What Darwin didn’t know.

Posted on by

As you may know, I have be (re-)reading the On the Origin of Species as part of a small discussion group made up of students from my most recent evolution course. I am always struck by how much Darwin knew, not only in terms of his enormous collation of specific facts, but also of the concepts that he introduced that are still easily recognizable. Read Chapters 3 and 4 of the Origin, and you will encounter not only natural selection, but the basics of what we now call competitive exclusion, coevolution, r- and K-selection, succession, phylogenies, gene flow (minus the genes), and many others.

Of course, there is a lot (read: a LOT) that Darwin didn’t, and couldn’t, know. How inheritance works, for example. Not surprisingly, evolutionary theory has advanced enormously since Darwin’s time, and many of his more specific ideas have been expanded, supplanted, or simply rejected. For this reason, it is quite inaccurate to use “evolutionary biology” and “Darwinism” interchangeably, even without the fact that anti-evolutionists use the latter term for rhetorical purposes.

While some have used the (obvious and inevitable) incompleteness of Darwin’s early ideas to sell magazines through sensationalism, I am nonetheless glad to see that others have taken a more measured approach in reminding readers that science has come a long way since 1859.

Here are some examples…

Modern Darwins
by M. Ridley, National Geographic

What Darwin Didn’t Know
by T. Hayden, Smithsonian Magazine

Let’s get rid of Darwinism
by O. Judson, New York Times blog

Don’t call it “Darwinism”
by E.C. Scott and G. Branch, Evolution: Education and Outreach

Also…

Can we please forget about Charles Darwin?
by S. Jones, Telegraph

Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live
by C. Safina, New York Times

The latter two articles are a bit extreme, as Brian Switek, PZ Myers, John Hawks, and Jerry Coyne pointed out. It isn’t necessary to remove Darwin from the picture, and it certainly remains appropriate to celebrate his 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the On the Origin of Species this year. One excellent way of doing this is to actually read the Origin and to take note both of what Darwin knew and what we have learned in the subsequent 150 years.

Google Earth for The Tree of Life

Posted on by

Head over to The Loom and see Carl Zimmer’s New York Times article on Crunching the data for the tree of life. I quite like the “Google Earth” analogy, and I certainly look forward to the day that we can zoom in and out of phylogenetic trees. (There is one major difference, however: the form of the planet shown in Google Earth is based on direct photos, whereas every phylogeny is a hypothesis that must be tested).

CBC Sunday Edition on Darwin.

Posted on by

Today’s Sunday Edition on CBC was about Darwin. Guests included Brian Alters, Ken Miller, and Ruth Padel. (Padel is Darwin’s great-great-granddaughter and has a book entitled Darwin: A Life in Poems).

A schedule of the program is available here. The podcast is not up yet, but when it is, it will be here.

Evolution: Education and Outreach, vol. 2 issue 1.

Posted on by

This year, Evolution: Education and Outreach will have a special (but not exclusive) focus on Darwin in celebration of the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species.

The first issue in volume 2 is now available, once again free online.

Evolution: Education and Outreach
Volume 2, Issue 1

Editorial: Darwin’s Year
Niles Eldredge and Gregory Eldredge
1

Why Darwin?
Niles Eldredge
2-4

Artificial Selection and Domestication: Modern Lessons from Darwin’s Enduring Analogy
T. Ryan Gregory
5-27

Charles Darwin and Human Evolution
Ian Tattersall
28-34

Experimenting with Transmutation: Darwin, the Beagle, and Evolution
Niles Eldredge
35-54

Studying Cultural Evolution at the Tips: Human Cross-cultural Ecology
Lauren W. McCall
55-62

Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth, Biston betularia: An Excellent Teaching Example of Darwinian Evolution in Action
Michael E. N. Majerus
63-74

Assessment of Biology Majors’ Versus Nonmajors’ Views on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Guillermo Paz-y-Miño C. and Avelina Espinosa
75-83

Darwin’s “Extreme” Imperfection?
Anastasia Thanukos
84-89

Don’t Call it “Darwinism”
Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch
90-94

Educational Malpractice: The Impact of Including Creationism in High School Biology Courses
Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner
95-100

Scholar’s Dilemma: “Green Darwin” vs. “Paper Darwin,” An Interview with David Kohn
Mick Wycoff
101-106

The “Popular Press” Responds to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species and His Other Works
Sidney Horenstein
107-116

Paleontology and Evolution in the News
Sidney Horenstein
117-121

Charles Darwin’s Manuscripts and Publications on the World Wide Web
Adam M. Goldstein
122-135

Teaching Evolution in Primary Schools: An Example in French Classrooms
Bruno Chanet and François Lusignan
136-140

Why Why Darwin Matters Matters
Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006.
Tania Lombrozo
141-143

DeSalle’s and Tattersall’s Human Origins: A Companion to The Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Human Origins and More
Human Origins: What Bones and Genomes Tell Us about Ourselves, by Rob DeSalle and Ian Tattersall. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2008. Pp. 216. H/b $ 29.95
Robert Wald Sussman
144-147

I am not certain whether the dedication we wrote to the late Dr. Majerus will appear online, but I am hoping it will be included in the print issue. Here it is, just in case.

This issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach includes a paper by Prof. Michael Majerus of Cambridge University, a world expert on industrial melanism and a champion of the peppered moth as an excellent example of natural selection in the wild. In it, Prof. Majerus describes the controversy surrounding the peppered moth, much of it based on misrepresentations and misunderstandings. He also describes, with extraordinary modesty, his own widely respected research which has refuted the misplaced criticism of the peppered moth example.

We consider the paper a testament to Prof. Majerus’s patience and dedication to settling debates in science as they should be settled – with evidence rather than rhetoric. In this regard, Prof. Majerus’s paper not only highlights an exquisite example of evolution in action, but also serves to illustrate how careful scientific study generates outstanding results.

It is with deep regret that we note that Prof. Majerus passed away peacefully during the night of January 26/27 from a brief but severe illness. As Prof. David Summers, Head of the Department of Genetics at Cambridge, wrote

“Mike Majerus was a traditional Cambridge scientist; a charismatic individual for whom the boundaries between life and work, and teaching and research, were very hard to discern. He was a world authority in his field, a tireless advocate of evolution and an enthusiastic educator of graduate and undergraduate students.”

We are proud to present Prof. Majerus’s article on the peppered moth and are grateful for his contribution to the journal, for his important and diligent research, and for his dedication to defending and enhancing science education. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues. He will be missed.

T. Ryan Gregory
Associate Editor

Niles Eldredge
Editor-in-Chief

Facebook groups.

Posted on by

I tend to use Facebook only occasionally, but the existence of more and more evolution-related groups there has me thinking about logging in more frequently. Here are just a few. If you use Facebook, maybe stop in and see if any are of interest to you.

Bird strikes and DNA barcodes.

Posted on by

I don’t know if the same people are giving the same arguments against DNA barcoding anymore as I have pretty much stopped following those old discussions out of exhaustion. We can argue about how much influence DNA methods should have on alpha taxonomy (ranging from “none” to “who needs names, just use DNA sequences” — the latter being DNA taxonomy rather than DNA barcoding, and not a position that I endorse). What is silly to argue is that DNA barcoding would not have any practical roles that can’t already be covered just as easily, cheaply, and accurately by morphology-based identification.

Here’s a story in the New York Times about the importance of identifying which species are involved in airplane bird strikes.

Identifying the Bird, When Not Much Bird Is Left

It talks about the use of feathers and feet (i.e., morphology) and also describes the use of DNA (new word: “snarge“). It does not mention DNA barcoding per se, but it bears noting that the FAA and USAF support DNA barcoding efforts at the Smithsonian. In general, it would be best to have as many tools as possible, including sequencing DNA and comparing this against the bird DNA barcode dataset, which already encompasses more than 2600 species (out of about 10,000) and means to include every bird on the planet within the next several years.

Arguments creationists should not use.

Posted on by

Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis) has an interesting list of “Arguments we think creationists should not use“. Of course, anti-evolutionists regularly engage in less than honest tactics, including quote-mining, propaganda, and outright distortions, but in this case I applaud their candor. Here are some of the notable arguments listed, many of which you have undoubtedly heard many times — next time, just point out that even one of the leading creationist groups recognizes that these are not valid. (Obviously, the spin provided on these differs from what scientists think — see the original list for their explanations).

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

  • Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
  • Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.
  • NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.
  • The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.
  • If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
  • Women have one more rib than men.
  • Archaeopteryx is a fraud.
  • There are no beneficial mutations.
  • No new species have been produced.
  • Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
  • Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species.
  • Light was created in transit.

What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?

  • Natural selection as tautology.
  • Evolution is just a theory.
  • There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.
  • The speed of light has decreased over time.
  • There are no transitional forms.
  • Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

American stimulus package gutted of science.

Posted on by

Of the many things cut from the revised American stimulus package…

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

Well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.