobel laureate Richard Feynman expressed this quaint view on science vs. faith in his own inimitable style: ``I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." Click here for more discussion on the same problem. -------------------------------------- FOCUS ON EVOLUTION I: MICRO GUIDED MISSILES The fungus Pilobolus launches its own missiles. This fungus lives on the dung of cattle. To complete its life cycle it must pass through a herbivore's gut. To achieve this the fungus constructs a "launch tower". At the top of this tower it forms a reproductive spore capsule containing a 100-thousand DNA ASTRONAUTS. Located under this "missile" is the "ROCKET FUEL" in the form of a special cell. The fungus also contains a "guidance system" in the form of a "LIGHT-SENSITIVE EYE". Using the information from its "eye" the fungus's computer points the capsule in the direction of the greatest light to avoid intervening obstacles. When the spore is ripe, the fuel cell builds up several atmospheres of pressure. Then in the morning, when the sun is at the best angle to provide the maximum flight distance, the fuel cell explodes and "lift off" is achieved. The explosion propels the capsule several feet away. The capsule even has a landing system in the form of a fast drying glue so that it can't be washed off by rain. Thus affixed to a grass bade it is in position to be eaten by the next hungry herbivore that comes along. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FOCUS ON EVOLUTION II: HOW PLANTS DEFEND THEMSELVES: A CASE OF MUTUAL EVOLUTION In Africa the Arcaca trees have evolved three inch sharp thorns to prevent animals from eating their leaves. However, the giraffes and antelope in turn evolved long tongues to defeat the thorns. So the Arcaca trees EVOLVED a cooperative chemical defense. They produce tannin in their leaves which is toxic to animals that eat them. But they also evolved a chemical warning system for nearby trees. When a tree is being grazed on it releases ethylene, a gas, which stimulates the nearby trees to produce toxic tannin in a few minutes. Is this the end of the story? No way, as evolution always means change. The antelopes learned to browse for only a short time; i.e. they quite before the tannin concentration builds up. The giraffe is programmed now to only eat acacia trees upwind and then it moves on to trees further away. Can you imagine what the next evolutionary escalation might between the trees and the grazers? * Oak trees also produce tannin and phenol when attacked by caterpillars and they release ethylene gas to alert oak trees downwind to produce these chemicals. o Do you think one might find caterpillars that are resistant to the tannin and phenol? o Is there another way the caterpillars might resist these chemicals without themselves becoming resistant? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Click here for a self assessment test of what you have learned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright © Dr. R. E. Hurlbert, 1997. This material may be used for educational purposes only and may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. SCIENCE HALL, ROOM 440CA PHONE: 509-335-5108 FAX: 509-335-1907 E-mail address: hurlbert@wsu.edu or hurlbert@pullman.com OFFICE HOURS: Tues. Thurs. 2:00-4:00 PM TOC [Image] [Image] [Image]