Explore Evolution The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism

Paul Nelson

John Timmer accuses Explore Evolution of what he calls the “find a Ph.D.” approach: “if you look hard enough, you can find someone with a PhD who will say anything.” In this instance, Timmer disparages the minority viewpoint of UCLA biologist Malcolm Gordon (a tenured professor, actually), who has argued that the tetrapods may have evolved polyphyletically (i.e., more than once).

It’s the textbook catechism again: why bother with citing some lone dissenter like Gordon? Timmer counts noses, and the sum determines what is worthy of attention. Claim that the scientists cited in EE pale in numbers to those who support the catechismal view, and voilá, case closed. There is no controversy and we can all go home.

This is science by census. But does Timmer really want us to believe that numbers of scientists, and not the evidence and how best to interpret it, is what matters?

As it happens—to play along with Timmer’s counting-noses game—Gordon developed his view with the late UCLA paleontologist Everett Olson (a former president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), in Invasions of the Land: The Transitions of Organisms from Aquatic to Terrestrial Life(1995), a book published by Columbia University Press. More recently, Gordon articulated his ideas with the Australian paleontologist John Long. But, as Timmer says, these are just another couple of Ph.Ds—you know: find a Ph.D, he’ll say anything.

So let’s look at the evidence. A review of the literature shows that there is much more to this story than Timmer lets on.

Surveying the problem of the overall picture of tetrapod evolution, Gordon (1999, 338) writes:

Despite the large volume of publication, however, the underlying reality remains unchanged: everything we know is circumstantial and indirect, and what actually occurred remains unknown.

This sentiment was later confirmed in part by Takezaki et al. (2004). They compared sequences of 44 nuclear genes encoding over 10,400 positions in their attempts to resolve the phylogenetic relationships between the coelacanth, lungfish and tetrapod lines. They write:

Apparently, the coelacanth, lungfish, and tetrapod lineages diverged within such a short time interval that at this level of analysis, their relationships appear to be an irresolvable trichotomy. (2004, 1512)

These findings amplify what Gordon (1999, 339) said five years earlier:

Thus there are significant variations regarding conclusions derived from molecular biological data sets, and differences between various parts of the morphological and molecular data sets. 

Gordon goes on:

The living lungfishes and the coelacanth represent tiny, randomly selected remnants of ancient groups that were numerous, varied, and widely distributed in the Devonian. One can only wonder at how accurate, or even relevant, the relationships that we estimate to exist between these organisms today may be with respect to the actual phylogenetic relationships of their basal groups. (1999, 340)

Gordon’s main point is that the biogeographic distribution of the tetrapods in the Late Devonian, coupled with the incongruence of molecular data, coupled with a knowledge of the range of environments occupied by early tetrapods, support the contention that the tetrapods may have arisen polyphyletically. The assumed sarcopterygian progenitors in the Late Devonian had low offspring dispersal ranges and limited geographic ranges, yet the early tetrapods they supposedly evolved into also occupied separate and limited geographic ranges, and had limited dispersal. Many of the earliest tetrapods inhabited environments from shallow marine tidal areas to brackish environments to fresh (Blieck et al., 2007).

However, these groups were also widely separated without any apparent environmental continuity between them at the time of their evolution. Late Devonian tetrapod species are “highly endemic” (Clack 2006, 184), meaning that they are “restricted to the locality or region where they have been collected” (Blieck et al. 2007, 229). The fossils come from sites many thousands of miles apart.

Thus, the phylogenetic series reconstructed in familiar evolutionary cladograms include taxa rarely found together as fossils. Cambridge University paleontologist Jennifer Clack, an expert on this evidence, notes that “taking the tetrapods sites worldwide, one thing is obvious: they lie scattered over the globe in places that were remote from each, on separate continents, even in the Devonian” (2002, 99). “These forms,” note other paleontologists working on the puzzle (Zhu et al. 2002, 720), “seem to have achieved worldwide distribution and great taxonomic diversity within a relatively short time.” This paleo-biogeographical puzzle raises significant evidential difficulties for monophyletic (single origin) scenarios.

Weighing these paleo-biogeographic challenges, Clack (2002, 99) considers the possibility of polyphyletic tetrapod origins, but then dismisses that hypothesis as less likely than the monophyletic scenario:

The alternative, that tetrapods radiated independently from lobe-fins that had originally been euryhaline [salt-tolerating] and subsequently lost their salt tolerance, seems even more unlikely and countered by the detailed similarities that are found in the tetrapods now known from over the world.

Here Gordon disagrees—and we have a case study in the fragility of the “consilience” of data lauded by Timmer.

Timmer argues that a “consilience” of different lines of evidence strongly favors the catechismal (monophyletic) tale, and faults EE for neglecting this consilience (e.g., the putatively mutually reinforcing molecular and anatomical data). He complains, for instance, that EE says nothing about the methods of cladistics, the approach within biological systematics that organizes taxa by shared characters: “A description of cladistic methods,” he writes, “doesn’t appear at all in EE.

But it is an open question whether molecules do reinforce morphology. Furthermore, as Gordon wryly observes (1999, 339)—and as is generally known among systematists—cladistic methods presuppose common ancestry:

First, since the analyses [of tetrapod relationships] were all done cladistically, the underlying phylogenetic model in all cases was monophyletic. A single “main line” of tetrapod evolution is assumed to have existed in all cases. Possible polyphyletic scenarios were methodologically and philosophically excluded as implausible.

The widely-used software packages that implement cladistic methods will try to arrange molecular and anatomical data (characters) into a monophyletic tree, come what may. Some of the characters will end up as homologies — i.e., as similarities caused by common ancestry — and others as homoplasies — i.e., as similarities not caused by common ancestry — but the assumption that a monophyletic tree exists somewhere in the data is not up for grabs. Cladistic methods generate monophyletic trees, because they can’t help but make such trees: that’s what the methods were designed to do.

As Gordon’s skepticism about cladistics indicates, behind the public proclamations that molecules confirm morphology, which Timmer recites, is an extensive scientific debate about the dangers of circularity in systematic methods. These questions are well-known to working systematists.

Could students hear about these questions? Why not? Is the catechism really more important?

EE concerns itself, therefore, with the logically prior question of “How do biologists infer (know) that all organisms, or some group of organisms, share a common ancestor?” That’s a question students need to be able to answer, weighing the evidence pro and con, before they take up the merits of cladistics (which assumes the truth of monophyly as a first principle).

References Cited

Blieck, A., G. Clement, H. Blom, H. Lelievre, E. Luksevics, M. Streel, J. Thorez and G. C. Young. 2007. The biostratigraphical and palaeogeographical framework of the earliest diversification of tetrapods (Late Devonian). Geological Society, London, Special Publications volume 278. pp. 219-235.

Clack, Jennifer. 2002. Gaining Ground: The Orign and Evolution of Tetrapods. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Clack, Jennifer A. 2006. “The emergence of early tetrapods.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 232:167-189.

Gordon, Malcolm S. 1999. “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay.” Biology and Philosophy 14:331-348.

Long, John A. and Malcolm S Gordon. 2004. “The greatest step in vertebrate history: a paleobiological review of the fish-tetrapod transition.” Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 77:700-19.

Takezaki, Naoko, Felipe Figueroa, Zofia Zaleska-Rutczynska, Naoyuki Takahata and Jan Klein. 2004. “The Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 21:1512-1524.

Timmer, John. “A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp.” September 24, 2008. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/discovery-textbook-review/.

Zhu, Min, Per E. Ahlberg, Wenjin Zhao, and Liantao Jia 2002. “First Devonian tetrapod from Asia.” Nature 420:760-1.

Reply to NCSE on Universal Genetic Code

The NCSE asserts that Explore Evolution‘s discussion of the universal genetic code, its variants, and puzzles ab The NCSE asserts that Explore Evolution‘s discussion of the universal genetic code, its variants, and puzzles about the origin of the variant codes, “is based on misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the available knowledge and of the scientific record.” The NCSE’s own discussion of this area, however, is very deeply confused. The NCSE does not grasp basic facts about the variant code puzzle, and this leads to several serious errors in their discussion. 1. Making a hash of a fascinating puzzle — the NCSE discussion We begin with the NCSE’s most serious error. They write: First, contrary to the key assertion [of EE], scientists have been aware of Read More ›

The Creationism Gambit

Science requires dissent and open inquiry for its very existence. This is true for high school students and teachers no less than for research scientists. For extra-scientific reasons, however, some members of the science establishment have long sought to protect the teaching of evolutionary theory from evidential challenges and dissent. Probably the most effective strategy for quenching such dissent is to label it as “creationism.” Since the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms has been ruled unconstitutional, one can effectively foreclose awkward but perfectly reasonable questions about evolution simply by saying, “Well, that’s the sort of question a creationist would ask — and creationism is out of bounds in this classroom.” Let’s call this the creationism gambit. The creationism Read More ›

Evolution and Testability

One question counts above all else in natural science: How can this idea—theory, hypothesis, claim—be tested? Testability gains its primacy in science from our deep understanding that empirical knowledge does not rest on authority, tradition, or majority rule, but rather on the testimony of nature itself. We can picture the structure of scientific knowledge and inquiry as a three-way relation, a logical and evidential triangle, where the three vertices are (1) the scientific community, (2) scientific theories, and (3) the physical world, or nature itself. Each of these is a necessary element of the scientific enterprise. Take away scientists, and no science will be done. Take away theories, and science loses its structure. Take away nature itself, however, and science Read More ›

Introduction: The Catechism Versus the Data

On September 24, 2008, biologist and science writer John Timmer published an online review of the supplementary biology textbook Explore Evolution (EE). Timmer had previously written about EE without having read it, so Discovery Institute sent him a copy. Alas—having EE in his hands improved neither the quality of Timmer’s writing about the book, nor indeed his coverage of the relevant science. In fact, Timmer so baldly misrepresents both the content of Explore Evolution, but especially the associated scientific evidence and controversies, that his review perfectly illustrates the need for a book like EE. Our reply will reverse the order of Timmer’s review. He starts by using nearly 1200 words to speculate about the motives of EE‘s authors. Since Timmer Read More ›

Molecular Phylogeny and Phylogenetic Trees

The National Center for Science Education critique of Explore Evolution argues that molecular data confirm the theory of common ancestry. This might be the case, if it were possible to show how molecular data could also disconfirm the theory of common ancestry. But here, as elsewhere in their rebuttal, the NCSE presupposes common ancestry as a first principle. Molecular data should fit to a monophyletic tree. In this respect, of course, the NCSE rebuttal reflects widespread reasoning, and actual practice, within evolutionary biology and systematics. Start with the geometry (or topology) of a tree, and locate the data on that geometry. As Sober and Steel (2002, 395) note, This proposition [of common ancestry] is central because it is presupposed so widely in Read More ›

Malcolm Gordon and the Origin of Tetrapods

John Timmer accuses Explore Evolution of what he calls the “find a Ph.D.” approach: “if you look hard enough, you can find someone with a PhD who will say anything.” In this instance, Timmer disparages the minority viewpoint of UCLA biologist Malcolm Gordon (a tenured professor, actually), who has argued that the tetrapods may have evolved polyphyletically (i.e., more than once). It’s the textbook catechism again: why bother with citing some lone dissenter like Gordon? Timmer counts noses, and the sum determines what is worthy of attention. Claim that the scientists cited in EE pale in numbers to those who support the catechismal view, and voilá, case closed. There is no controversy and we can all go home. This is science by census. But Read More ›

The “Fact” of Evolution

What is the “fact” of evolution? John Timmer in his critique of Explore Evolution (EE), argues that “aspects of the theory [of evolution] can be safely treated as fact,” and in support of this point, cites a paper by the Canadian geneticist T. Ryan Gregory, entitled “Evolution as Fact, Theory and Path.” Here is how Gregory (2008, 49) defines the “fact” of evolution: The notion that species may change through time and that living organisms are related to one another through common descent…species have changed over time and are connected by descent from common ancestors. Change through time, descent of organisms from common ancestors—hey, that sounds familiar: Evolution #1: “Change over time” First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see Read More ›

The Definitions of “Evolution”

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) alleges that Explore Evolution (EE) uses “erroneous” and “irrelevant” definitions of the term “evolution” and employs “a false distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.” These errors are said to flow from a “modern creationist strategy” of misrepresenting the definitions of science and evolution. Evolution, according to the NCSE, is a “single concept.” Really? Beginning with Darwin himself, evolutionary biologists have distinguished the theory that evolution (i.e., descent with modification) occurred from hypotheses about how evolution occurred. Indeed, it would be impossible to understand post-Darwinian controversies about, for instance, the relative importance of natural selection, if “evolution” were a single, or unitary concept, or if logically and evidentially distinct notions referred to as “evolution”—such as change over Read More ›

Monophyly vs. Polyphyly and Christian Schwabe

One theme of Explore Evolution (EE) addresses differing views among evolutionary biologists about Darwin’s Tree of Life, i.e., the theory of the universal common ancestry of all organisms on Earth: more precisely, the monophyly of terrestrial life, rooted in the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA. While the majority position within evolutionary biology endorses monophyly, a growing minority of workers argue for multiple independent origins, or polyphyly (see below). It’s an important controversy, well worth the attention of textbooks. But John Timmer accuses EE of a “bait-and-switch” move in describing this controversy. By “lumping…together in a single footnote” several scientists with very different views about the overall pattern of life’s history, he argues, EE tries for “borrowed credibility,” misleading its readers about the true outlines of Read More ›

The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism