Comments on the Pearson High School Biology Review Ronald K.

Wetherington Professor of Anthropology Southern Methodist University What follows is an analysis of the Proclamation 2014 State Review Panel report on the Pearson/Prentice-Hall submission. It is a point-by-point rebuttal of claims of factual errors by one or more members of that panel (it is unclear whether the report represents a consensus of all members). Although I was a panel member for several publisher submissions, Pearson was not one of these. My rebuttal simply constitutes my own individual assessment. Since I teach much of this material in my university classes, and have for almost 50 years, I have felt it my responsibility to reveal the biases and shortcomings in this official review, which resulted in a recommendation for rejection to the Texas Educational Agency. I discuss these in the order in which they are presented in the Identification of Editorial Changes and Factual Errors sheet of the Excel document submitted to the TEA and made available to me. I include here only the claims of factual errorsfrom the student edition and, where designated, the teacher edition of the productgiving for each the page number of the putative error in the respective edition. The review panels critique is copied and pasted directly from the Excel sheet with no changes and no punctuation or spelling corrections. Immediately following this is my response. Following this analysis and commentary I list the TEKS expectations and breakouts which call for students to evaluate. The panel rejected all 22 of these for reasons I will discuss. While these constitute a strong basis for rejection, they do not constitute factual errors and do not appear in the Identification of Editorial Changes and Factual Errors summary page. The panels unfounded rejection, however, warrants my final commentary.
Citation of Factual Errors and Wetherington Response: Page 521: Panel Eroneously [sic] states "use of DNA characters ..has helped to make evolutionary trees more accurate." Actually in many cases systematic DNA analysis has failed to conform to prior taxonomic trees and suggests further work is required to establish evolutionary sequences. An acceptable statement would be "use of DNA characters ..has indicated a need to rethink some previously developed taxonomic trees." To quote from Philip Ball in "Nature" 496, 419420, (25 April 2013) "in molecular evolution, old arguments, for instance about the importance of natural selection and random drift in driving genetic change, are now colliding with questions about noncoding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory. It is not yet clear which new story to tell...When the structure of DNA was first deduced, it seemed to supply the final part of a beautiful puzzle, the solution for which began with Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel. The simplicity of that picture has proved too alluring. Page 521: Wetherington

This is not a factual error. The text states that "new molecular information has reinforced the validity of evolutionary trees, while also presenting some contrasting information." there is absolutely nothing factually wrong here. Of course genome comparisons have allowed a lot of fine-tuning, including the revision of many taxonomic interpretations--but nothing scandalously suggesting a new evolutionary skepticism. This text passage is a small brush painting a limited picture. The overall picture throughout the text is an overriding testimonial on the increased mutual reinforcement of morphological and genetic classification. Page 552: Panel About 4, NOT 4.2, billion years ago, Earth cooled ..) Page 552: Wetherington This is not a factual error. It is a trivial complaint of the use of one of several estimates. Page 552: Panel "many basic building blocks of life form naturally" THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE, RATHER THAN "in our solar system Page 552: Wetherington This is not a factual error. Amino acids are found within our solar system but not beyond. Hydrocarbon molecules occur beyond this. Page 449: Panel

Page 449 SERIOUSLY MISREPRESENTS THE BALANCE BETWEEN GRADUALISM AND SUDDEN APPEARANCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. RATHER THAN AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH Gradualism AS sometimes AND IN PARAGRAPH Punctuated Equilibrium AS Now and then, AS THE FOSSIL RECORD IS EXPANDED IT IS BECOMING QUITE CLEAR THAT STASIS FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN APPEARANCE IS THE PREDOMINANT PATTERN.
Page 449: Wetherington There is absolutely no misrepresentation in the text between Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium: There is ample evidence for both tempos of evolutionary change occurring. The fossil record bears no such evidence that one predominates over the other. Where the fossil record is sufficiently sensitive to give a chronological approximation of changes, gradual change still appears to be typical. But the actual relative importance of one over the other remains opinion and not demonstrable fact. Page 753: Panel THE STATEMENT IN PARA "The Cambrian Explosion" THAT "Some Cambrian Fossils are classified as ancient members of modern invertebrate phyla" THE CORRECT STATEMENT WOULD BE "Most Cambrian Fossils....." Page 753: Wetherington Not a factual error. See "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of bilaterian phyla," Biol. Rev. Cambrian Philosophical Society (May 2000). This is a still contentious issue. The text states it properly. Page 547: Panel (Teacher)

In "Address Misconceptions" suggests evolution proceeds by "natural selection." However "natural selection" is only the purifying aspect of the process. The critical aspect is introduction of novelty. It is gradually being recognized that no mechanism for this has been firmly established. See "Evolution: A view from the 21st century," James A. Shapiro, Prof of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Univ. of Chicago, (2011), page 144, "Selection operates as a selective but not a creative force. Page 547: Wetherington (Teacher) This is not a factual error. Panel misreads the text, which at this paragraph ONLY addresses evolution via natural selection, and not the other forces by which evolution proceeds. The teacher manual statement that "[W]e will never have an unbroken chain of fossils, but that in no way invalidates evolution by natural selection is absolutely correct. Further, the reference to Shapiro is gratuitous here. Page 466: Panel (Teacher) PARAGRAPH "The Age of the Earth" PRESENTS A VERY OUTDATED VIEW. Even up to the middle of the 20th century the available fossil record made a long drawn out and gradual evolutionary process seen to adequately fit the data. Now abundant data make it clear that evolution appears to occur in short periods of time, geologically speaking. The biggest known evolutionary event, The Cambrian Explosion, took on the order of only 10 million years or less. Following Eldridge and Gould the default understanding has become stasis followed by rapid appearance, Punctuated Equilibrium. That this book has failed to make the move to a 21st century understanding of the fossil record is made clear by statements that no longer are relevant such as an "Earth about 4.5 billion years old-which allows plenty of time for evolution." This can be seen by the elaborate treatment of the development of early Darwinian theory, almost 20 pages, pp 448 to 467, which is certainly an interesting example of how evolutionary science developed. The dated nature of the presentation is further reflected by the weakness of treatment of where evolutionary science is today. The Cambrian explosion is buried in only two paragraphs on page 753. Punctuated Equilibrium is given only two paragraphs on page 549 and these represent either an unbelievable uninformed understanding of the current view of the prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance or a deliberate attempt to avoid letting students know about the challenges that are making the advance of evolutionary theory so exciting today. The Neo Darwinian Synthesis doesnt appear in either the Glossary or the Index. Page 466: Wetherington (Teacher) This is a very current view of the age of the earth, and the comments are a series of nonsequiturs. This section of the text specifically addresses TEKS 7A (Analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record). Thus, the text asks, "How do fossils help to document the descent of modern species from ancient ancestors?" So there is NO FACTUAL ERROR here. The polemic-as-commentary of the panel is just a rant. Page 462: Panel
THE REFERENCED PAGES MISS THE POINT OF TEKS 7(c) (ii). VARIOUS EFFECTS, SUCH AS INATE SURVIVABILITY AND RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMETAL FACTORS ARE WELL PRESENTED WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE DISCREDITED PEPPERED MOTH FABRICATION. HOWEVER, A HYPOTHETICAL GREEN GRASSHOPPER STORY IS INVENTED TO REPLACE IT. BETTER TO JUST STICK TO THE FINCH BEAK VARIABILITY PRESENTED ON PAGE 472 TO ESTABLISH EVIRONMENTAL DRIVES. HOWEVER, THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS EFFECT MIGHT TRANSCEND THE AMORPHOUS BOUNDARY DIFFERENTIATING SPECIES SHOULD. BE ELIMINATED. THIS CAN

BE CORRECTED BY ALSO REPORTING THE OBSERVATION OF BEAKS RETURNING TO THEIR PRIOR STATE AS CONDITIONS RETURN.

Page 462: Wetherington (7)(C)(ii) reads: "evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals." The example is an excellent illustration of this. There is no peppered moth reference in this text, so this is a red herring! By the way, the industrial melanism in the peppered moth observation is hardly discredited! It remains the finest direct example of natural selection operating on individuals and thus changing populations! Furthermore, the finch beak reversals are also great examples of natural selection in action--see my comments below re page 472. Page 484: Panel

IN PARA Mutations STATEMENT Some mutations may lower fitness. TO CORRECT AND REFLECT THE LONG WELL KNOWN SITUATION SHOULD READ, Most mutations led to defective offspring while some may only lower fitness.
Page 484: Wetherington The recommended correction is itself false: Only those mutations which we can identify normally are deleterious! Here is what the text states: Some mutations may lower fitness by decreasing an individuals ability to survive and reproduce. Other mutations may be lethal. Still other mutations may improve an individuals ability to survive and reproduce. This is entirely correct! Page 465: Panel The introductory paragraph in 16.4 "Evidence of Evolution" titled, "THINK ABOUT IT" is quite misleading. It does mention molecular biology but by and large the implication from molecular biology insofar as "evidence" is concerned is missing from this text. As discussed elsewhere, issues raised by discordance in molecular and taxonomic trees at least got acknowledgement in the 2004 Editon, see p 865. This specifically contrasts with the treatment of the "Molecular Homology of in Hoxc8" which attempts to support the factual error that molecular systematics fully support previously developed taxonomic trees. Given this omission and the degrading of definition of evolution from that in the 2004 Edition it is not just misleading but dishonest to say in this introductory paragraph that, "Astonishingly, every scientific test has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution." What is astonishing is that this text that does so well in presenting recent molecular understanding of the design and function of so many complex biological systems goes so far to obscure the evolution of evolutionary theory after mid 20th century. This is really an indirect denial of the point which TEKS 2 (C) (v) is asking to be covered. Page 465: Wetherington This is still another rant that is irrelevant to the referenced page and certainly is no factual error! The reviewer(s) have a personal bone to pick with the authors and want to use this to wedge a concession and a change. The text page says: Scientists working in geology, physics, paleontology, chemistry, and embryology did not have the technology or understanding to test Darwins assumptions during his lifetime. Other fields that are important in evolutionary theory, like genetics and molecular biology, didnt exist yet! . . . Astonishingly, every scientific test has supported Darwins basic ideas about evolution. No error here! Page 554: Panel (Teacher) In the "RNA World" section the next to last sentence is wrong. The correct statement would be "complex molecules like RNA can be formed in carefully controlled laboratory experiments in the 4

absence of life that in a limited sense contain "information." However, none of these experiments resulted in the specified, coded information required to replicate." Page 554: Wetherington (Teacher) The last sentence specifically avoids saying that experiments have resulted in replicating RNA. It says: Finally, certain RNA sequences are capable of catalyzing chemical reactions that include RNA self-replication. Further, it specifically states that the RNA-world hypothesis is still being tested. Page 558: Panel (Teacher) Finding complex structures of proteins that resemble other complex structures certainly is not an explanation for the origin of either. Page 558: Wetherington (Teacher) It most certainly is an indication of a common origin! Is there a more reasonable interpretation? The passage states: Nearly every protein in the flagella of Eubacteria resemble proteins that are used for other purposes in bacteria that lack flagella. . . .In fact, a group of ten such proteins so closely resemble a channel structure in the cell membrane that the channel structure and the flagellum may share a common ancestor. Page 768: Panel (Teacher) DNA studies have not "enhanced" the picture of our species past. Recent DNA sequence studies show considerable discordance. See Sarah Reardon, New Scientist March 16-20, 2012, p 12. "the remaining 30 percent of [the gorilla's] genome turned out to be more closely related to humans or chimp than those species are to one another..." Page 768: Wetherington (Teacher) Wrong: DNA has enhanced the picture by drawing finer lines that link the fossils. The text states that [Q]uestions still remain as to how fossil hominines are related to one anotherand to humans. Further, the article from which Reardons popular summary comes (A. Scally et al., Nature, Mar 7, 2012, pp. 169-175) proposes a synthesis of the genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human-chimpanzee and human-chimpanzee-gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago [respectively]. So the evidence still shows the former more closely related to humans that the latter! Page 768: Panel (Teacher) Scientific American, Feb., 2013, p42, "Shattered Ancestry" shows four of the seven genera cited under "Relatives vs. Ancestors" should be considered to lie outside the direct ancestry of humans. These are Shelananthropus, Orrorin, Paranthropus and Kenyanthropus. It should be noted that the Fig. 26-19 is more in line. "Shattered Ancestry" makes it clear that there is a major discontinuity in the hypothetical line. The break, the saltation, comes at about the 2 mya (million years ago) mark, a "period of very rapid evolution" characterized by swelling brain size and sweeping physiological reengineering. For example, Ernst Mayr, a leading figure in evolutionary biology, stated in What Makes Biology Unique (Cambridge University Press), P 198, that, "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis, and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap." Page 768: Wetherington (Teacher) The text page states, of these seven, All these species are relatives of modern humans, but not all of them are human ancestors. This is exactly what the criticism above is saying! No factual error! 5

Page 472: Panel Fails to report that the Grant's have documented that beak sizes oscillate with a lag in response to climactic conditions and this is only an example of genetic drift within a species. Page 472: Wetherington Reviewer here completely misunderstands what is being demonstrated: the differential survival based on different beak size is, in fact, natural selection. Genetic drift has absolutely nothing to do with this! The oscillation is implied, since selection and climate change take place rapidly, as the text states. Page 364: Panel (Teacher) Statement "What is the purpose of making a large RNA molecule and then throwing parts of molecule away?" is not as unanswered as this wording implies. This is a veiled reprise of the discredited "junk DNA" issue tht fails to recognize the results of the ENCODE project. It is a misleading analogy of the propaganda effort shown by the replacement of discredited "Peppered Moth' misrepresentations with a hypothetical green grasshopper story. See comment on Line 278, TEKS 7(c) (ii) Further, if there is any basis for the statement "Introns and exons may also play a role in evolution making it possible for many small changes in DNA sequences to have dramatic effects on how genes effect cellular function" some sort of reference should be supplied. No creative capability has been demonstrated for the effect other than helping to explain how such a vast array of proteins can be produced. The vast majority of "small changes" are highly deleterious and to date no small change has been identified creating a beneficial "dramatic effect." This is the reason reporting on the Altenberg conference in "Nature" noted "Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest." Page 364: Wetherington (Teacher) The text says, That is a good question, and biologists still dont have a complete answer. Some pre-mRNA molecules may be cut and spliced in different ways in different tissues, so a single gene may produce different mRNA molecules. The propaganda effort re discredited peppered moth misrepresentations are totally gratuitous and irrelevant comments . The reviewer(s) apparently try to find any excuse for inserting criticism even when its unrelated to the content. Page 557: Panel (Teacher) The Krebs Cycle - Contains the logical fallacy, which appears at other places in the text, that borrowing a function somehow suggests an explanation for the origin of the function in the first place. Page 557: Wetherington (Teacher) The panel once again misrepresents what is being stated: no function is being borrowed. Read the text! A preexisting enzyme, used to mediate other functions, is co-opted (borrowed) to assist in a new function. Pages 760-61: Panel (Teacher) The placement of Tiktaalik as an important link in chordate evolution is outdated and contradicted by its relationship to Panderichthys. See Nature, Catherine A. Boisvert, Elga Mark-Kurik, & Per E. Ahlberg, "The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits," Fig. 2d (Sept. 21, 2008)) One of the paper's co-authors Per Ahlberg said that if Tiktaalik were to remain the form that is 6

closer to tetrapods, then "finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form." Furthermore, recent findings show the timing of Tiktaalik is 20 million years too late to be the link suggested. See John Roach for National Geographic News, January 6, 2010. The first vertebrates to walk the Earth emerged from the sea almost 20 million years earlier than previously thought, say scientists who have discovered footprints from an 8-foot-long (2.4meter-long) prehistoric creature. 395-million-year-old fossil footprints discovered on a former marine tidal flat or lagoon in southeastern Poland were made 20 million years prior to the fossil Tiktaalik erroneously cited in Figure 26-20 as a transitional fossil to tetrapods. Pages 760-61: Wetherington (Teacher) When Tiktaalik was first described as a transition to tetrapods, the authors were well aware of Panderichthys candidacy for transition as well: Unfortunately, the distal region of the best known pectoral fin of the elpistostegid Panderichthys is covered by lepiditrichia and the complete distal endoskeleton is unknown. Now that it is known, this fossil is a competing candidate. Whats wrong with that? Besides, Tiktaalik is still much better known and does indeed remain an important tetrapod link. However, the recent findings suggesting that Tiktaalik should be further removed from tetrapod ancestry are controversial. The putative footprints of the Polish find dating 10 million years older than the earliest lobe-finned forms may in fact not be footprints: the tracks do not have digital impressions, and could easily reflect just early lobe-finned fish which preceded both Tiktaalik and Panderichthys.(King, Shubin, et al., Proceedings, Nat. Acad. Sci. Nov. 14, 2011).

The evaluate Science Concepts requirement: The SBOE revision of the Science TEKS in 2009 mandated analyze and evaluate requirements for many of the student expectations and breakouts under Scientific processes. These occur throughout paragraph (7) and in one expectation each in (6) and (9). Specifically, they are in the following TEKS: (6)(F)(iii) (7)(A)(vi) through (7)(A)(x) (7)(B)(iv) through (vi) (7)(C)(ii) (7)(D)(iv) through (vi) (7)(E)(iv) through (vi) (7)(F)(v) through (viii) (7)(G)(ii) (9)(D)(iii) through (iv) All 22 breakouts received a failure from the panel, with the following comment: Evaluate means the student is required to place value or a judgment on the material, and that is lacking. This was not the intent of the Board in 2009. Evaluate also means to determine the significance or importance of an idea, proposition, or relationship. This is far more reasonable and ought to be applied. In this case, all 22 rejections should be removed. 7