Conclusion about the contribution of the study of evolution to the well-being of mankind.

Aside from the many practical uses of the information learned from the study of the theory of evolution, there is a more subtle and less easily defined reason to study the subject: the pursuit of  evidentiary truth about our world and ourselves; how we got to where we are; why we function as we do; and, for that matter, it is fascinating to know about the world of bugs, plants, extinct animals, extant animals, rocks, oceans, etc., etc. Humans are curious beings, and we are most curious about ourselves. Since time immemorial, people have strenuously strived to learn about the hows and whys of their existence. Thousands of religions have provided answers based on the supernatural and tradition which have offered comfort and solace or fear and subjection but are satisfying to the majority of people of today as they were from the earliest recordings (pre-historic and pre-writing) of mankind on earth.

The ancient Greeks sought answers from the natural world around them and began fostering scientific investigation with the underlying desire to know about the real world they were experiencing. That drive persists in people today who, for example, find it overly difficult to believe that the planet earth, and, in fact, the universe, began in about 4,000 B.C. and was completed in its present form in six working days. Those people wanted to have plausible answers about the age of rocks, to have explanations about the very old appearing skeletal fossils, some of which looked rather like humans, but less refined.

The search for a unifying set of concepts about these discoveries led, in time, to the postulation of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection which provided a framework for learning about and eventually to the understanding of the processes of change and many of the systems of life itself. Pioneering minds posed propositions about what was happening—change over time. Their successors provided answers about how the change happened(s) in molecular genetics and evolutionary development. The compendium of knowledge is now staggeringly large and complex and, most important for the present discussion, absolutely fascinating. As Darwin put it: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one: and that whilst this planet has gone cycling according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved”.

Evolution is a fascinating and important field to know about, especially since it is concerned with the very core of life’s processes and changes. It is history, basic biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, anthropology, geography, mathematics, anatomy, physiology, botany, geology, archeology, and a host of other disciplines. The studies already done and that are being done every day around the world are of highly exacting quality and rigor. That alone is exciting; the data produced has the consistent and verifiable ring of truth. The conclusions are roundly debated, and it is incumbent on any researcher who ventures to write on the subject to be sure of his/her data since someone will retest it. That kind of truth, shorn of any anecdotal or personal bias in the end, is most satisfying to the cadre of people who delve deeply into it. It is biblical in its depth and scope: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Holy Bible, Gospel of St. John, 8:32.

Software engineering. Because of the computer revolution, we are now using software that is increasingly sophisticated.  The evolution of computer systems has come about from a human need to produce software too complicated for a human mind to write. Software engineers took a page from biological evolution—natural selection—which the engineers call genetic algorithms. The concept is that of writing simpler pieces of software that engineers put into competitions against each other. The software then evolves by mutating, that is, by essentially inserting random changes into the code and then going through succeeding rounds of selection. Soft-ware engineers have borrowed this process from evolutionary biologists. (Massimo Pigliucci, PhD., professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York)

Forensics. The ways that DNA evidence is interpreted and analyzed in forensic cases depends directly on principles of evolution. To be able to say that a DNA match for a suspect is significant to a case, the examiner must know important facts about the distribution of that particular kind of DNA in a human population. Ergo, the forensic scientist must know about how human populations themselves evolve in order to make a more meaningful comparison among the simple suspect data being analyzed.

Two interesting examples are found in Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Chapter 14, Forensic Science, pp 262-263 2007, Blackwell Publishing. “MtDNA studies were performed on Neanderthal fossilized bones to evaluate their contributions to the modern gene pool. In addition, genetic technology is now widely used in forensics in the identification of criminals and their victims.

“Recent  skeletons can also yield enough DNA for forensic studies. One interesting case is that of members of the Romanov dynasty, a family line that ruled Russia from 1613 until 1917, the year of the Bolshevik Revolution. Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Tsarina Alexandra, and their five children were executed by Bolshevik guards who feared that counter-revolutionary troops approaching the town of Ekaterinograd might attempt to release their captives. The Romanovs’ bodies were buried in an unidentified grave. In 1991, a Russian geologist uncovered a pit containing several skeletons in the vicinity. British and Russian geneticists examined DNA isolated from the presumed skeleton of Alexandra and her three daughters and found it to be a perfect match for Prince Philip of Edinburgh (a maternal descendant of the Tsarina). DNA from the presumed skeleton of the Tsar was less straightforward, but further research demonstrated a rare mtDNA occurrence…and confirmed his identity…

“Closer to our current times is the Laci Peterson murder case. In November, 2004, Scott Peterson of Modesto, California was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, whose decomposed body was recovered from the San Francisco Bay together with that of her unborn son. In spite of the advanced state of decay of the bodies, mtDNA was recovered and confirmed their identities.

“[Scott Peterson was caught in a lie having denied that Laci had ever been on his boat] and that he was fishing on his new boat the day of her disappearance. A single hair found on the boat matched Laci’s mtDNA which convinced the jury of Scott’s guilt.” Forensics is another example of evolutionary medicine wherein biotechnological and medical research are able to use exquisite evolutionary principles.

Onofri, V., et. al., Development of Multiples PCRs for Evolutionary and Forensic Applications of 37 Human Y Chromosome SNPs. Forensic Science International, Volume 157, Issue 1: 23-35, details an elaborate and exquisitely well verified study of Y chromosomes and describes an efficient and rapid test for typing 37 single nucleotide polymorphisms using six PCR multiplexes. The sequential application of these multiplexes is a robust and effective resource for typing the most frequent European Y-SNP haplogroups and appears to be suitable for forensic purposes and evolutionary studies.

Management of territory. Scientists in the broad field of evolution studies are involved in issues related to occupancy of areas of habitat. City planners, developers, the forest services, large agri-businesses, and wildlife management personnel are regularly faced with thorny issues of what kind of animals and how many can live in a given territory. Burgeoning human populations push for ever more space at the expense of each other, the environment, and other creatures that share our planet. One need only gain even a super-ficial knowledge of the problems faced over use and preservation of Brazilian rain forest territory to appreciate the magnitude of the problems. Real science, based on factual evolutionary history and process-ses is frequently regarded as the only way to arrive at sensible and sustainable compromises. Implications are serious for conservation and management of declining populations. Concerned environmentalists, protective of wild animal populations and their habitat, seek formal evolution based scientific studies in order to convey their requests to government entities.

UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves studies the condition and uses of particularly important and fragile regions of biodiversity in order to protect those few areas left on earth where plants and animals teeter in a delicate natural balance. The beauty and quality of such regions are strong draws for tourists and therefore provide much needed income for the local populations of people, provide a rich area of study for biologists of all stripes, and are considered to be treasures of our world worthy of careful management and safe-keeping. One such area is Gran Canaris, an island under the strict protection of Spain. In spite of its small surface, Gran Canaria presents a great biodiversity. Its insular condition, geographic isolation, and the variety of ecological niches available for the vegetation have favored a high number of endemic species. Of the 600 taxa of terrestrial vascular flora identified in the Gran Canaria Bio-sphere Reserve created by UNESCO with the ongoing consultation of evolutionary scientists, 95 are endemic to Gran Canaria alone, 101 are endemic to the Canary Archipelego, and 32 are endemic to Macronesia. This high rate of endemism makes the area of vital importance for the conservation of biodiversity, an issue the United Nations takes seriously enough to expend considerable resources to further and to require strict scientific evidence to effect present management and future preservation.

Pursuing the advice of its evolutionary scientists, the Gran Canaria Biosphere occupies one-third of the island and is surrounded by a buffer zone. It includes a number of self-interested municipalities, and the local people have enthusiastically adopted the practices recommended by the scientists in order to protect their own tourism industry. In recent years, different specific scientific programs have been developed and co-financed with the European Commission through the LIFE project which has been involved in such projects as conservation of the chaffinch, bottlenose dolphin, loggerhead turtle, endangered flora, the impact of invasive species, the establishment of permanent forest monitoring plots for the analysis of the state of the forests, and even the ecological impact of tourist whale-watching. UNESCO, under the direction of its scientists and fully trained managers, regularly and continuously monitors the effects of drought, erosion, geology, geomorphy, groundwater, habitat, hydrology, modeling, physical oceanography/oceans, soil, and topography, all based on the scientific disciplines with a firm evolutionary base.

Ongoing monitoring studies include afforestation/reforestation, algae, amphibians, arid/semiarid zones, biogeography, biology, biotechnology, birds, coastal marine zones, endemic species, ethology, evolutionary studies/paleoecology, fire ecology, fishes, invertebrates, island/highland/mountain systems, species inventory and a host of others. The impact and interrelationship of socio-economic factors are an integral part of the evaluation and monitoring efforts. UNESCO and the Spanish government keep a watchful and studied eye on agriculture/production systems, agroforestry, anthro-pological studies, archeology/paleontology, cultural aspects, demography, firewood cut-ting/harvesting, fisheries, livestock and related impacts such as overgrazing, recreation, quality economies, small business initiatives, tourism, traditional practices/ ethnology and traditional knowledge. All of this for the management of an area less than the size of New York City considered to be of inestimable value to mankind.

Anthony R.E. Sinclair, et. al., Wildlife Ecology Conservation and Management, 2^nd Ed., Blackwell Publishers, 2006, writes,

“Territoriality can play a stabilizing role on population dynamics. If there is an upper limit on the number of territories that can be supported, this can effectively cap breeding by the predator population preventing large-scale predator-prey cycles. Since many top carnivores are territorial (e.g., wolves, weasels, lions, hyenas, and tigers) this suggests that a deeper understanding of carnivore territory formation and dynamics in relation to changes in abundance of both predators and prey is essential to adequate conservation and management efforts. Foraging success is strongly affected by behavioral decisions of both predators and their prey. Evolutionary conservationists managing territories must consider a number of these decisions in planning.

“Foraging decisions are shaped by multiple constraints: optimal patch departure timing, shift to better patches, etc. Risk-sensitive foraging demands complex approaches to decision evaluation—measurement of habitat specific preferences demands special statistical tools such as resource selection functions. The knowledge, computers, and understanding of applications from the statistical resources already reside with the many methods of studying evolution, and managers employ the knowledge and tools liberally and professionally. How social processes influence foraging decisions is critical to fitness. Fitness is likely to decline as population density in a preferred habitat grows.”

In the modern world where humans have come to exercise such dominion, it is incumbent on the same humans to provide ecological management based on scientific principles and data to ensure survival and persistence of the several species utilizing habitats.

The desert tortoise of the Mojave Desert is an endangered species. Other than to minimize contact between the species and humans, little has been known or done that is effective in fostering the survival of tortoises. Hazare, L. C., et. al., Nutritional Value of Exotic Plants Eaten by Desert Tortoise Juveniles, publication in preparation, is one of many studies undertaken by the University of California, Santa Barbara and other California Universities’, evolutionary biology researchers to determine the evolution, physiology, nutrition, foraging,  predation upon, and territory of the tortoises in order to offer them effective protection. Dr. Hazare and his colleagues’ work investigated the nutritional quality of four natural food plants to determine which nutrients limited growth of wild tortoises and to evaluate the potential nutritional impact of invasive plant species on tortoise growth and survivorship. To date, it has been determined that phosphorus and nitrogen were potentially limiting nutrients, and the work in progress is assessing the ecological importance of phophorus nutrition for tortoises. The several university biology departments involved in these ongoing studies of desert tortoise territory are working directly with the State of California and interested environmentalist/ecologist groups to assist the tortoises to be successful individually and as a species to live in an optimum habitat, to limit predation, and to prevent human misbehavior with regards to this endangered species.

Conservation  biology.  An excellent discussion of the subject is found in Scott P. Carroll, Editor, and Charles W. Fox, Editor, Conservation Biology: Evolution in Action, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008. The following is quoted from that book, pages 11, 13-14:

“Forensic applications: The goal of DNA coding methodologies is for use in large-scale taxonomic screening of one or a few reference loci to assign individuals to species and to tease apart cryptically varying taxa. The most frequently used gene for this task is cytochrome c oxidase (COI) from the mitochondrion. For identifications—often of relevance to conservation—will undoubtedly be enhanced by COI sequencing and any standardization of genetic methods and data has inherent advantages. Ultimately, richer genomic characterizations will be desirable, especially in problematic situations…

“Evolutionary genetics studies include important considerations such as environmental changes or introduction of invasive species. Conservation genetics has important links to this topic, if for no other reason than that evolution is by definition, genetic change across time. The general answer is clear: [today’s populations] will respond exactly as populations have responded across millennia by adapting or by going extinct…]

“Considerable discussion has centered on phylogenetic destructiveness as a measure of taxon “worth” when priority decisions are made regarding investigation of ecosystems with the availability only of finite time and conservation resources. A basic notion is that unique (in other words, long separated) evolutionary lineages contribute disproportionately to the planet’s overall genetic diversity, such that their extinction would constitute a far greater loss of biodiversity than would the extinction of species that have extant close relatives. That evolutionary/ecological conservation argument often conflicts with a species’ inherent charismatic appeal to humans, and conservation biology can help provide firm science-based choices about how and where to use limited funds and other resources for conservation purposes.

“Biodiversity can be exuberant and tenacious, but, paradoxically, it can also be fragile. The overarching working question of conservation biology is what balance, if any, will be achieved in the coming decades between each of the counterposing genetic forces…We have already destroyed a noticeable amount of the planet’s evolutionary genetics heritage in direct or indirect consequence of the burgeoning human population…The truly pressing issue for the 21^st century is the degree to which standing biodiversity, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that foster its maintenance, can be preserved at best quasi-intact for future generations.”

Modern theories of ecology, evolution, and conservation biology share a core of concepts and techniques that span classical academic disciplines. The common core, coupled with the emergence of powerful new technologies, invites cross disciplinary approaches, which generate many of today’s most exciting scientific knowledge. At the University of Hawai’i at Manoa (UHM), the interdisciplinary graduate specialization in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology brings together faculty members from participating graduate programs (anthropology, botany, cell and molecular biology, entomology, and geography) to provide the training students need to contribute effectively to this research area. The objectives of the interdisciplinary specialization, as stated by the university are: to exploit Hawai’s unique opportunites to integrate tropical population biology and natural history studies with modern laboratory techniques, to provide the interdisciplinary, conceptual, and technical training to participate in academic and research programs in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology, and to foster scholarly training in research programs including expertise in all of the disciplines. All of this to further the better management of the fragile and complicated eco-systems of the earth, an enterprise that is regularly contributing to the betterment of the earth and the people and other animals, plants, and waters on it. And it all hinges on what has been learned from the study of evolution.

Biotechnology and the manipulation of genes.

Biotechnology has progressed to creating things that do not exist in nature from manipulations of genes and other proteins in a manner much like what has occurred naturally during evolution. An example is one of the most profuse tools in biotechnology, using enzymes to splice pieces of DNA at particular locations. These are the basis for what has been made possible through the understanding and manipulation of molecular evolution during the second half of the twentieth century. Remarkably, additional studies revealed that the very enzymes used in the lab to splice DNA for the scientists’ own purposes are actually evolved in bacteria to protect them from attacks by viruses. The result is that splicing enzymes—enzymes that cut DNA in particular places—are formidable weapons that natural selection evolved to protect the bacteria from viruses. The enzyme splicing is effective because those enzymes can recognize the viral host DNA as distinct from bacterial DNA. Molecular biologists have, through evolution research, discovered a valuable class of enzymes which are useful in medicine and agriculture.

David Erickson, PhD., teaches microbiology at BYU and researches the transmission of bubonic plague by fleas. He studies the infection process and is interested in genes that help the plague germs make their way from the mammal to the flea and back again. His studies are basic evolution, and his findings shed light on a fascinating co-evolutionary parasitosis that involves bacteria, fleas, and humans. He and his students found that once inside the flea, the plague bacteria produce a sticky polysaccharide glue the conglomerates to plug the flea’s esophagus causing the flea to starve. When the cold-blooded flea feeds on a warm-blooded human, plague bacteria are first injected in clumps held together by the glue, but once in the human, the glue is promptly dissolved and spreads rapidly. Dr. Erickson is working on a vaccine that attacks the glue form, so that as soon as the body encounters

A slight mutation in the matched nucleotides can lead to chromosomal aberrations and unintentional genetic rearrangement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

it, and before the glue has a chance to melt, the bacteria are attacked. He proposes to use a vaccine against the flea version rather than the human version of the plague. Additional work coming from Erickson’s lab based on the basic research has produced transgenic mosquitoes that are incapable of transmitting diseases which opens new avenues for attacking vector borne infections diseases of humans.

BYU professor, Jim Porter, PhD.’s research involves the fetal origins of adult disease at a basic genetic level. He and his students are evaluating an hypothesis that environment during pregnancy repro-grams the genes of the fetus which impact the individual throughout life. He studies pregnant rats and focuses on cardiovascular health. Porter and his students have found that female rats that were gestated on high salt and later stressed, had significantly higher blood pressure and heart rate compared to control rats on a normal diet. Out of about 30,000 genes in the rat, the investigators have narrowed their work down to just one gene that appears to be involved. It is of interest that the same gene is also found in humans, another example of evo-devo. Dr. Porter states, “it appears that the mother is not passing on salt itself to her babies, but rather she’s passing on some sort of genetic signal which affects her pups later in life. The response seems to be originating in the brain”.

1. Agriculture. In 1798, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, surmising that population growth would always out run food production. At that time, about 5 acres of land were required to produce food for each one of the Earth’s one billion people. In 2009, there were more than 6 billion—and in 2014, nearly 7 billion–and each of them eats from about ½ acre. How did this tenfold increase in production happen? Among the many steps taken to keep food available, one of the most important was the introduction of hybrid vigor in plant breeding as a direct result of practical application of Darwin’s principles of selection for evolution.  The biggest single leap forward, however, was the so-called Green Revolution of the 1940s-1960s wherein genes were bred into cereal crops by laboriously crossbreeding thousands of plant varieties from around the world. This application of basic molecular biology–the genetic forces of evolution–made it possible to save over one billion people from starvation.

Another agricultural revolution has begun that is dwarfing those that preceded it. A by-product of evo-devo makes it possible to map and understand genes on a molecular level. Now agricultural scientists can give specific desired characteristics to plants, animals, and microorganism. This scientifically grounded set of processes makes it pos-sible to avoid long hit-and-miss, trial-and-error efforts. We can now select specific genes and insert them where they are needed, use more than one copy of a gene, and can turn genes on and off to suit our needs to protect against diseases, insects, and drought. The new gene altered products have improved nutritional food content, can live in colder and hotter climates, and have a longer seed and product. This is self-preservation, and it is a direct outgrowth of evolution.

Norman Borlaun, aptly called the father of the Green Revolution, commented in the Wall Street Journal on the Gene Revolution. Among the things he said were:

“Since 1906, the planting of genetically modified crops developed through biotechnology has spread to about 250 million acres around the world…In each of the last six years, biotech cotton saved U.S. farmers from using 93 million gallons of water in water scarce areas, 2.4 million gallons of fuel, and 41,000 person-days to apply the pesticides…Agricultural science and technology, including the indispensable tools of biotechnology, will be critical to meeting the growing demands for food, feed, fiber, and biofuels…This flourishing new branch of science extends to food crops, fuels, fibers, livestock, and even forest products.”

And it is based on the solid principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory related to heritable changes associated with natural selective processes.

In 2007, U.S. farmers were engaged in the Gene Revolution by using genetically modified seeds for 75% of the corn, 87% of the cotton, and 91% of the soybeans planted. Milk is coagulated to make cheese by an enzyme originally extracted from the stomachs of young calves, but now raised in yeast cells containing calf genes. The Gene Revolution is spreading world-wide. The anticipated world population in 2050 will be about 9 billion people who will need to be fed. Present day technology and new innovations from gene research will be necessary to continue to prove Malthus wrong and to ensure survival and good nutrition for all the Earth’s population. Today’s basic genetic research is being translated into genetic technology at an astounding rate; current genetic technology is processing that genetic information thousands of times faster than approaches used just a generation ago, and with unprecedented accuracy. From today’s perspective, with what has been learned from the study of evolution, the future seems to be assured.

The Life Sciences and Department of Biology at Brigham Young University (BYU) is very active in studying and pursuing basic evolutionary/genetic/cellular biology research in a wide assortment of fields. Rex Cates, PhD., researches medicinal plants used by rural people in Morocco, Guatemala, Ecuador, and the U.S. desert southwest. He and his students focus on plant extracts that have reduced toxicity to normal human cells, but that are active against diseases such as herpes virus, E-coli, various cancers, Staphylococcus, and yeast infections. Of 200 plants and lichens tested, 20% have yielded promising extracts, and four are extremely promising, according to Cates. His work has shown that many of the plants studied have important activity against human diseases and low toxicity to normal cells.

Joel Griffitts, PhD., teaches bacterial genetics at BYU and investigates interactions between bacteria and plants. Dr. Griffitts points out that the “whole living world would not be what it is without [the unique interaction between special bacteria and legumes].” Further, as one example, he has researched a soil-borne bacteria, rhizobia, that infects the roots of alfalfa. In a fascinating evolutionarily selected symbiotic relationship, the infected plant creates a fleshy root nodule around the bacteria. Dr. Griffitts observed that, once within the alfalfa, “they transform themselves and take on the capacity to convert nitrogen from the air into fertilizers.” The bacteria and the alfalfa have established a very close and cooperative relationship. What triggers new genes to be expressed and a differentiation event to occur once the bacteria encounters the plant is Dr. Griffitts’ and his students’ focus of study.  This is as much the study of evolution as Sean B. Carroll, PhD.’s commitment to finding out how evolution takes place with his involvement in basic evolutionary development. Dr. Griffitts says, “my vision is that we will be able to identify the full suite of plant and bacterial functions that allow a symbiotic interaction to occur. Perhaps one day we will be able to transfer what we know about this system to cereal crops that don’t naturally engage these bacteria the way legumes do.”

Dr. Josh Udall is a professor of genetics and genomics at BYU who works to improve salt and drought tolerance in cotton. He focuses on his knowledge that cotton is a diploid; it carries two copies of all genes. His work is an attempt to activate both copies of the genes involved in drought tolerance or to silence a gene copy that is making cotton susceptible to stress. Udall and his students work at the molecular level measuring the expression of thousands of genes at a time in order to identify those genes associated with salt stress. Dr. Mark J. Rowe of the Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Science at BYU recently retired. His work involved the use of mitochondrial genetics to research obesity and longevity.

Andre Chanderbali, PhD., is the lead author of a study on ancient flowers at the University of Florida’s Museum of Natural History. The starting place for their study is that “the origin of the flower is the key to the origin of angiosperms (flowering plants)”. The goal of their research is to understand the original regulatory program (something on the order of the Hox genes in animals), or set of genetic switches, that produced the first flower in the common ancestor of all living flowering plants. Better understanding of these genetic switches holds an eventual goal of helping scientists in fields such as medicine or agriculture, including help in growing plants used to fight disease or developing more drought-resistant crops.

Contributions from evolution studies related to cancer and its treatment.

Mounting discoveries about the astoundingly complex essence of cancer—that its causes lie in multitudes of genes (of evolution) gone awry—are also pointing the way toward treatments aimed at direct intervention with a unique set of genetic errors. In the October, 2008 issue of Nature journal, medical scientists reported having identified 26 key mutated genes linked to lung cancer alone. This diversity, and the underlying genes as core to the problem, means that the historical blunt force triumvirate of treatment—surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation—are no longer the only tools for treatment; and medicine is moving towards a much more highly individualized set of treatment regimens.

About a quarter of breast cancers are especially aggressive with an excess of HER2 gene copies. The gene causes an overproduction of a certain protein on the cell surface that serves as a receptor for a growth-spurring substance. Knowledge of that gene from study of the genomes of breast cancers and their rapid-growing evolution, has been utilized to make a drug (Herceptin) that blocks the receptors. The same kind of basic research has shown the genetic mutations of several other cancers including brain, ovarian, and pancreatic (with 63 mutations) tumors; and scientists are seeking ways around the function of the tumor cells and for means of penetrating their defenses. For example, a drug called Gleevee has proved effective in blocking signals that encourage cell replication in certain leukemia patients, and lung cancer drugs, Tarceva and Iressa, target the growth factor EGFR apparently by blocking expressions of mutations of EGFR. Unfortunately, as with bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the tumors find ways (by natural selection) to evade the drugs, and a medical evolutionary arms race (co-evolution) goes on.

Prostate cancer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Craig Jordan, PhD., at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is working on cancer tumor stem cell eradication including Tykerb, a drug that can selectively eliminate a number of breast cancer stem cells based on fundamental studies using the knowledge and methodology gleaned from evolutionary studies. Gleevee may work well because it eliminates leukemia stem cells. Researchers at Fred Hutchinson labs have identified a potential protein biomarker for ovarian cancer called HE4, now in use to determine how far a tumor has advanced and is being studied for clinical screening.

Prostate cancer affects 1 in 7 men for an approximate 14% lifetime risk in the general population. Using data and methods from evolutionary cellular biology/genetics several papers (see below) have focused on the 5% of prostate cancers that occur in “hereditary prostate families”—defined by either 3 or more affected first degree relatives, or three successive generations with disease, or 2 relatives diagnosed under 56 years of age. First degree relatives of affected men, in general, have a 2-3 fold increased risk for the disease. The genetic basis of prostate cancer is complex; and it appears likely that many different genes modify risk. No single gene with major cancer susceptibility has yet been identified. Unlike breast and colon cancer, where a very small number of highly penetrant genes account for some of the disease in high-risk families, a single high-risk prostate cancer gene will likely be very rare and account for an even smaller proportion of cases.

In one study, using techniques of basic evolutionary study, the genetic variant on chromosome 8q24 had an odds ratio of 1.62, meaning that an individual is 1.62 times more likely to get prostate cancer if he has that variant than a man who does not. The variant was present in 19% of affected men and in 13% of the general population of men of European ancestry. Of all men in the population with prostate cancer, 8% can attribute their prostate cancer to this particular gene variant (which results from mutational changes over time). In men of African ancestry, the variant had a similar odds ratio of 1.6; however, it was found in 41% of men with the disease and 30% of the general population. Therefore, twice as many men of African ancestry with prostate cancer (16%) as compared to European ancestry with the same disease, have this predisposition.

In a subsequent study, a second gene variant was identified in the same 8q24 region. Taken together, the two variants contribute a joint population attributable risk of 11-13% for men of European ancestry and 31% for men of African ancestry. Mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are associated with a 3-7 fold increased risk of prostate cancer by age 70. BRCA2 testing in one study of 263 men with prostate cancer identified a mutation in 6—a 2.3% frequency. Evaluation of gene CHEK 2 on chromosome 22 in one study detected variants in 4.8% of 578 prostate cancer patients and none in any of the control group. Although the identification of prostate cancer markers (above and beyond PSA) is limited and in the rather early stages of development, these and other genetic markers are part of active research projects in basic laboratories to produce diagnostic test materials that can identify prostate cancer early enough and accurately enough to prevent growth beyond the prostate capsule and metastasis [Amundadottir, L.T., et. al., A Common Variant Associated with Prostate Cancer in European and African Populations. Natural Genetics 38(6): 652-658, 2006. Foulkes, W.D., Inherited Susceptibility to Common Cancers. New England Journal of Medicine 359; 2143-2153, 2008. Gudmundsson, J., et. al, Genome-wide Association Study Identifies a Second Prostate Cancer Susceptibility Variant at 8q24, Natural Genetics 39(5): 631-637, 2007].

Contributions to medicine of students of Mario Capecchi, Ph.D. based on evolution.

Physician-scientist students of Capecchi’s have made great strides in the understanding and treatment of human diseases as a result of their studies in his lab on fundamentals–the evolution, the genetic structure, and the cellular disease process. To name one, Anne M. Moon, M.D., Ph.D., manipulated the genetic structures of mice with targeted mutations in the Fgf8 gene. The initial study mice died from heart, glandular, craniofacial, and brain deficits. Dr. Moon, as a clinician, recognized their deficits as resembling those in human patients with 22q11 deletion syndrome. Over the next ten years she discovered that a deficiency in a gene called crkl, which is required for Fgf8 function, contributes to many defects that afflict these patients. Symptoms commonly include heart disease, cleft palate, and immune deficiency. The disease is not rare; it occurs once in every 2,000-4,000 live births. The mouse models created in the Capecchi laboratory have proved useful to the understanding of the biology of this and other human diseases. The work is an integral part of the study of evolution on a cellular/genetic level.

E. Dale Abel, M.D., PhD., associate professor of internal medicine and biochemistry, and chief of the Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Diabetes is investigating heart disease in diabetics. Hearts need a large, continuous supply of energy to function, and that energy is supplied by mitochondria. In diabetics, with cardiac hypertrophy, mitochondria perform poorly. Abel, working with Capecchi’s gene markers in his cellular biology lab, recently discovered that a protein, phosphoinositide-3 Kinase (P13K), is required for mitochondria to synthesize energy efficiently in the heart. Abel and his students are working on ways to activate P13K.

Dean Y. Li, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of internal medicine and oncological sciences, uses his evolution and cellular biology knowledge to treat human vascular diseases. Li determined how mutations in the elastin gene trigger the inherited disease Supravalvular Aortic Stenosis. The disease causes arteries to narrow, which, if left untreated, can lead to heart failure. Using elastin-deficient mice, Li found that the gene instructs vascular smooth muscles (VSMCs) to maintain the integrity of arterial walls. In the absence of elastin, VSMCs divide and migrate, blocking the arterial lumen. Li said, “Human genetics told us that the gene was important for vascular development, but the mouse told us why. Knowing that allowed us to make a medical device.”

H. Steve White, PhD., professor of pharmacology and toxicology, works in the University of Utah’s ADD program, specifically with mutations associated with various forms of epilepsy by making clinically relevant mouse models. Robert Fujinami, PhD., professor of neurology, found that genetics play an important role in the level of brain damage and seizure susceptibility observed following infection with Theiler’s virus. Such information is critical when trying to design and develop new therapies for various forms of epilepsy. Since 1974, the ADD program has evaluated 28,000 investigational drugs for the treatment of epilepsy. 10 drugs from that investigation are on the market, and another 18 are in various stages of clinical development.

Stephen Lessnick, M.D., PhD., treats and investigates sarcomas such as Ewing’s Sarcoma–deadly childhood cancers–using Capecchi’s investigations on how sarcomas work and developing mouse models to test new treatments. The existence of five fusion genes that include the Ewing’s sarcoma gene (EWS) provides a way of improving the diagnosis of the disease and understanding how the lethal cancer starts. All of these advances owe their progress to the pioneering evolutionary molecular biology work of Mario Capecchi.

D.R. Beckler, et. al., studied the rpoB gene known to be involved with resistance to the tuberculosis drugs, Rifamycin and Rifabutin. Using the methodology from their evolution studies on gene mapping, they were able identify mutations in rpoB gene that resulted in resistance to the drugs. Testing in the Beckler lab can now evaluate tuberculous drug effectiveness, and this molecular approach is now able to serve as a model for other drugs used for the treatment of tuberulosis and other related mycobacterium avian paratuberculosis (MAP) diseases.

Medical clinicians and investigators work regularly with the effects of evolution in the form of bacterial and viral resistance to antibiotics. Only by understanding the processes of evolution, have physicians been able keep ahead of the mutational changes that cause the resistance.

Julie R. Korenberg, M.D., PhD. of the University of Utah, has studied Down’s syndrome for more than 30 years and William’s syndrome for more than 15. She has become one of the world’s leading researchers in the genetics of William’s syndrome. She created a color-coded guide to the human genome by tagging thousands of fragments of DNA with different colors that can be seen with fluorescent light under a microscope. Using the colors as a guide, Korenberg was the first person in the world to identify fluorescent markers that spanned the entire human genome. Work in her lab on GTF21 and GTF21RD1 genes revealed them to be linked with visual-spatial processing and proved that GTF21 plays a role in social behavior and GTF21RD1 contributes to visual spatial performance. Further work is underway to utilize this basic genetic/evolutionary knowledge to help not only William’s syndrome patients, but others with retardation and/or social behavioral deficiencies to have richer lives.

Using a new technique that allows a genome-wide scan of millions of genetic mutations, researchers, Gerald G. Krueger, M.D., and Kristina C. Duffin, M.D., professors of dermatology at the University of Utah, have identified four new genetic “hotspots” that affect the risk for psoriasis, an autoimmune disease of the skin that adversely affects 75 million Americans. They identified 438,670 genetic mutations. After identifying 18 DNA sites with the highest associations with psoriasis, the researchers expanded their study to include about 5,000 psoriatic patients with 5,000 controls. This work identified 7 sites as potential serious mutation points for psoriasis. The clinical implications include the potential for identifying individuals likely to develop psoriasis before they develop frank skin changes, and in the future, perhaps to apply gene therapy to prevent the onset of the painful, disfiguring, and socially devastating disease.

Tatjana Piotrowski, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, pursues lessons from evolu-tion to help people with hearing loss. Evolution is the progressive change of heritable traits, but the changes are not always for the better. Dr. Piotrowski noted that the ability to hear is one example of an evolutionary decline in a trait. Lower vertebrates including frogs, fish, and some birds, can regenerate hair cells in the inner ear that enable hearing. After mammals branched off the evolutionary tree, this enviable trait was lost. Humans experience a broad array of causes of hair cell death and the result is that hearing loss is one of the most prevalent disabilities in people. Dr. Piotrowski was awarded a grant to study and compare the regeneration process between zebrafish and mammals with the strong hope that the information gained will teach us at which step the regeneration process is disrupted in humans and eventually how to circumvent that adverse evolutionary consequence.

Practical applications of the Theory of Evolution, continued.

1. Medicine. Answers to questions about cancer, diabetes, and uncommon neurological disorders have become available from the information that has come out of genomic studies which, in turn, generated from evolutionary studies. Jonathan Eisen, Ph.D.–an evolutionary biologist and professor at U.C. Davis with appointments in the Departments of Medical Microbiology and Evolution and Ecolog–offers ten reasons for medical professionals to understand evolution:
   1. Antibiotic resistance. Understanding how antibiotic resistance originates and spreads is fundamentally a question of evolution. The more understanding medical professionals have about evolution, the less likely they will be to abuse antibiotics in human and animals.
   2. Origin and spread of virulence. Organisms can change their virulence properties on the short term owing to the processes of evolution. More importantly, behavior of medical personnel can both influence the spread of virulent strains and can unintentionally select for more virulent strains. Understanding evolution and the importance of hand washing are key.
   3. Vaccine use and development. Vaccines involve altering the evolutionary arms race between pathogens and hosts. It is not an intelligent design arms race. Vaccine work requires a committed understanding of that fact to produce safe, effective, and timely vaccines.
   4. Cancer origins. Cancer is, in essence, an analog of natural selection operating among cells within the body. The winners of this selection process are those that have uncontrolled growth. It is crucial to view cancer in its evolutionary context to be able to counter its origin, mutation, and spread.
   5. The human microbiome. Beneficial microbes are on and inside human bodies (as well as other animals). They are difficult to see, difficult to grow in lab cultures, and therefore difficult to study. The current methods of study are those developed by scientists studying evolution—indirect DNA based assays involving evolutionary and ecological analyses of the data. Understanding of these microbes is crucial for their survival and ours.
   6. Understanding the human genome. The human genome has almost completely been identified, and the genomes of multiple important other animals are known as well. The best way to learn about the genome sequence itself is through phylogenetic analyses comparing to other genomes. Medical, as well as evolutionary information, pertinent to the health and welfare of humans depends on the understanding of the important aspects of genetics and the genome.
   7. The relevance of animal and other models. Mouse, Drosophila, even yeast and E. coli have provided important insights into human embryology and pathology, genetic diseases, and how they can be altered. Models from these animals allow testing and manipulation that cannot be ethically done in humans and the information gleaned by years of evolutionary studies has proved to be invaluable for human well-being.
   8. Aging. Aging is a side effect of natural selection maximizing fitness by focusing on fitness and reproduction in the early years of life. Since there is little overall fitness cost to mutations that lead to deleterious effects in the aged, selection has generally overlooked that period of life. Any progress to be made in understanding or altering the adverse traits accompanying advanced age will come from a knowledge based on evolutionary studies of the efficiencies and inefficiencies of selection, and selecting genes and gene families susceptible to change and by a clear understanding of how to avoid costly errors for patients.
   9. The immune system. Over and above the issues of vaccines, the process of how the immune system—both the innate and the adaptive components—works both at the level of an individual and at the level of a population is such an integral part of medical practice that there are medical specialties that deal exclusively with issues of immunity. Understanding the immune system in the future will require evolutionary competence by the medical professional and will be an exercise in population genetics and natural selection, even more importantly that at present.

Mario R. Capecchi, PhD., Nobel Prize Laureate for his work in molecular biology (gene targeting), an evolutionary discipline, holds a professorship and endowed chair at the University of Utah in the Health Sciences Department as evidence of the value of his work to practical health issues. Capecchi’s long-time colleague, Raymond F. Gesteland, PhD, former University of Utah vice-president for research, said this of Capecchi’s work, “Mario’s science has evolved more and more in the direction of human disease. It’s a great example of basic research that ends up being of great value to society.” Capecchi himself said, “What makes us similar? That’s a powerful question. Similar genes work in pathways that are present in all organisms. We can look at the pathway of cancer, for instance, and learn about it in model organisms like the mouse. But the endpoint is the human being.”

Dr. Capecchi is involved in currently ongoing projects that include the creation of mouse models to study colon cancer, investigation of the role of fibroblast growth factors in limb development, and the role of Hox genes in embryonic development–specifically the development of limbs and motor nerves that enable the hind limbs to move. One of his students is studying the expression of the Hoxb8 grooming gene in the brains of mice during embryonic development with an eye towards its possible implications for human disease processes. In 2007, Capecchi wrote a paper entitled, A Conditional Mouse Model of Synovial Sarcoma: Insights into a Myogenic Origin, a study of a gene which–when activated–produced myoblasts which were 100% cancerous 100% of the time. The study has proved to be of major importance to the understanding of that devastating disease.

A prodigious amount of effort and very considerable financial treasure has been expended over more than 150 years by learned scholars, researchers, and scientists from many disciplines to learn about the natural changes undergone by organisms and species over time. Those students of the natural world had a driving curiosity about what happened, and how, which could not be satisfied by simple and untested aphorisms or didactic scriptural pronouncements which declared supernatural explanations. The same kind of interest spurred the present author to investigate what has been learned—a daunting task—and to try and make sense about what remains a controversial, almost unmentionable subject in the social world in which he lives. It is reasonable to ask at this point, why bother? What is it about the study of evolution in general or any of its aspects or ramifications that makes investigation worthwhile, either from the perspective of intellectual curiosity or from the viewpoint of practical outcomes. In short, is the study of evolution of value?

The answer to that query is yes. The first reason has to do with the value of the truth. It is of inestimable value to serious and objective scholars to know–from best evidence–what is true about the origins of plants, animals, the earth, and of man, absent the dogma of true believers of any kind who reject evidence, and to seek to convey such truth to students who follow after them.

In more directly pragmatic terms, scholars of physics cannot describe in sensory terms what gravity is; but all of them and most even minimally educated people, accept the principle as a full-fledged theory or even a law. As predicted from gravity theory, a rocket can be launched into space, orbit the earth and return to its starting place unscathed. The Atomic Theory of Matter involves particles and forces so small that they can only be detected by costly elaborate devices or by inference from some of the effects of manipulating the principles of the theory. Albert Einstein reduced a part of the theory to a mathematical principle now known by most people, but understood by a very few—E=mc²–which equates energy and material mass. That the theory is correct is widely appreciated despite the fact that a majority of the world’s population does not understand the arcane mathematics involved. That notwithstanding, however, the fruits of that theory (law) are well known; fusion of atoms provides safe, clean, and controlled heat and energy for homes and factories, and also has produced horrific explosions used as weapons of mass destruction. In 1916, Einstein, in his general theory of relativity, predicted that light would be bent as it passed by a large celestial body. He had a great many scoffers and detractors. However, in 1919, Arthur Addington verified Einstein’s prediction by showing during a solar eclipse, that light coming from distant stars was bent as it went by the sun, shifting the stars’ apparent positions.

The Cell Theory of Living Matter posits that tiny semi-independent structures–unseen except by a microscope–are complicated and crucial factories of energy production and life-sustaining processes for all animals and plants. Scarcely any educated person doubts the veracity of that description despite having never directly seen a biological cell in their life. The predictable results of cell nutrition, function, deterioration, and death are repeatable with regularity in the laboratory and in observations of life. The invention of electronic scanning microscopes enabled scientists to observe even minute intracellular structures and processes in living creatures. Each of these theories could comfortably be elevated to the status of being a law without much controversy in the scientific community or the general public.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is as fundamental a biological principle of nature as are any of the above theories in their realms of physics, chemistry, and biology. One significant argument in favor of that statement is the fact that practical and useful functions derive from the application of the principles and processes of evolutionary science. Those practical contributions regularly serve as important verifications of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection itself. Scientific concepts that reach the level of being a theory almost always are required to show that actions predictable from application of the principles of the theory occur with regularity.

Here are some of the practical contributions of evolutionary studies to a number of fields of human interest:

1. The human genome. The study of evolution and its genetic underpinnings drove the scientific community and governments to undertake the massive worldwide effort to map the entire genetic/chromosomal structure of human genetic makeup. Using huge computer data programs, that task has been accomplished and is available gratis via the world-wide electronic net. The ability to view the entire genetic makeup or select portions of the human genome has permitted an explosion of understanding of genetic based diseases, to follow population shifts around the world over time, to date occurrences during evolution, and to make comparisons of human genetics with that of other animals to gain insight into naturally occurring relationships such as homologies and analogies and to develop a growing genuine understanding of the interrelationships in the tree (or bush) of life on earth. Such questions as where did particular populations originate are of interest to religionists (e.g. Mormons and their fascination with the Pacific Islanders and the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas), to genealogists, to linguists, and to historians (especially for those whose interest is pre-history). Knowledge of the genome helps to verify the reality of the claims of ancestry and gives insight into what life was like prior to mankind communicating experience through writing.
2. Genomes of other animals and plants. A close off-shoot of human genome studies was the ability to use the same methodology and technology to map the genetic structures of a large and growing number of animals. This has allowed the study of animal diseases and their possible relationship to disease processes seen in man. Morals and ethics forbid certain studies to be done on humans; so, knowledge of comparative genomes allows investigation and manipulation of genetic material for application in disease prevention and treatment, for improvement in domesticated species, for the opportunity to make new plants or animal stock that can survive or be productive in heretofore hostile environmental conditions to solve problems of hunger and cost, and for the comparative study of species and taxa to further knowledge of the processes of evolution.

See blogspot 36 for case presentation.

The Decision (December 20, 2005) 139 pages:

Included in those pages were the following statements:

-“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

-“A significant aspect of the ID movement is it describes ID as a religious movement…[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

-“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

-“In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath…is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.

-“After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s, and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

-“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause…The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not…

-“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of those individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind ID policy.

-“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional case on ID…The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.”

After the trial there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. Judge Jones specifically named Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham for having lied in their January 3, 2005 depositions. No prosecutions proceeded. A NOVA documentary entitled Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial was aired on PBS in November, 2007.

Consequences:

It is relatively early in the life of this decision to be able to assess its consequences. The decision and ruling cannot be used as a precedent outside the Court’s jurisdiction. However, it has been cited frequently in cases outside Pennsylvania when the issue arises, and its cogent presentation and arguments form the basis for the fairly prompt withdrawal of proposals to introduce Intelligent Design in yet another public school district. It appears unlikely that there will again be a serious effort by a school board to go down that rocky and expensive path.

However, none of the cases described above have a bearing on home schooling or private institutions. Creationism or Intelligent Design will likely flourish in such schools, and more of them are created every year, some for the very purpose of instilling faith-based, non-critical educational experiences for children of religious groups. It is to be noted, that ID or even frank and transparent creationism could, under the law, be taught in religion class in public schools at the discretion of school boards or schools.

See blogspot 35 for preliminary background of the case.

The Discovery Institute was concerned that the defendants in the case had earlier, emphatically, and publicly displayed their religious motivations. This engendered disagreements between the Institute and the Thomas More Law Center over who would represent three Institute fellows who were listed as defense experts. Prior to their depositions, the three fellows bowed out of the trial. In May, 2005, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), the publisher of Of Pandas and People, filed a motion to intervene in the case. They argued that a ruling that intelligent design was religious would have severe financial consequences—losses of nearly half a million dollars. By intervening the FTE would become a co-defendant and could bring in their own attorneys and expert witnesses—the intent being to bring in the three experts whom the Institute had rejected because of the issue of legal representation. Judge Jones ruled that the FTE was not entitled to intervene because its motion was not timely, and further that its reasons for trying to be involved were “both unavailing and disingenuous”.

In the November, 2005 elections, none of the members of the Dover School Board who voted for the intelligent design policy were re-elected. The newly constituted board rejected the policy and took office. This effectively precluded the possibility of an appeal to a higher court since the succeeding board announced that it had no intention of making an appeal.

The eleven litigants for the plaintiffs were all parents of students enrolled in the Dover Area School district and included Tammy Kitzmiller, Bryan and Christy Rehm, Deborah Fenimore, Joel Lieb, Steven Stough, Beth Eveland, Cynthia Sneath, Julie Smith, Aralene D. and Frederick B. Callahan. The defendants were the members of the Dover Area School District. The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive relief. Since the suit sought an equitable remedy, there was no right to a jury trial; the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution did not apply. The bench trial commenced on September 26, 2005 and concluded on November 4, 2005. The judge’s 139 page findings of fact and decision was issued on December 20, 2005.

Eric Rothschild, in his opening statement for the plaintiffs said that the plaintiffs would be able to provide many examples of school board members wishing to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. He attacked prior defense claims that it was a minor affair by saying that there is no such thing as a “little constitutional violation”. He quoted the definition of creationism given by an early draft of Pandas: “Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, et cetera.” The eventually published version was only slightly different in that it substituted ‘creation’ for ‘intelligent design’.

The defense’s opening was presented by Patrick Gillen. He stated that the board and its supporters had a goal to enhance science education and argued that the policy was a “modest change”. He distanced the board from its prominent member, William Buckingham, and his alleged comments that the plaintiffs had argued showed religious intent. He argued that the board paid more attention to the science faculty than to Mr. Buckingham. It was his contention that the board did not have a religious agenda although board member Alan Bonsell had done his own reading which made him aware of 300 or so scientists who had signed a statement indicating that biologists were exaggerating claims for the theory and had read about the Piltdown Man hoax. Gillen did allow that Bonsell had an interest in creationism.

Witnesses for the plaintiffs included Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University a noted author who was opposed to intelligent design. He stated that “Intelligent Design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community. Intelligent Design was not subject to falsification, but many claims made by intelligent-design advocates had been falsified.

Aralene “Barrie” D. Callahan was a plaintiff, a Dover parent, and was for ten years a member of the Board. She had previously resigned over the actions of the board in relation to the case. She testified that Alan Bonsell, a board member, argued in a board retreat in Spring, 2003 that if evolution were taught then creationism should also be taught, “fifty-fifty”. Julie Smith testified that her daughter was harassed for her Catholic background, being told that she is an atheist since she accepted evolution.

Barbara Forrest testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff side. She supplied the court with a written expert witness report and a supplemental report. She is a professor of philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University and co-authored a book critical of the creationism movement and its devious efforts to gain control of school boards. The defendants had filed a motion to exclude her testimony because she was “little more than a conspiracy theorist and a web-surfing, cyber stalker of the Discovery Institute”. She was ridiculed on the institute’s web-site. The motion was denied.

Dr. Forrest cited prominent Discovery Institute figures writing about the institute’s Wedge Document for how the evolution debate can be won. She described in detail how the creationist movement was an attempt to present a religious proposition as a scientific viewpoint. She warned that one of the movement’s goals was to unify the religious world. However, Dr. Forrest had to admit that she was unaware of any evidence that the board had seen the materials she described.

Michael Behe, the first and primary witness for the defense, testified from October 17-19. He was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science as opposed to its arguing that evolution theory was flawed. Under cross-examination he had to concede that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”. Further, he was led to admit that the definition of theory to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify. Under oath he accepted that the institute’s peer-reviewed and peer-edited simulated modeling of evolution publications supporting the theory of intelligent design showed that the biochemical systems therein described could evolve within 20,000 years even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

Michael R. Baksa, board superintendent, testified that the book, Myth of Separation, was circulated among at least three board members. The book described separation of church and state as “absurd”. He would not accept language from the teachers stating that “evolution continues to be the dominant scientific explanation of the origin of the species”. Because he believed that the board would reject language stating that there is a “significant amount of evidence” supporting evolution, he eliminated that phrase from the board’s policy statement.    Steve Fuller provided a qualified defense of the scientific status of intelligent design, citing Newton, Linnaeus, and Mendel. He called for an affirmative action program for the origins of intelligent design. His testimony was cited by the plaintiff’s attorneys and the defense in their closing arguments.

Alan Bonsell testified that he did not know where the money had been raised to donate sixty copies of Of Pandas and People to the school’s library. When evidence was introduced that the money had been raised in William Buckingham’s church and directed through Bonsell’s father so that it could be donated anonymously, Judge Jones elected to take over the examination of Bonsell himself.

Closing arguments were made on November 4, 2005. Upon completing of the closing arguments, Mr. Gillen of the plaintiffs, asked the judge, “By my reckoning, this is the 40^th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40^th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose.” Judge Jones responded, “Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting conclusion, but it was not by design.” People in the courtroom laughed and applauded.

Note: Because of the overriding importance of this trial and its outcome, considerable space will be dedicated to the discussion of actions of the defendants, the trial testimony, and the 139 page decision by the judge. The presentation will be divided into three separate blogposts.

Tammy Kitzmiller et al, plaintiffs v. Dover Area School District et al, defendants [Dover Area School District, Dover Area School District Board of Directors]. Case No. 04cv2688

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge John E. Jones III, presiding.

For the plaintiffs: Eric Rothschild of the firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

For the defendants: The Thomas More Law Center

Memorandum opinion: December 20, 2005

Opinion: “While we find that ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science…ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ID has failed to gain acceptance by the scientific community; it has not generated peer-reviewed publications; nor has it been the subject of testing and research.”

Background:

Several members of the Dover, Pennsylvania Board of Education expressed concern about the teaching of evolution in the district’s schools. During the summer of 2004, they were given legal advice by the Discovery Institute, and in July, they accepted an offer by the Thomas More Law Center to represent them. On October 18, 2004, the school board voted 6-3 to add the following statement to their biology curriculum: Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught. Members who voted for the statement included William Buckingham who resigned in August 2005 due to health concerns, Alan Bonsell, Sheila Harkins, Heather Greesey, Jane Cleaver, who resigned October 4, 2004, and Angie Ziegler-Yingling, who resigned December 6, 2004. The three members who voted against it were Noel Wenrich, who resigned October 4, 2004, and Jeff and Carol Brown, who resigned October 18, 2004. All three dissenting voters resigned in protest.

On November 19, 2004, the Dover Area School District issued a press release stating that, commencing in January, 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true in any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficien-cy in standards-based assessments.

Reaction to the board vote and the press release was almost immediate. Three board members resigned. Science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false. The statement was read to the students by a school administrator. On December 14, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of eleven parents from the Dover school district, including Tammy Kitzmiller, who was both a parent and a ninth-grade biology teacher.

Through its chosen law firm, the school board stated that there are gaps in evolution and students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. The board claimed that it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence. It denied that intelligent design is religion in disguise. That claim appeared to many Dover citizens to be disingenuous and dubious since the law firm, Thomas More Law Center, is a conservative Christian not-for-profit law center that pursues litigation, as it states “to promote the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values”. Its mission statement is that the center “…is to be the sword and shield of people of faith”.

The ACLU sought a law firm willing to take the case pro bono. Eric Rothschild, one of the partners of Pepper Hamilton LLP and a member of the national Center for Science Education legal advisory council, agreed.

John West of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian organization that lobbies in support of Intelligent Design education, publicly stated that the ACLU’s “Orwellian” effort was to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. He pointedly argued that, “It’s a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not…That is a flagrant assault on free speech.” Opponents to that statement, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, countered that West’s statement was not just ironic, but hypocritical, since the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation. The gauntlet had been hurled down, and despite its greatest fears and over its protests; the Discovery Institute was embroiled in what could likely become a test case.