Recently the PT crew received an email with the subject line "A legitimate question about Evolution with no agenda." As you might expect, the dual disclaimers--"no agenda" and "legitimate"--immediately raised a few eyebrows. "No agenda"? Hmmmmm. Well, I suppose it's possible, though numerous previous encounters with creationists' faux naivete have left me a dab cynical.
The email reads
Subject: A legitimate question about Evolution with no agenda
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 16:48:13 -0700
From: [redacted]
To: thecrew@pandasthumb.org
Dear Panda's Thumb crew:
I'm not a scientist, I'm a retired history teacher with a masters in
that field.
I'm not writing because I have any agendas. I'm trying to get my
questions answered and I'm having trouble doing it since I don't know
any evolutionary biologists whom I could ask. Those I have written to
do not reply. I'm asking for the perspective of an evolutionary
biologist who might answer a student with questions who is not hostile
to evolutionary biology.
If you don't have the time to reply, or don't want to, please write me
and tell me that.
Here are my questions about macroevolution. My goal is to understand
how scientists explain how macro-evolution works in a real life
situation, in this case between reptiles evolving into birds, since this
is postulated as occurring:
*Reptiles Birds*
Lay eggs lay eggs
fly fly
have feathers? have feathers
cold blooded? warm blooded
Would being cold blooded show up in the fossil record? If not, how and
why would a reptile adapt over millions of years into warm-blooded? How
would anyone know whether a feathered reptile was now a bird if one
is/may be cold blooded and one is warm blooded? Where is the proof?
Same topic different question: We know that horses and donkeys can
interbreed to produce a mule, which is sterile. Using this explanation
for cross breeding, how does that fit with macroevolution? In other
words, could a flying, feathered semi-reptile mate with a full bird (or
any other combination), and not be sterile? Even over millions of years,
since there would be no progeny and the variant would die.
Third question: If a reptile/bird evolved, wouldn't it also need a
reptile/bird to mate with to carry on the new species? If one, a male,
for instance evolved, and no female evolved at the same time and in the
same place, wouldn't that end the cycle of macroevolution?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
You see the difficulties, and it seems clear why the evolutionary biologists to whom he claims to have written haven't bothered to reply. I see three main reasons.
First, while our correspondent claims to have no agenda, the general tenor and content of the questions suggests otherwise. While he may be telling the truth, the questions have a distinctly creationist flavor and over the years I've learned to be wary of such self-professed innocence. Like all who have been in this game for a couple of decades, I've seen it before too often. But we'll go on anyway.
Second, a number of the specific questions are underlain by misconceptions about science in general and biology in particular that render them incoherent. In order to address the incoherent questions one would first have to address the underlying misconceptions. Most working evolutionary biologists don't have that kind of spare time. (John Scalzi has
some apposite remarks in a somewhat different context.)
Finally, to all appearances our correspondent has expended little effort to find answers for himself. An easy and obvious way of responding is by pointing the correspondent to some web resources. For example, there's the
Berkeley evolution site which is rich in resources for learning about evolution. Then there are search engines for the processional literature. For example, a search on Google Scholar for [birds dinosaurs evolution] produces 25,600 hits. Searching on [evolution endothermy birds] produces 4,860 hits. On the first page of each search there are several useful and trustworthy references. (I emphasize that these are
Google Scholar searches, not plain Google searches.) And of course there's
PubMed, where both searches get some hits mostly having to do with genetic, metabolic, or molecular research.
Of course, the reader has to exercise some judgment in discriminating among the Google Scholar hits, and a long-time teacher like our correspondent should know that. But there's no indication in his email that our correspondent has looked for answers on his own; he wants a working professional to take the time to spoon-feed him. I hope that in his teaching career he taught students do a better job of self-directed research than he's done here.
I won't attempt a comprehensive answer to the questions here. Doing so would require require tens of thousands of words, most of them devoted to clearing away the underbrush of misconceptions ("proof"?) and I prefer that our correspondent do some of his own work. Rather, I'll address just a few of the misconceptions underlying the questions and provide some resources so he has a leg up on the work necessary to find answers if he's as genuinely interested as he claims to be.
Consider the second and third sets of questions in the email. Our correspondent asks
Same topic different question: We know that horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce a mule, which is sterile. Using this explanation for cross breeding, how does that fit with macroevolution? In other words, could a flying, feathered semi-reptile mate with a full bird (or any other combination), and not be sterile? Even over millions of years, since there would be no progeny and the variant would die.
Third question: If a reptile/bird evolved, wouldn't it also need a reptile/bird to mate with to carry on the new species? If one, a male, for instance evolved, and no female evolved at the same time and in the same place, wouldn't that end the cycle of macroevolution?
Shades of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and their
crocoduck!. PZ Myers
dealt with the 'where's the mate?' topic a couple of years ago.
Those questions illustrate three common misconceptions. First, of course, they presuppose that speciation occurs only in giant steps--a 'reptile' morphed into a 'reptile/bird' and thence into a 'bird' in giant steps, and each new step is so different from its parents and siblings that it couldn't breed with them. Second, they illustrate typological thinking, the notion that an individual must be a member of one or another crisp class and that there's a chasm between the classes. Third, they illustrate a pervasive Inability to think in population terms. In general,
populations evolve, not a single individual. Our correspondent uses the singular--"reptile" and "bird"--which masks the reality that (in the cases he cites, at least) it's
populations that evolve.
Let me expand just a bit in hopes that our correspondent reads this; I've notified him of this post.
For the most part, animal evolution occurs incrementally in populations
First, I ask our correspondent to consider this:
Every generation of a sexually reproducing population is a member of the same species as its immediate parent generation, and yet after many generations--hundreds or thousands of generations or more--the last generation of the sequence of generations could be a different species than the first generation.
The correspondent's questions imply that we must be able to classify one generation (or one individual member of a generation) as a new species, reproductively isolated from its immediate predecessor generation, somewhere along the line of those hundreds or thousands of generations, but that would be an arbitrary labeling decision and would not accurately map the continuity of evolution. It does not recognize the biological reality that the two generations, the parent generation and its immediate offspring generation, are not reproductively isolated--are not members of different species in the sense that the offspring generation surely could successfully interbreed with the immediate parent generation. An expert given the entire generational sequence from dinosaurs to birds would be utterly stumped in trying to find a sharp species boundary between any pair of succcessive generations, and that is precisely the point (this very appropriate formulation stolen from Andrea Bottaro of the Thumb).
Natura non facit saltus, while not universally true, is a good rule of thumb in evolution, whether via natural selection or genetic drift. If our correspondent understands that he'll be on his way to understanding why his questions make little sense.
Consider an obvious analogy. There was never a time when a child in an ancient
Vulgar Latin-speaking population could not converse with its parents and siblings and peers in a mutually comprehensible language (teenagers' slang aside!), yet over centuries/generations the (geographically dispersed)
population of Vulgar Latin speakers incrementally diverged into separate
populations of Italian speakers, French speakers, Spanish speakers, Portugese speakers, and speakers of dozens of other
Romance languages. Today, after many centuries/generations, those languages are largely mutually incomprehensible (and many are extinct, along with--AFAIK--the original Vulgar Latin) yet there was never a time when a pair of Vulgar Latin-speaking parents suddenly produced a Latin/Spanish-speaking child unable to comprehend its parents' or siblings' language. Over centuries/generations the languages (populations) diverged until they became mutually incomprehensible (they 'speciated'), but there was never a time when an offspring generation couldn't speak with its parent generation.
About that giant-step speciation
In general, speciation occurs incrementally as two populations diverge over lots of time/generations. If a subpopulation becomes isolated from its parent population, say by some geological event, then over time/generations (via natural selection and/or processes like founder effects and genetic drift) the isolated subpopulation may incrementally diverge from the original parent population. If the isolation is extended, that incremental divergence can widen and may result in speciation in the sense that if the geological barrier is subsequently eliminated, the two populations will have become sufficiently different as to no longer successfully interbreed, and the subpopulation would then be classified as a new species (on the
Biological Species Concept definition of "species").
However, there are exceptions. Speciation may not necessarily require geological or geographic isolation. For example, sympatric speciation may be occurring in
Rhagoletis pomenella right now in my backyard (I have both apple trees and haws there). See
here for a recent genetic analysis of the two populations. The "races" (subspecies?) of
R. pomenella are becoming reproductively isolated by their different hosts, and host-related behavioral and genetic changes are accompanying and producing that reproductive isolation, leading to incipient speciation. But for a contrary view see
this recent paper for data that contradict the hypothesis that the host-shifting radiation of
R. pomonella is due just to recent sympatry but rather is likely based on long-standing genetic variation generated allopatrically in the deeper past. So while the radiation of subpopulations in the (sexually reproducing)
R. pomonella instance is recent, it may have deeper genetic roots produced by geological/geographic separation. For another candidate instance of sympatric speciation see
here (PDF). (See also
here; hat tip to Wesley Elsberry for flagging it to me.) I'll also mention that in spite of our correspondent's mule example, not all hybrids are sterile, and hybridization is
one way speciation can occur.
But that's a side issue. In some circumstances speciation
can occur in a single step of a single individual offspring if the organism can reproduce itself without benefit of sexual interaction with other members of the species. That's not uncommon in plants--
polyploidy in self-fertilizing plants can give rise to a new species in one step of a single offspring--and (more rarely) it can happen in parthenogenic animals. A Google Scholar search on [polyploidy speciation] turns up 11,400 hits while a search on [parthenogenic speciation] gets 5,740 hits. Just last month I wrote
a brief note on the rapid creation in the laboratory of a new species of parthenogenic whiptail lizard.
But no one argues that the evolution of birds from small carnivorous dinosaurs occurred in one step via polyploidy. It was an incremental process over many tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. A professional review by Kevin Padian (though a tiny bit dated) is
here (PDF). It's worth noting that the review addresses in passing our correspondent's question about endothermy and fossils. For a fairly recent pop-science overview of the evolution of endothermy in general see
here.
There's much more that could be said, of course.
While our correspondent focuses exclusively on the fossil evidence for 'macroevolution' of birds from reptiles, the most powerful evidence for "macroevolution" is from comparative genetics and molecular biology, and a complete answer would require considerable expansion of that evidence. Fossils aren't irrelevant, of course. Donald Prothero's
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters has a dozen pages in Chapter 12 on the evolution of birds. But there are other examples, too. Take, for instance, the evolution of mammals. So continuous is the fossil record of the transition from reptiles to mammals that we're reduced (again!) to an almost arbitrary separation, with
mammal-like reptiles on one side of the transition and
reptile-like mammals on the other.
It's disappointing to have to respond like this to one who has the academic credentials our correspondent claims. While I have not publicly identified the correspondent here, some research (well, single-digit seconds of Googling) found him, and judging from his writings elsewhere on the web he's not quite as agenda-free as he claims. But never mind. Just some modest effort and the URL of
Google Scholar would have provided him with the professional resources to address the questions, and the URLs of the
Berkeley/NCSE evolution site or the
TalkOrigins Archive would provide the background necessary for a lay person to understand the misconceptions underlying our correspondent's questions. But that requires intellectual effort, and there's no evidence that our correspondent has expended that effort. This post is over 2,000 words now and it barely scratches the surface of our correspondent's misconceptions . I hope it's enough to stimulate him to do his own research and thinking, but I have to say I'm not optimistic.
215 Comments
mrg · 10 June 2011
I did my own shot on this at:
http://www.vectorsite.net/taevo.html
If you like, pass that back to him, and he can give me feedback, which I would find interesting. Unless, of course, he just wants to play games, in which case I will immediately put a block on his email.
cwj · 10 June 2011
Well, whether you corespondent learned anything or not I enjoyed reading it, so thanks.
mrg · 10 June 2011
OK, after following up the link, I will just HAVE to read Scalzi's OLD MAN'S WAR. I will buy it from Amazon and he will get the royalty. Even if I don't like it, I owe him that much.
RBH · 10 June 2011
mrg · 10 June 2011
Frank J · 10 June 2011
Just Bob · 10 June 2011
mrg · 10 June 2011
ckc (not kc) · 10 June 2011
Here are my questions about macroevolution. My goal is to understand how scientists explain how macro-evolution works in a real life situation, in this case between reptiles evolving into birds, since this is postulated as occurring:
*Reptiles Birds*
Lay eggs lay eggs
fly fly
have feathers? have feathers
cold blooded? warm blooded
Would being cold blooded show up in the fossil record?
Possibly. Check out - i.e. google - the relationship between homeothermy/poikilothermy (warm- and cold-bloodedness) and body size, bone structure, anatomy, etc., etc. Keep in mind that the fossil record is incomplete; changes which could be seen in fossils might easily not be, by chance.
If not, how and why would a reptile adapt over millions of years into warm-blooded?
The "if not" is not a logical connection between the previous question and this one. Be that as it may, information about the potential fitness advantages of warm-bloodedness may also be easily googled (the "why"). Keep in mind that there are plenty of (presumably) well adapted cold-blooded species still extant. There's no reason why reptilian ancestors of modern warm-blooded species would not, over millions of years, accumulate changes in their metabolism to allow them to become warm-blooded (and thus no longer reptiles) (the "how").
How would anyone know whether a feathered reptile was now a bird if one is/may be cold blooded and one is warm blooded?
As Richard has explained in the post, the "now a bird" part of this question is often meaningless, or arbitrary (in the predominant cases where the changes such as those from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, scaled to feathered, etc. are gradual ones).
Where is the proof?
Proof of what? And bear in mind that science doesn't deal in proof, but preponderance of evidence. The evidence is that there were feathered "reptiles".
Same topic different question: We know that horses and donkeys can interbreed to produce a mule, which is sterile. Using this explanation for cross breeding,
This is not an "explanation" for "cross breeding", as stated.
how does that fit with macroevolution?
Sterile offspring of interspecific matings do not lead to evolution. Or to macroevolution (however you may wish to define it). Except for the rare parthenogenetic or clonal species as Richard has pointed out. If mules could reproduce asexually - voila! macroevolution.
In other words, could a flying, feathered semi-reptile mate with a full bird (or any other combination), and not be sterile? Even over millions of years, since there would be no progeny and the variant would die.
Richard has dealt with this nicely.
Third question: If a reptile/bird evolved, wouldn’t it also need a reptile/bird to mate with to carry on the new species? If one, a male, for instance evolved, and no female evolved at the same time and in the same place, wouldn’t that end the cycle of macroevolution?
Again, Richard has answered this nicely. Reptile/birds did, of course evolve (that is, there were transitional forms between cold-blooded, non-feathered ancestors of birds and the extant warm-blooded feathered species). They mated nicely among their variable populations on their gradual evolutionary path. The cycle of macroevolution is ... who knows what.
Henry J · 10 June 2011
On a side note about the warm-blooded vs cold-blooded question - as I understand it, crocodiles are cold-blooded descendants of warm-blooded species. The evidence is that their bodies have equipment that makes sense for self-heating bodies but doesn't make sense for bodies whose ancestors never had that feature.
Stanton · 10 June 2011
Scott F · 10 June 2011
The best extant example of the connectedness of the generations between species are "ring species". Ring species should be real clinchers to fence sitters of speciation.
Scott F · 10 June 2011
The one problem I have is between chimps and humans. I can understand the ebb and flow of point mutations in a population, or other small "reversible" mutations. But that merging of chromosomes thing seems to me to be a real problem. That seems to me to be a unique, once in an eon event that is unlikely to be repeated.
I presume that, all other things being equal, having ones' genes arranged in a different number of chromosomes might not be a problem for successful reproduction. I presume that the machinery of cellular reproduction is probably flexible enough to allow that, and to match up the necessary genes when needed. (I recall reading about living adults who don't have the normal number of chromosomes, so it clearly can happen.)
Similarly, introns seem to be unique, one-off events which, from a naive perspective, would require a similar "match" in a sexual partner to successfully be passed on.
I presume that the spread in a population of both introns and any rearrangement of genes in chromosomes could be accounted for by "genetic drift"? Or "neutral drift"? (whatever the term is). Such unique yet non-fatal mutations could be passed on as recessive genes to succeeding generations, until they actually became useful.
Are those reasonable presumptions? Is that an approximately reasonable layman's perspective?
Thanks.
Just Bob · 10 June 2011
I believe it was Robert Bakker who made a strong case for at least some dinosaurs being warm-blooded. And part of his case WAS fossil evidence--microscopic structure in dinosaur bone that looked more like the bone of warm-blooded animals than that of cold-blooded ones, IIRC.
John Kwok · 10 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 10 June 2011
Henry J · 10 June 2011
Deklane · 10 June 2011
I was transferring some of my old laserdiscs to DVD the other night, in particular the four-part THE DINOSAURS! series made for PBS in the early '90s. That's where Bakker (if I remember right) made a popular-level presentation on dinosaur bone structure and the predator-prey ratio pointing to warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs. This might be what gets remembered, no matter who originally worked it out?
robert van bakel · 10 June 2011
I'm not an anti-religionist, and have no anti-religionist agenda you understand, but I do have some questions which I should like the religionist community to address.
Now, the world is how old? And please, a little more evidence than a re-re-re-translated text would be welcome.
If fish were not the ancestors of amphibians, and these did not evolve into reptiles, birds and mammals, over hundreds of millions of years, what is your brilliant idea? (Please, remember, the Book has already been excluded as physical evidence, you need to do better.)
As I said, I have no axe to grind, I am merely interested in truth, hearing Both Sides, and letting the populace decide.
Mr Hoppe, did this coward add his name to this tripe, or like most religionists, did he/she/it hide behind annonimity?
Mike Elzinga · 10 June 2011
Glen Davidson · 11 June 2011
Why isn't that person asking something honest, like how we know that birds evolved from non-bird reptiles?
I'm not certain that an agenda is being pursued by this individual, but it clearly follows the agenda of pseudoscientists.
Here's a question: How are the fossil record, genetics, and morphology explained without evolution ("macroevolution" as IDiots call it)?
I'd like to see this purported retired history teacher fall for such BS if plagiarism were detected in a student's work. The student can ask, "How do you account for the changes that you see between my work and what I supposedly copied? If you can't explain the psychological and cognitive causes of the differences between the two, you haven't shown derivation."
Is anyone stupid enough to believe that? Then why are so many stupid enough to believe that if we don't explain everything in evolution, derivation hasn't been demonstrated (or for Behe, derivation has been shown by the predictions of evolution that he doesn't actually accept as limitations)? Clearly because they're unwilling to accept the obvious evidence, not because they're really that dumb (well, not most of them).
And why would this person expect anyone to answer very basic misconceptions about evolution, like the Ray Comfort-type belief in the doctrine of a separate evolution of males and females?
Crack a book for once, or at least surf the web for answers, lazy unthinking person.
Glen Davidson
cronk · 11 June 2011
The idea that the chimp/human chromosones merged is fascinating, but can you explain this to the layman? I don't understand Dave Whiskers comment re. a single individual, it seems like the creationist crocaduck.
John Kwok · 11 June 2011
John Kwok · 11 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 11 June 2011
Duncan Buell · 11 June 2011
Actually, it wasn't until I read the first chapter of Dawkins's *Greatest Show on Earth* that I understood this, and I would recommend this reading to most laypeople. Dawkins writes about the tendency/desire of people to put things into pigeonholes and discrete categories (he cites this as a version of Platonism) and about the unfortunate (?) reality of biology that things are not easily put into such discrete categories. The argument there is very good. And it is the problem with this guy's argument.
(I would add that after reading this I understood why I had decided to go into math, where things can, except at the base level of foundations, be put into discrete categories.)
mrg · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
Frank J · 11 June 2011
harold · 11 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 11 June 2011
Charley Horse · 11 June 2011
QUOTE: "If one, a male, for instance evolved, and no female evolved at the same time and in the same place, wouldn’t that end the cycle of macroevolution?" END QUOTE
Yes, that is known as unicyclism. It wasn't until later when bicyclists
self invented that things really got to hopping/ flying. One of the first
seen in the fossil record was a schwinnasaur. Any questions?
TomS · 11 June 2011
RBH · 11 June 2011
RBH · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
Thank you. It is much more readable now.
Didaktylos · 11 June 2011
Frank J · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
Frank J · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
RBH · 11 June 2011
Ha! Jesus and Mo hit it, too.
raven · 11 June 2011
raven · 11 June 2011
raven · 11 June 2011
Stuart Weinstein · 11 June 2011
Klaus H · 11 June 2011
Henry J · 11 June 2011
mrg · 11 June 2011
MememicBottleneck · 12 June 2011
Frank J · 12 June 2011
John Kwok · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
Dave Lovell · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
justdisa · 12 June 2011
Dave Lovell · 12 June 2011
Klaus Hellnick · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
You can find Isettas stateside at cars shows, I've picked up a few shots -- see second row:
http://www.vectorsite.net/gfxpxv_04.html
The 1934 Mercedes roadster in the first row is impressive -- I HATE to think of what it's worth.
mrg · 12 June 2011
Say, RBH, did you ever hear a word from our correspondent? No peep from him here.
Frank J · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
RBH · 12 June 2011
Frank J · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
Henry J · 12 June 2011
I'm inclined to guess that most (probably not all) people who actually want information about a subject, but who don't know enough to ask specific questions, would likely look for stuff to read before posting questions on a blog on which they aren't already regulars.
Mike · 12 June 2011
Obviously not innocently asking quesitons, but looking to "debate" by regurgitating anti-science propaganda.
Mike Elzinga · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 12 June 2011
mrg · 12 June 2011
Ben W · 12 June 2011
I have one short reply:
Thanks for posting this! I used to be in the emailing history teacher's shoes, similarly trying to hear both sides out, but with many questions, and it was a great help to me when people posted explanations.
Moreover.. I was also uneducated and hadn't bothered to fix it. I didn't realize that I was being "rude" (in the sense that I was expecting others to educate me, rather than educate myself) until it was pointed out to me. The OP was both insightful and kind, and rather gently chided the curious history teacher for his rudeness.
Frank J · 13 June 2011
Terenzio the Troll · 13 June 2011
harold · 13 June 2011
Frank J · 13 June 2011
JASONMITCHELL · 13 June 2011
W. H. Heydt · 13 June 2011
TomS · 13 June 2011
You guys are talking about deep subjects, when most people don't understand the real basics of evolution, like "populations evolve, not individuals". A lot of the rhetoric against evolution fails to make that distinction.
And don't you realize how many people think that "how come there are still monkeys" presents a real puzzle for evolution? Seriously!
SteveS · 13 June 2011
raven · 13 June 2011
mrg · 13 June 2011
JASONMITCHELL · 13 June 2011
mrg · 13 June 2011
John Kwok · 13 June 2011
while this is a bit off topic, I must recommend this most insightful piece from New York City-based skeptic Susan Jacoby on the state of the teaching of evolution in American public schools, in which she commends Zack Kopplin's ongoing effort to repeal LSEA:
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2011/06/american-teachers-display-cowardice-on-evolution/
harold · 13 June 2011
Jud · 13 June 2011
mrg · 13 June 2011
I like that, you get points.
The real funny thing is that it's so close to a creationist argument. I have learned to keep my distance from teleological arguments -- so far I haven't seen there's any honest reason to make them.
Paul Burnett · 13 June 2011
Henry J · 13 June 2011
Why, aren't most people virgins when they're born?
Frank J · 13 June 2011
Mary H · 13 June 2011
For years I have used a simple example to answer the "why are there still monkeys" question. (I call those preacher questions cause you can almost hear the sound of the voice from a pulpit.) I use my hand and point out the palm represents the common ancestor. The thumb is humans and the fingers are the rest of the modern great apes. Just because we grew fingers doesn't mean we can't grow a thumb. I occasionally get the "great wakening" look. It generally works with teens who ask that question.
Henry J · 13 June 2011
You could also ask if they really think the scientists as a group would cling to something that wasn't at least a close approximation to reality.
Take phlogiston for example, or steady-state universe, or aether theory of light, or various early models of the atom.
Then there's Newton's laws of motion, which aren't technically accurate, but are close enough to remain useful in most day to day applications.
RBH · 13 June 2011
harold · 13 June 2011
mrg · 13 June 2011
RBH · 13 June 2011
harold · 13 June 2011
Dave Lovell · 13 June 2011
John_S · 13 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 13 June 2011
Michael · 14 June 2011
Yeah, one of the main things that annoys me about biology is its stubborn refusal to allow clear dividing lines at any level. When a new species forms; when life first formed; when an embryo becomes a human; when an individual can be said to be self-aware. My OCD's demand for putting everything in nice, neat boxes makes the subject frustrating at times.
Frank J · 14 June 2011
Frank J · 14 June 2011
Thanks to mrg and RBH for the link.
I guess the emailer is too busy there learning about his misconceptions to stop by and thank you for the help.
harold · 14 June 2011
mrg · 14 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 14 June 2011
RBH · 14 June 2011
For those interested, the correspondent contacted me by email, and we're commencing what may turn out to be a lengthy private correspondence about evolution. He has chosen not to participate in this thread, which is his right, though he has read it.
Thanks to everyone for their participation here. I'll leave comments open until sometime this evening.
RBH · 14 June 2011
I should add that he did thank me.
JASONMITCHELL · 14 June 2011
Frank J · 14 June 2011
Just Bob · 14 June 2011
My version: (names changed to protect the innocent)
One of my ancestors was named Smith. One of the Smith daughters married a Jones and had children who were Joneses. A Jones daughter married Mr. Williams and produced me, a Williams. Now my daughter has married a Wu, so my grandchild is a Wu. So that Wu is a descendant of the Smiths. But there are still Smiths around! Smiths didn't go extinct, just because some of their distant relatives have now "evolved" into Wus.
MememicBottleneck · 14 June 2011
RBH · 14 June 2011
mrg · 14 June 2011
There's a certain lingering curiosity. You might shut down the thread to terminate it.
John Kwok · 14 June 2011
harold · 15 June 2011
From a "bottom up" molecular genetic perspective on evolution, punctuated equilibrium seems likely to reflect stasis due to the natural selection end of things. Adaptation to a transiently relatively stable environment, for example. It's not impossible but less likely that lower mutation rates or something similar played a role. As far as I understand, opening of new niches is associated with radiations, so the selection conjecture seems best.
For better or for worse, punctuated equilibrium is mainly a valid but subjective recognition of morphologic trends in the fossil record.
We also don't know much about soft-bodied like in the Cambrian, for example, and we can only make inferences about the physiology of that hard-bodied animals.
As I have mentioned before, I am a huge fan of Gould's writings.
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
Your comments are noted, Mr. Kwok. No further discussion on the matter either needed or desired.
harold · 15 June 2011
John Kwok -
I have no disputes with your points whatsoever, and didn't mean to imply any (although I think the MrG's evolution summary is excellent, as indicated by the high level of your critiques). I was just adding a thought.
Although I am a fan of Gould, I have no formal training in paleontology whatsoever (some amateur reading, of course).
I think that Darwin amazingly came at the theory of evolution in the hardest possible way - lacking any knowledge of genetic mechanisms, and having to hypothesize what was going on from a "top down" perspective. Historical reviews will always emphasize this approach.
Since the beginning of the molecular biology era, the fact and basic mechanisms of evolution have become even more obvious and easy to understand.
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
@ harold - my last comment should read as follows:
As for your concluding comment, that observation depends on whom you talk to, especially in the field of evolutionary developmental biology.
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
Frank J · 15 June 2011
Henry J · 15 June 2011
Didn't Darwin say that evolutionary changes are apt to be sporadic, and on the outskirts of a population's range? Granted he didn't give a name to that phenomena, but isn't that the basic concept in P.E.?
mrg · 15 June 2011
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
"The more times you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets."
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
John Kwok · 15 June 2011
Ahcuah · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
That's sort of a sideways example of the sort of mentality one sees in some science crackpots, Einstein bashers in particular: "Because I'm an amateur and can see the forest for the trees, I've been able to see an obvious flaw that a century of physicists have failed to notice."
Science Avenger · 15 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 15 June 2011
Another annoying habit with many IDers is to assert something, then, when cited evidence from the literature to the contrary, complain that they don't understand the literature. Or worse, accuse one of "literature bombing".
Dale Husband · 15 June 2011
flyonthewall · 15 June 2011
These wankers don't want answers. They never have.
In the time it took to write that email they could have figured out the answer.
There's nothing that you can do or say to change their minds. They will ignore the answer and move on to the next person.
What they are looking for is a non-answer. The non-answer validates their beliefs. The more people that ignore them or fail to respond, the more their beliefs are validated.
So the best response to this is just what you did.
Dave Wisker · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
If you can stomach it, check the Conservapedia article on relativity. It is so mad that is suspected to be a collaboration of honestly crazy people, along with a gang of Loki trolls who were determined to see just how big of a froth they could drive the crazy people into.
harold · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
Actually, the quantum physics article is more or less straightfoward. The relativity article is unusually crazy.
Mike Elzinga · 15 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 15 June 2011
Sheesh! I just looked at that Conservapedia article on relativity.
That’s really sick!
I don’t go over there very often.
Mike Elzinga · 15 June 2011
mrg · 15 June 2011
It's so sick that the notion there's some Loki trolling pumping it up seems MIGHTY plausible. But if there's a sucker job going on, there seems to be plenty of suckers going along with it.
Eric Finn · 15 June 2011
Henry J · 15 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 June 2011
stevaroni · 16 June 2011
Rolf Aalberg · 16 June 2011
Out of curiosity I did some googling and stumbled over ten questions
Had not seen it before. Subject is creationism; not history teachers.
mrg · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
mrg · 16 June 2011
mrg · 16 June 2011
Kevin B · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
mrg · 16 June 2011
mrg · 16 June 2011
Rolf Aalberg · 16 June 2011
I am unable to comment on that without a plausible example of a system without interactions. A game of chess without moving the pieces?
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
phantomreader42 · 16 June 2011
eric · 16 June 2011
Stanton · 16 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
phantomreader42 · 16 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
Eric Finn · 16 June 2011
phantomreader42 · 16 June 2011
raven · 16 June 2011
Just Bob · 16 June 2011
phantomreader42 · 16 June 2011
David Fickett-Wilbar · 16 June 2011
David Fickett-Wilbar · 16 June 2011
mrg · 16 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 June 2011
eric · 16 June 2011
Rolf Aalberg · 16 June 2011
WoljaIlpapa · 16 June 2011
There are two problems here in dealing with this question.
First most of these questions are from committed ID'ers trying to score points. If he is pushing a barrow then talking to him is a waste of time but may help someone who is genuinally interested. This guy may possibly be sincere, unlikely as anyone sincere would never get caught in the big vs incremental trap, which highlights the next problem.
If he was sincere you run into this issue that dogs science at the moment. It's opponents use simple language and terminology that means the same thing to everyone. They don't need to over explain with references they just deliver short sharp messages that are understandable, for eg large portions of the population treat theories as hypotheses , rather than the reverse in the scientific viewpoint, and it allows opponents to play wedge politics with easily understandable sound bites that resonate with popular understanding.
Some scientists are very good at explaining science in an easily understood fashion that helps counteract this issue, only to be attacked by other scientists because they gloss over some things to deliver the message, but the majority immediately go to detail. IMO opinion science needs to start fighting fire with fire and delivering easily understood responses to dumb arse questions, taken straight from creationist propaganda, as the one here.
TomS · 17 June 2011
Marion Delgado · 18 June 2011
I have a simple unbias question no "scientists" have been able to answer:
If evolution is true,
and if climate is true ..
Why are there still snow monkeys?
Woljailpapa · 18 June 2011
Mike Elzinga · 18 June 2011
mrg · 18 June 2011
Sadly, there are many techicals who find it difficult to express themselves in a simple fashion, and much more unfortunately there are others who simply don't want to, taking pleasure in talking over the heads of the audience: "What fun is it being an expert if you make yourself easy to understand?"
In more general terms, not all technicals understand one of the fundamentals of technical writing: "A workable, easy-to-grasp simplification is generally much more useful than the long-winded eye-glazing detailed truth."
Richard · 18 June 2011
Woljailpapa/Mike/Mrg's comments clearly indicate the inadequacy of our education system. Definitely K-12 but also probably Undergraduate studies. I also disliked Mathematics in school. In college however I took a liking to it and majored in Math. (Go figure). IMO Evolution is misunderstood because it is not taught in High School. Yes, there may be a Heroic Teacher here and there, or an enlightened School District here and there that does teach it and teaches it properly. But I am afraid that is the exception rather than the rule. In K-12 Mathematics education Statistics takes a back seat to Geometry, Algebra/Trig, Pre-Calculus and Calculus. But I would argue that Statistics has much more relevance today than all the other subjects put together. Plus, IMO Mathematics education seems to have as its main objective to turn people off completely to it. There is something fundamentally wrong with our K-12 Educational System that students just can't seem to wait to graduate just to get over and done with it. Many just drop out. The result of this is a citizenry that has no foundation to be able to analyze the issues and tends to feel disdain towards the "educated elite". Decisions are made on the basis of personalities, sound bites and slogans.
Scott F · 18 June 2011
On the subject of education, I've recently joined a Toastmasters program (just for the fun of it). I wasn't sure what theme, if any, I wanted to focus on, but my wife convinced me that "skeptic" is a good theme, with an opening 5-to-7 minute speech on the "scientific method". I can probably put together my own presentation, but if anyone has some resources (or a concise description) they like on the subject, I'd appreciate any pointers.
FYI, Toastmasters as a program is more concerned about how one presents the speech (the actual mechanics of speaking, gesturing, eye contact, use of notes, etc), and doesn't really care what the content of the speech is, or where the material comes from. (Though they do explicitly discourage the subjects of religion and politics, just to maintain relative harmony in the group.) That said, while we don't have any creationists in the group, we do have some "alternative medicine" woo-meisters, and their fluff-headed misconceptions about biology are just painful to listen to.
Anyway, as long as I'm giving speeches, I might as well try to make the content educational as I'm learning the form.
Oclarki · 19 June 2011
Eric Finn · 19 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 19 June 2011
John Kwok · 19 June 2011
Stanton · 19 June 2011
Richard · 19 June 2011
A biolgical system with no interactions between individuals or between individuals and their environment. If there is no interaction with other individuals or the environment how can there be evolution. Isn't there supposed to be some reproduction in there somewhere? What is the organism's source of energy? How do you sustain generations of organisms without interactions with the environment?
mrg · 19 June 2011
Richard · 19 June 2011
Mrg - Is this not how Eric Finn defined his system? I think he did. I am just commenting on his definition. Personally, I don't think there is such a thing any more than there is a spherical cow of uniform density. Of course,he could be joking and I missed the punch like completely.
Dave Wisker · 19 June 2011
mrg · 19 June 2011
Richard · 19 June 2011
OK - got me! :)
Stanton · 19 June 2011
Stanton · 19 June 2011
stevaroni · 19 June 2011
Just Bob · 19 June 2011
In other words, evolution, not being forbidden, is in fact COMPULSORY.
Dave Wisker · 19 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 21 June 2011
Correction:
"The frequency of A has now dropped to ~ 49%, and a’s frequency has increased
Just Bob · 21 June 2011
Question for the biologists: How frequent are mutations that are NOT the result of outside influences (chemicals, radiation, etc.)? Are there some organisms that are more prone to such purely "intramural" mutations than other critters?
Dave Wisker · 21 June 2011
Dave Lovell · 21 June 2011
Dave Wisker · 21 June 2011
dornier.pfeil · 22 June 2011
mrg · 22 June 2011